University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh UNIVERSITY OF GHANA EXAMINING SOCIAL ENTREPRENEURSHIP: INSIGHTS FROM SOCIAL ENTERPRISE GHANA BY DUAH-AGYEMANG FRANCISCA (10551982) THIS THESIS IS SUBMITTED TO THE UNIVERSITY OF GHANA, LEGON IN PARTIAL FULFILMENT OF THE REQUIREMENT FOR THE AWARD OF MPHIL MARKETING DEGREE JUNE 2017 University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh DECLARATION I do hereby declare that this work is the result of my own research and has not been presented by anyone for any academic award in this or any other university. All references used in my work have been fully acknowledged. I bear sole responsibility for any shortcomings. ………………………………………… ………………………………… FRANCISCA DUAH- AGYEMANG DATE (10551982) ii University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh CERTIFICATION We hereby certify that this thesis was supervised in accordance with procedures laid down by the university. ………………………………………………… …………………………………… DR. KWAME ADOM DATE SUPERVISOR ………………………………………………….. ………………………………… DR. DANIEL QUAYE DATE CO-SUPERVISOR ii i University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh DEDICATION I dedicate this thesis to the Most High God for His immense Grace and Mercy upon my life. And also to my darling husband, mom and daughter. I appreciate all the support you keep showing, may God bless you. iv University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh ACKNOWLEDGMENT I give to God all the praise for His guidance, good health, grace and mercy for how far he has brought me. I am forever grateful to Dr. Kwame Adom, my supervisor for his guidance, encouragement directions and instructions. You have been more than a supervisor and I pray for God‟s blessings upon your life. I say a big thank you to Dr. Daniel Quaye, my co-supervisor for his valuable insights and contributions throughout the period of my research process. I further extend my appreciation to Dr. Samuel K. Buame, Mr. Shelter Teyi, Mr. Ibn Kailan Abdul-Hamid, Mr. Atsu Nkukpornu and Miss Bernice Ananga Alembummah who contributed to this study in diverse ways. Also to my wonderful friends and course-mates, especially Abdullah Adul-Rahaman, Golda Anambane, Joseph Oppong, Matilda Adams, Tracy Ntiador, Patrick Anim, Gloria Adu-Darko and Aseda Mensah, I say a big thank you. I am also grateful to members of “Social Enterprise Ghana” who participated and provided me with data for this study. Finally to my darling husband, Mr. Francis Duah-Agyemang and daughter Filberta Duah- Agyemang who have been my backbone throughout this study. I have come this far as a result of their support and encouragement. v University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh TABLE OF CONTENT Content Page DECLARATION ............................................................................................................................ ii CERTIFICATION ......................................................................................................................... iii DEDICATION ............................................................................................................................... iv ACKNOWLEDGMENT................................................................................................................. v TABLE OF CONTENT ................................................................................................................. vi LIST OF TABLES ......................................................................................................................... xi LIST OF FIGURES ...................................................................................................................... xii LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS ...................................................................................................... xiii ABSTRACT ................................................................................................................................. xiv CHAPTER ONE ............................................................................................................................. 1 INTRODUCTION .......................................................................................................................... 1 1.0 Introduction ........................................................................................................................... 1 1.1 Research Background ........................................................................................................... 1 1.2 Statement of the Problem ...................................................................................................... 5 1.3 Research Objectives .............................................................................................................. 8 1.4 Research Questions ............................................................................................................... 9 1.5 Significance of the Study ...................................................................................................... 9 1.7 Scope of the Study .............................................................................................................. 10 1.8 Chapter Disposition ............................................................................................................ 10 1.9 Chapter Summary ............................................................................................................... 11 CHAPTER TWO .......................................................................................................................... 12 v i University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh LITERATURE REVIEW ............................................................................................................. 12 2.0 Introduction ......................................................................................................................... 12 2.1 Entrepreneurship: A Historical Perspective ........................................................................ 12 2.1.1 Defining Entrepreneurship ........................................................................................... 14 2.2 Evolution of Social Entrepreneurship ................................................................................. 16 2.2.1 Social Entrepreneurship and the Social Entrepreneur ................................................. 20 2.2.2 Social Entrepreneurship in North America .................................................................. 28 2.2.3 Social Entrepreneurship in the United Kingdom ......................................................... 30 2.2.4 Social Entrepreneurship in Africa ................................................................................ 31 2.3 Contrasting Social Entrepreneurship and Commercial Entrepreneurship .......................... 34 2.3.1 Contrasting Social Entrepreneurship and Corporate Social Responsibility ................ 36 2.3.2 Contrasting Non- Governmental Organisations and Social Entrepreneurship ............ 38 2.4 Models of Social Enterprise ................................................................................................ 40 2.4.1 For-Profit Social Enterprises........................................................................................ 43 2.5 Issues Affecting Social Entrepreneurship: A Global Perspective ....................................... 45 2.6 Explaining Social value and Impact Assessment................................................................ 47 2.7 Explaining Resources.......................................................................................................... 50 2.7.1 Social entrepreneurship and Resource Mobilisation.................................................... 52 2.8 Theoretical Foundations for the Study ................................................................................ 55 2.8.1 The Resource-Based View Theory .................................................................................. 55 CHAPTER THREE ...................................................................................................................... 58 vi i University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh CONTEXT OF THE STUDY ....................................................................................................... 58 3.0 Chapter Overview ............................................................................................................... 58 3.1 Overview of Ghana ............................................................................................................. 58 3.1.1 Overview and Social-Economic Outlook of Greater Accra. ....................................... 59 3.2 Overview of Entrepreneurship in Ghana ............................................................................ 61 3.3 Social Entrepreneurship in Ghana ...................................................................................... 62 3.4 Supporting Agencies ........................................................................................................... 63 3.4.1 The Ministry Of Trade and Industry (MOTI) .............................................................. 63 3.4.2 Social Enterprise Ghana ............................................................................................... 63 3.4.3 British Council ............................................................................................................. 64 3.5 Policy Environment of Social Enterprise in Ghana ............................................................ 64 3.6 Importance of Social Entrepreneurship to Ghana Development ........................................ 65 CHAPTER FOUR ......................................................................................................................... 66 RESEARCH METHODOLOGY.................................................................................................. 66 4.0 Introduction ......................................................................................................................... 66 4.1 Research Paradigm.............................................................................................................. 66 4.2 Research Approach ............................................................................................................. 67 4.2.1 Qualitative and Quantitative Research......................................................................... 67 4.2.1.1 Quantitative Approach .............................................................................................. 68 4.2.1.2 Qualitative Approach ................................................................................................ 69 4.3 Research Design.................................................................................................................. 70 4.3.1 Case Study ................................................................................................................... 70 vi ii University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh 4.3.2 Justification for Multiple Case Study Method ............................................................. 71 4.4 Sampling Design ................................................................................................................. 72 4.4.1 Sampling Technique .................................................................................................... 73 4.4.3 Sample Population ....................................................................................................... 74 4.4.4 Sample Size .................................................................................................................. 75 4.5 Eligibility Criteria ............................................................................................................... 75 4.6 Data Sources ....................................................................................................................... 76 4.6.1 Method for Data Collection ......................................................................................... 77 4.7 Data Analysis ...................................................................................................................... 78 4.8 Ethical considerations ......................................................................................................... 79 CHAPTER FIVE .......................................................................................................................... 81 DATA ANALYSIS AND DISCUSSIONS OF FINDINGS ........................................................ 81 5.0 Introduction ......................................................................................................................... 81 5.1 Demographic and Socio-economic Characteristics of Respondents .................................. 81 5.2 Analysis of Individual Cases .............................................................................................. 83 5.2.1 Case 1: Agricultural Enterprise (AE) ........................................................................... 83 5.2.2 Case 2: Youth Empowerment (YE) ............................................................................. 88 5.2.3 Case 3: Educational Services (ES) .............................................................................. 92 5.2.4 Case 4: Renewable Energy Space (RE) ....................................................................... 95 5.2.6 Case 6: Sanitation Space (SS) .................................................................................... 103 5.5 Discussion of Findings ...................................................................................................... 110 5.5.1 Understanding the Dimensions of Social Entrepreneurship ...................................... 111 ix University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh 5.5.2 Resource Acquisition (Research Objective Two/ Question 2) .................................. 112 5.5.3 Resource Challenges (Research Objective Three/ Question 3) ................................. 114 5.6 Discussion of Cross-Case findings ................................................................................... 115 5.8 Chapter Summary ............................................................................................................. 118 CHAPTER SIX ........................................................................................................................... 119 SUMMARY, CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS ................................................. 119 6.0 Introduction ....................................................................................................................... 119 6.1 Summary of findings......................................................................................................... 119 6.2 Conclusion ........................................................................................................................ 122 6.3 Recommendations ............................................................................................................. 123 6.4 Contributions..................................................................................................................... 124 6.5 Recommendations for Future Studies ............................................................................... 124 REFERENCES ........................................................................................................................... 126 APPENDIX 1: INTERVIEW GUIDE ........................................................................................ 148 x University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh LIST OF TABLES Table 2.1: Social entrepreneurship, social entrepreneur and social enterprise definitions ........... 23 Table 5. 1 Profile of Respondents ................................................................................................. 83 Table 5. 2 Resources as per specific cases .................................................................................. 117 x i University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1: A Framework Showing Social Entrepreneurship Boundaries ...................................... 42 xi i University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS CSR Corporate Social Responsibility GSS Ghana Statistical Service ISSER Institute of Statistical, Social and Economic Research MDG Millennium Development Goals MOTI Ministry of Trade and Industry NGO Non-governmental organisation SE Social Entrepreneurship SEGHANA Social Enterprise Ghana UK United Kingdom USA United States of America. MOTI Ministry of Trade and Industry UNDP United Nations Development Programme WBCSD World Business Council for Sustainable Development xi ii University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh ABSTRACT There has been a widespread appreciation of the concept of social entrepreneurship across the globe and this concludes that its importance cannot be overemphasized in all aspects.Social entrepreneurship in the Ghanaian environment is emerging and currently few social enterprises operate in the country, none has however been able to achieve a national scale nor reached medium-sized operations. Not much of literature on social entrepreneurship is available for consideration in Africa; the little available is mostly in South and East Africa with West Africa and Ghana inclusive are relegated to the background. The literature on the activities of social entrepreneurs in Ghana is scanty, the question is, why is there not so much interest in the subject? In the view of the researcher, these are matters of investable inquiry, hence the study seeks to examine social entrepreneurship: insights from “Social Enterprise Ghana”. Social enterprise Ghana is an association of social entrepreneurs in Ghana. A qualitative approach using multiple case study design was used. An interview involving members of Social Enterprise Ghana was analysed. The study showed that even though social enterprises display knowledge on social entrepreneurship, their ability to sustain the organisation, in the long run, is a difficulty since their knowledge of sustainability and innovation is ambiguous. Furthermore, the findings indicated that two main models of social enterprise were used; the profit with a social mission and the non-profit with earned strategies models are used in Ghana. Also, the findings revealed the social enterprises acquire resources along these lines as corporate, managerial, network and reputation, however, reputation is most important especially to males in establishing social enterprises than females. For women, however, network is most important. The study, therefore, recommends that these social enterprises be creative in developing models which would help in generating revenue for their activities which would further aid in their scaling up. xi v University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh CHAPTER ONE INTRODUCTION 1.0 Introduction This study is intended to examine Social Entrepreneurship, using insights from “Social Enterprise Ghana”. In this chapter, the background of the study, the statement of the problem, research gaps in the literature, research objectives, research questions, and the significance of the study as well as the chapter disposition will be discussed. 1.1 Research Background Conventionally, the focus of entrepreneurship has been on mainstream business because of its significant contributions to the economic development of any country. However, Hynes (2009) postulates that in order to harness the impact of all entrepreneurial activities, entrepreneurship needs to be enlarged to capture other forms of enterprising activities. One of activity is social entrepreneurship (SE). The practice of SE existed decades ago, however, it is only recently that it has received scholarly attention (Bornstein & Davis, 2010). The importance of the concept cannot be overemphasized, and its widespread appreciation across the globe attests to the fact (Abu-Saifan, 2012; André & Pache, 2016; Martin & Osberg, 2007; Zahra, Gedajlovic, Neubaum, & Shulman, 2009). According to Goyal, Sergi and Jaiswal (2016), the quest to find a sustainable method of addressing a wide range of problems adversely affecting vulnerable people in societies contributed to the emergence of social entrepreneurship. Other scholars, such Braga, Proenca and Ferreira (2014) well as Seelos and Mair (2005), assert that the government‟s inability to meet the 1 University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh social needs of their people, the widening gap between the rich and the poor as well as the existence of many non-governmental organisations (NGO) whose social interventions could not be guaranteed, rather compelled individuals and groups of kind-hearted people who wanted to be change makers to use business models in solving social issues. Thus, the concept of social entrepreneurship emerged. These well-meaning individuals known as social entrepreneurs, have become change agents in both developed and emerging economies, and mostly address social issues such as healthcare, access to water and sanitation, providing services and jobs for disabled people and waste recycling and nature protection (Bosma & Levie, 2010). The word social entrepreneur and social enterprise will be used interchangeably in this study. Scholarly works done so far have highlighted the numerous importance of social entrepreneurship to the economic and social development of countries, including its potential to reduce poverty (Yunus, 2007). For instance, data from the European Commission indicates that about five million people are employed in social enterprise and contribute between 4-7% of the GDP across countries within the European Union (European Commission, 2009). According to Global Entrepreneurship Monitor Report (2015), one out of every ten individuals in Australia and the USA are social entrepreneurs. Additionally, in the Irish economy, it is estimated that social entrepreneurs contribute about 2.6 billion to the economy and also provide employment to about 90,000 people (Hynes, 2009). On the African continent, SE has made immense contributions to the Ugandan economy by aiding in post-conflict recovery especially in the areas of education, employment creation, business opportunity provision and recognition, leadership building, and financial freedom (Sserwanga, Kiconco, Nystrand & Mindra, 2014). Again, Horace Tipton, a social entrepreneur; operating in the agricultural sector, assist the provision of 2 University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh irrigation knowledge, finance, and education to farmers in Kenya (Martin & Novicevic, 2010).The necessity of social entrepreneurship in communities has promoted the formation of funding organizations such as the Schwab Foundation for social entrepreneurs in Switzerland, the Skoll Foundation in the USA and Ashoka the Foundation in India, all of which have the sole aim of developing and maintaining social entrepreneurship ventures across the globe by providing funding for them (Kostetska & Berezyak , 2014). It is therefore evident that there has been an explosion of knowledge on SE (Lepoutre, Justo, Terjesen, & Bosma, 2013), which has fuelled a lot of attention both at theoretical and practical levels (Choi & Majumbar, 2014). According to Fayolle and Matlay (2010), though SE is barely a new concept, it still meaning different things to different people at different places; hence it has no standard definition, but rather a multitude of definitions (Fayolle & Matlay, 2010; Rivera- Santos, Holt, Littlewood, & Kolk, 2015) and the subject still remains a debate among scholars (Dees, 1998; Rivera-Santos et. al., 2015). Definitional boundaries, as well as dimensions along which enterprise should be known, remain the main subject of the disagreement (Dacin, Dacin, & Tracey, 2011; Mair & Martí, 2006; Santos, 2012). In view of these definitional debates, the current study will adopt the definition by Bacq and Janssen (2011), who define SE as “the process of identifying, evaluating and exploiting opportunities aiming at social value creation by means of commercial, market-based activities and of the use of a wide range of resources” (p.388). According to the International Monetary Fund (2003) and the World Bank (2012), the African continent being resource constrained with regards to human capital and financial resources 3 University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh serves as a good example of a place where social entrepreneurial models can be used. Also further characterised by high levels of poverty, government failures, and market failure among others challenges, the continent is ripe for social entrepreneurs. The continent needs the kind of social entrepreneurs to help solve persistent social crises, conflicts, poverty and unemployment in a workable manner (Casimir & Samuel, 2015). This suggests that the African continent needs to embrace social entrepreneurship strongly. The Ghana Living Standard Survey GLSS 6; conducted in 2013, indicated that; though the country has achieved the first goal of the Millennium Development Goals, about 8.4% of the population still lives in extreme poverty (GSS, 2015). Hence, the country needs social entrepreneurs to handle pressing social issues, such as unemployment, illiteracy, poor sanitation, inadequate health care services and many more (ISSER, 2014). The prevalence of these issues in Ghana (ISSER, 2015) is in line with Santo‟s (2012) description of the conditions in which social entrepreneurship can be expected to emerge. Social entrepreneurship has the potential of solving the numerous socio-economic challenges in Ghana (Agyeman-Togobo, Togobo, Darko & Sharp, 2016). In their article, however, Agyeman-Togobo et al. (2016) emphasised that even though opportunities for social entrepreneurship abound in Ghana, however, exploiting these opportunities are difficult as a result of challenges such as the lack of understanding of the concept, and the difficulties of getting the needed resources. The assertion corroborates with Kerlin‟s (2010) who argue that regional differences play a major role in the understanding and emergence of social enterprises. As expounded by Kerlin (2010), measurable variations exist in the interpretations of SE across different cultural boundaries, hence it is challenging to understand SE as a cogent field, let alone a unified concept (Mason, 2012). 4 University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh According to Desa and Basu (2013), social entrepreneurs encounter resource challenges. These difficulties happen as a result of the nature of social enterprises, being organisations which do not charge market prices nor target customers who can pay the highest prices for their products and services. Furthermore, unlike commercial entrepreneurs, social entrepreneurs unlike are unable to tap into capital markets as a result of the non-distributive restriction of the surplus created by non-profit ventures and also the embedded social purpose of for-profit and hybrid organisations (Lasprogata & Cotten, 2003). In addition, macro environment forces including demographic, social economic, political and technological factors affect the ability of social entrepreneurs to acquire resources. For instance, sourcing the appropriate human resource though significance to the success of social enterprises is also problematic basically due to salary and career potential differentials (Austin, Stevenson & Wei‐Skillern, 2006; Dacin, Dacin & Matear, 2010). Even though extant literature has shown the difficulty that social entrepreneurs encounter in accessing resources, there is little understanding with regards to how these social enterprises are still able to acquire the needed resources so as to create social value. There is also little in-depth understanding of the main dimensions of SE (social value creation, innovation, and sustainability). Therefore this study seeks to fill this gap 1.2 Statement of the Problem Social entrepreneurship is an emerging concept in Ghana which needs further exploration (Agyeman-Togobo et al., 2016; Darko & Koranteng, 2015).While anecdotal evidence and web investigations indicate the presence and importance of social entrepreneurship in Ghana, the term 5 University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh itself is scarcely used in Ghana, and there remains ambiguity with the understanding of the core dimensions of the concept of SE (Agyeman-Togobo et al., 2016; Darko & Koranteng, 2015). This limited knowledge in the SE concept despite its importance has led to the formation of an association by social entrepreneurs in Ghana called “Social Enterprise Ghana” (herein referred to as SE GHANA). SE Ghana seeks to coordinate the activities of social entrepreneurs. It is currently spearheading the drafting a Social Enterprise policy document with the Ministry of Trade and Industry and other stakeholders such as the British Council to regulate the sector. Despite this emerging interest in the concept, however, one is not sure if the concept is actually properly understood by the social entrepreneurs. Neither is there any certainty and more also, less is known about how resources are acquired by these social entrepreneurs in pursuing their activities. A scholarly research into social entrepreneurship literature shows that research in the field is growing along with the growing popularity of the concept. Most of the extant studies have focused on: definitional debates (Bacq & Janssen, 2011; Mair & Marti, 2006; Shaw & Carter, 2007), motivations for setting up social enterprises (Braga, Proenca & Ferreira, 2014; Omorede, 2014), roles of social entrepreneurship (Ayiro, 2010); and the state of social enterprises and its landscape (Agyeman-Togobo et al., 2016; Darko & Koranteng, 2015),with little done to provide understanding of the process of social entrepreneurship. In addition, Short, Moss and Lumpkin (2009) argue that there is a lack of theoretical viewpoint in the study of social entrepreneurship, and therefore there is a need to employ various theories to study the concept so as to strengthen the foundation of SE. This was corroborated by Di Domenico, Haugh and Tracey (2010) who argued that social entrepreneurs thrive in resource constraints environment however not enough 6 University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh resourced based theoretical lenses have been used to study the field and therefore underscored the need for research in that direction. Furthermore, Dacin et al. (2010) further assert that with regards to social enterprises, research around resources is a promising research field and hence suggested that issues regarding resource acquisition and mobilisation should be researched. Researchers such as Desa and Basu (2013), Di Domenico et al. (2010), Meyskens, Robb-Post, Stamp, Carsrud and Reynolds (2010), Roy and Karna (2015) have all argued about the fact that social enterprises are situated in resource-constrained environments and have conducted studies into various aspects of social entrepreneurship through the lens of the resource-based view theory. For instance, Desa and Basu (2013) conducted a quantitative study into how the process of optimisation and bricolage is used in resource mobilisation and further analyzed the antecedent conditions that influenced a social enterprise selection of these processes. They concluded their studies with findings that environment munificence, as well as organisational prominence, have U-shaped associations and positive associations with the use of bricolage and optimisation. Apart from the fact that the study was conducted quantitatively, it also fell short of articulating how other social enterprises which are not technology social ventures mobilise resources. Furthermore, the study did not consider the West African region for that matter Ghana hence the findings cannot be applied in these environments. Added to these is the fact the not much studies have gone into the understanding of the SE concept and the process involved in achieving social value in the African environment. In effect setting, the study in an emerging economy like Ghana will highlight rare insights for SE literature. 7 University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh Furthermore, existing studies tend to focus on the United States (US), United Kingdom (UK) and other European countries as well as Asia (Doherty, Haugh & Lyon, 2014; Mair & Marti, 2006) with limited attention paid to sub Saharan Africa (Ayiro, 2010; Omorede, 2014; Rivera- Santos et. al., 2015). In addition, a critical look at the entrepreneurship literature in Ghanaian context shows that studies on entrepreneurship mainly focus on commercial entrepreneurship (Adom &Asare Yeboa, 2016; Buame, 2012; Dzisi, 2008; Quaye & Acheampong, 2013) with little attention on social entrepreneurship. The literature on social entrepreneurship on social entrepreneurship in Ghana relatively generally. SE being an emerging concept in Ghana means that a number of issues require further investigations. It will be significant to know if the dimensions (social value creation, innovation, and sustainability) of the SE concept are understood by the practitioners themselves, in addition, an enquiry into how resources are acquired in this resource-constraint environment, as well as the challenges faced by social entrepreneurs, would highlight significant results that would help in policy development for the SE sector. 1.3 Research Objectives The main aim of the study is threefold: 1. To explore the meaning of social entrepreneurship dimensions from the perspective of SE Ghana members. 2. To discover how resources are acquired by social entrepreneurs in Ghana 3. To identify the resource challenges faced by social enterprises in Ghana. 8 University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh 1.4 Research Questions From the above-stated objectives, the following research questions will be investigated: 1. How do Ghanaian social entrepreneurs understand the dimensions of social entrepreneurship? 2. How do social enterprises acquire resources in Ghana? 3. What are resource challenges faced by social enterprises in Ghana? 1.5 Significance of the Study This study seeks to understand the challenges that social entrepreneurs face in performing their activities. Extant literature on Social Entrepreneurship focused mostly on developed countries whereas there is little or no literature on the subject in a developing country like Ghana. The significance of the study can be characterized below. The study seeks to complement existing literature and knowledge on social entrepreneurship from a developing-country viewpoint. It seeks to fill the gaps in literature and knowledge by providing in-depth information on social entrepreneurship in Africa. Moreover, knowledge will be added to academic research since gaps for future research will also be identified. Secondly, Social Entrepreneurs in Ghana will benefit from the findings of this study after its completion. It will highlight resources acquisition strategies, as well as the challenges of social entrepreneurs and its effect on the growth of social entrepreneurs in Ghana, hence serving as a guideline for entrepreneurs in general. The results will also be of interest to other social entrepreneurs, government and other stake holders and support institutions. From the study, insights will be available for government in the development of policies for social entrepreneurs. Finally, the study findings can also inform policy-making bodies, on how best to organize training programs 9 University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh for social entrepreneurs which will emphasise on building the capacity of these social entrepreneurs so as to enable them to tackle the various issues that arise when running a social enterprise in a developing country like Ghana. 1.7 Scope of the Study The study focuses on examining social entrepreneurship through insights from association members of “Social Enterprise Ghana”. Social Enterprise Ghana also known as SE GHANA is an association made of social entrepreneurs and other organisations interested in the social entrepreneurship concept. This association seeks to coordinate the activities of social entrepreneurs and also serve as a voice that speaks for social entrepreneurs. Currently, the association is working together with its stakeholders and the government to draft a policy for social enterprises. This choice was made because the association is currently the only recognised body of social entrepreneurs in Ghana and therefore had the requisite information needed for the study. The study further focused on members within Greater Accra region since most of the association members are sited within the region. 1.8 Chapter Disposition The study is organised into six chapters. Chapter one comprises an ephemeral coverage of the background of the study, statement of the problem, in addition to research objectives and questions, research methodology, significance and limitations of the study as well as the study‟s scope. Chapter two is made up of a review of the literature relevant to this study. It covers the following subjects: an evolution of entrepreneurship, social entrepreneurship evolution, explanation of 10 University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh social entrepreneurship and the social entrepreneur, social entrepreneurship in North America, United Kingdom and Africa. The chapter continues with a discussion on the difference between social entrepreneurship and commercial entrepreneurship, corporate social responsibility and non-governmental organisations. Furthermore, a review was done on the models of social enterprise, global issues affecting social enterprises, as well as social value and impact assessment. The later part of the review focused on resources, then social entrepreneurship resource mobilisation and finally the Resource-Based View which is the theoretical framework adopted for this study. Chapter three discusses the context of the study and shows an overview of the Ghanaian socio- economic outlook as well as a general overview of SE in Ghana. Chapter four involves the study‟s methodology with specific information on research approach and design, sampling technique, data collection method as well as data analysis method. Chapter five initially shows how findings from the data were analysed, and follows up with a discussion of the obtained results in relation to relevant literature. Chapter six indicates a conclusion of the study and provides a final summary of the study, its conclusions, recommendations and future research directions. 1.9 Chapter Summary This chapter served as an introduction to the study. It delineated the background of the study, statement of the problem, further revealed the objectives together with the research questions and finally showed a complete arrangement of the whole study. 11 University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh CHAPTER TWO LITERATURE REVIEW 2.0 Introduction This chapter seeks to present a detailed understanding of the social entrepreneurship concept. In order to get a better appreciation of the concept, this chapter begins with a review of literature in the following areas: the evolution of entrepreneurship and social entrepreneurship, an explanation of social entrepreneurship and the social entrepreneur, and a discussion of social entrepreneurship in North America, United Kingdom and Africa. The chapter continues with a review on difference between social entrepreneurship and commercial entrepreneurship, corporate social responsibility and non-governmental organisations. Furthermore, a review is done on the models of social enterprise, global issues affecting social enterprises, as well as the social value and impact assessment. The later part of the review focuses on resources, then social entrepreneurship resource mobilization and finally the Resource-Based View which is the theoretical framework adopted for this study. 2.1 Entrepreneurship: A Historical Perspective “Entre prendre”, a borrowed French word which means “to undertake”, can be traced to the French economist and author Richard Cantillion, who defined an entrepreneur as an individual who organises and runs business entities (Carlsson et al., 2013; Hébert & Link, 2009; Mort & Weerawardena, 2007). Risk bearing, according to Cantillon is the unique role of entrepreneurship. The author argued that while most wage workers had knowledge of their return for work, entrepreneurs were uncertain of the returns they would get from their sale of goods for an unknown price (Herbert & Link, 1989). Cantillon further pointed out that market economies 12 University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh are by their nature permeated with uncertainty and therefore the essential role of risk bearing is played by entrepreneurs (Cantillon, 1734; Herbert & Link, 1989). th In the early 19 century, however, the entrepreneur was designated by Say as “the one who shifts economic resources out of an area of lower and into an area of higher productivity and greater yield” (Martin & Osberg, 2007, p.31). Say complimented Cantillion‟s framework by emphasising that the introduction of new commodities and making an entry into new markets are the core features of the entrepreneurship concept (Jones & Wadhwani, 2006).He further identified the entrepreneur as one who creates value after uniting all the factors of production th (Buame, 2012). In the 20 century, however, Joseph Schumpeter, emphasised on the “creative – destructive” aspect of the entrepreneur and stressed on the innovative aspect of entrepreneurs as well, describing them as change agents who move countries forward through their creativity (Dees, 1998). Writing about entrepreneurship between 1911 and 1950, his work was considered the starting point for almost all future conceptions (Swedberg, 2000) and entrepreneurship became the core of Schumpeter‟s economic theories, as the driving force behind capitalism and as pivotal to economic progress (Schumpeter, 1934). For Schumpeter, innovation was the central purpose of entrepreneurship; reforming or revolutionising the pattern of production; bringing about radical and discontinuous change socially as well as economically (Dees, 1998). He stressed the various paths and concluded that “entrepreneurship is a new process where an individual or group of people create something new, and that something new could be: a new product, a new method of production, a new source of material and a new market ,hitherto, unexploited” (Buame, 2012). Similarly, Quaye 13 University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh and Acheampong (2013), reflecting on the Schumpeterian and Kirznerian approaches to entrepreneurship, emphasised on “creative destruction”, and the need for alertness to opportunities and market possibilities in ensuring the distortion of social equilibrium, as well as creating new and improved products to substitute old ones in risky situations. Current definitions of entrepreneurship all follow the same line as Schumpeter and Kirzner (Quaye & Acheampong, 2013). 2.1.1 Defining Entrepreneurship Entrepreneurship as postulated by Dees (1998), Martin and Osberg (2007) and Sullivan, Weerawardena and Carnegie (2003), forms the basis for social entrepreneurship; hence SE is most often presented as an offshoot of the mainstream entrepreneurship literature. Invariably, theories and research into entrepreneurship offer one way of understanding what social entrepreneurship might be, what roles and what forms it takes, and how it is decreed (Martin & Osberg, 2007). Again, as a multidimensional and polysemous concept, the definition of entrepreneurship is still obscure and a consensus has not yet been reached by scholars and practitioners with regards to its meaning (Kobia & Sikalieh, 2010). There has not been a clear agreement on the definition of entrepreneurship from its evolution till date (Gartner, 1990; Bridge, Hegarty, & Porter, 2010). Similar to management theories, entrepreneurship is not an integrated field, but the same concept is depicted by different views (Adom, 2015). Generally, entrepreneurship is defined “as the process by which opportunities to create future goods and services are discovered, evaluated and exploited” (Shane & Venkataraman 2000, p. 218). Similarly, Gartner (1990), viewed entrepreneurship as an activity 14 University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh which is innovative and whose intention is to create fresh wealth for the entrepreneur, whether monetary or psychological. Dzisi (2008), on the other hand, believes that the entrepreneurship concept can be better understood when the individual entrepreneur is identified and recognised as well as the entrepreneurial process. Buame (2012) in defining entrepreneurship indicated that “it is an innovative process where a prospective individual or group identifies and seizes the opportunity by organising existing resources to convert those opportunities into workable/marketable products or services”. Adom (2014) however believes that though some researchers have agreed with this and hence build on it, others have also developed their own concept. Recognised institutions including the “Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development” (OECD) and Global Entrepreneurship Monitor (GEM) have also defined entrepreneurship. According to OECD (1998, p.12), "entrepreneurs are seen as change agents who turn to generate, distribute and apply innovative ideas through the identification of likely profitable opportunities while making use of efficient resources and solely bearing all risk involve in the process”. GEM (2000) defines entrepreneurship as an effort aimed at forming a new business entity or the extension of an already built business through the efforts of groups of people or a specific individual. Difficulties exist in acknowledging the practical certainty that “entrepreneurs are not born” but “rather made”, and as such seen as a unique breed of people (Krueger, 2000). In support of this assertion, Adom (2015) acknowledges that entrepreneurs are individuals with varied characteristics, which allow them to be different in their society. In the words of Quaye & 15 University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh Acheampong (2013), entrepreneurs are believed to be people who possess the three key unique features, of “innovativeness”, “proactiveness” and “risk-taking”. 2.2 Evolution of Social Entrepreneurship Rapid industrialisation together with advancement in technology over the last century or so has brought about many breakthroughs which have propelled uncertainties about the future as well as challenges in the form of environmental and economic collapse, terrible disease, over-population and many more (Nicholls, 2006).These global challenges, coupled with financial crises, make it difficult for governments and institutions to offer solutions. This has caused many to rethink of ways of addressing societal and global challenges (Bornstein & Davis, 2010; Fayolle & Matlay, 2010). In searching for avenues to address these challenges, Fayolle and Matlay (2010) posit that social entrepreneurship could fill this gap by pursuing both economic and social purposes. These authors further acknowledge the fact that even though entrepreneurship plays a greater role in economic value creation, it could nevertheless be a greater contributor to social justice as well. Many individuals have responded positively to these challenges, with creativity, energy and optimism using business models in pursuing solutions (Bornstein & Davis, 2010; Nicholls, 2006). These new models and concepts used in addressing social problems are garnering interest in both theory and practice, hence the advent of a novel field of research known as “social entrepreneurship” (Fayolle & Matlay, 2010). 16 University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh Social entrepreneurship can be briefly taken as an archetype of business where models are used not for the gains of individuals and profit but rather aimed at a group gain as well as social transformation (Mort & Weerawardena, 2007). As a new concept, Zahra, Rawhouser, Bhawe, Neubaum & Hayton (2008) outline four crucial traits that have fuelled the globalization of SE, including global disparities in wealth; changes in companies‟ corporate social responsibility; market failures, limitations of state institutions and technological advances. Its history is less agreed upon in literature. On the one hand, according to Welsh and Krueger (2012), SE was originally formed in 1980, and its acceleration began in the 1990s as a result of its acceptance in the circles of academia and practice. On the other hand, Yunus, Moingeon, and Lehmann-Ortega (2010) maintain the concept was first devised in 1980 by Bill Drayton of Ashoka “the global association of the world„s leading social entrepreneurs”. Yet again th Sassmannshausen and Volkmann (2013), postulate that Schumpeter, one of the 20 -century intellectuals claimed that the SE term was first used in an academic publication by William Parker in 1954. Bornstein and Davis (2010) also attribute the concept to the creation of the private sector. These authors argue that the establishment of the “private sector” came out of the repression by medieval Lords, Churches or Slavery as well as the “Enlightenment Movement” th during the 17 era and further paved the onset of social enterprises (Bornstein & Davis, 2010). The periods that followed as indicated by Shaw and Carter (2007) led to the thriving of the private sector as a result of the emergence of laws and practices in the USA; hence the entrepreneurial sector began to thrive. However, as a result of the negligence of responsibilities, philanthropists, and non-profit organisations came into the entrepreneurial arena. In Europe, 17 University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh Shaw and Carter (2007), argued that the United Kingdom became amongst the forerunners to place entrepreneurship with the social realms, similar to the Victorian private hospitals. Largely evidence from the literature shows distinctions between European/UK and North American/US models of social entrepreneurship (Kerlin, 2006). Thus Waddock and Post (1991) point out that the US model of social entrepreneurship focuses on extraordinary persons making a large impact; conversely, the major concern for the UK social entrepreneurship model is the utilization of societies to resolve local needs (Mason, 2012). In order to settle the argument from both sides on the Atlantic, Defourny and Nyssens (2010) suggest that the idiosyncratic formations of social enterprise are totally engrained in the social, economic, political, as well as cultural contexts of the origins of these organisations. Furthermore, the foundation of social entrepreneurship is believed to have emanated from the 18th and 19th centuries when humanitarian business holders and industrialists similar to Robert Owen, exhibited interest in the well-being of their employees by improving aspects of their lives such as work, education and cultural (Shaw & Carter, 2007). Other researchers, as pointed out by Boddice (2011), concur that social entrepreneurship is not a new occurrence. This has been affirmed by Bornstein and Davis (2010) who opine, “Social entrepreneurs have always existed, but in the past, they were called visionaries, humanitarians, philanthropists, reformers, saints, or simply great leaders”. Nicholls (2006) emphasised that their work in this era, however, has been altered, and it has attained a possibly international reach. More recently, Muhammad Yunus brought prominence to the concept of SE in 2006 when he was conferred with a “Nobel Peace Prize” for his establishment of the Grameen Bank in Bangladesh; other well-known social entrepreneurs include Victoria Hale, who founded One World Health, as well as “Jim Fruchterman a Silicon Valley engineer” who established a social 18 University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh venture known as “Benetech” to provide technological resolutions to societal needs (Dees, 2007). Evidence from the literature indicates that the growing attention paid to SE recently can be attributed to several economic, social and political changes, as well as current difficulties that requires novel tactics as well as developments that intensify the probabilities for these difficulties to be resolved (Kumar & Gupta, 2013; Nicholls, 2006). Furthermore, Zahra et al. (2008) argue that shifts in demographics, liberalization of national economies and its attendant markets; the failure of institutions, the state and technological improvements to intensify the necessity of further social mindfulness within businesses. This has prodded further provided the urgent formation of social venture or enterprises. Social entrepreneurship can be separated from other social action forms such as advocacy, philanthropy and non-profit organizations (Mort & Weerawardena, 2007). Dees (1998) together with Sullivan et al. (2003) emphasised on the centrality of a social mission with a corresponding emphasis on innovation within social entrepreneurial organisations. The year 2006, according to Mort and Weerawardena (2007), presented significant milestones in social entrepreneurship. For instance in research sphere, three essential periodicals appeared, namely a special issues on SE in the “Journal Of World Business,” a publication by Nicholls (2006) by the Oxford University Press; and finally, a “Palgrave Macmillan” printed book edited by Mair which addressed SE theory and research. In addition, the “Nobel Peace Prize” bestowed on Mohammed Yunus and the Grameen Bank is believed to have significantly contributed to the acceptance of the idea of social entrepreneurship (Mort & Weerawardena, 2007). 19 University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh 2.2.1 Social Entrepreneurship and the Social Entrepreneur “Social entrepreneurship,” as pointed out by various scholars, is a concept which is ill-defined (Mair & Martí, 2006; Short et al., 2009; Zahra et al., 2009). This assertion has been affirmed by other scholars who argue that “the term” has been occupied by a disparity of meanings (Christie & Honig, 2006). According to Dees (1998), the definition of SE has been adduced to include other concepts such as not-for-profits, for-profits organisations and the public sector, as well as a combination of all three types of organizations. Consequently, the concept of SE currently covers an extensive collection of activities and is also viewed differently globally (Kerlin, 2009; Nicholls & Cho, 2006). In addition to the numerous debates about definitional issues, Kerlin (2006) advocates that much emphasis should be placed on the context in the development of social entrepreneurship definition and development. Bacq and Janssen (2011), and Teasdale (2012) believe that the American and European traditions have had great influence on the differences in the definition of social entrepreneurship. These authors emphasised that the American tradition dwells on innovation with a focus on the individual and the social enterprise and also recommends the use of business models in solving social issues. In contrast, proponents of the European tradition focus on the non-profit, community business as well as co-operative sectors which advocates collectivism (Bacq & Janssen, 2011; Teasdale, 2012). Further worthy of note is the fact that the “term” links two equivocal texts with diverse meanings (Mair & Marti, 2006). As highlighted already, the domain of entrepreneurship itself is flawed with numerous disagreements (Shane & Venkataraman, 2000), hence, the prefix “social” ends up aggravating the definitional 20 University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh deliberations (Zahra et al., 2009). With these arguments notwithstanding, there is a growing acceptance of the concept (Fayolle & Matlay, 2010). Additionally, Dees (1998), postulates that social entrepreneurship has been connected with ventures intended to aid social purposes as well as not-for-profit activities. Dees (1998) makes it clear that the core objective of SE is social value. Similarly, Abu-Saifan (2012), delineates that in the social entrepreneurship arena entrepreneurs form their actions so as to be connected with the eventual objective of social value creation. Nicholls (2006) and Robinson, Mair and Hockerts (2009) attempt to draw a nexus between innovation and social value and therefore defines SE as an affiliated term used to describe a wide array of inventive and vigorous activities designed to attend to social issues and provide social worth. Nicholls (2006) definition further affirms that social entrepreneurs need to be innovative in their quest to create social value. SE according to Robinson (2006) refers to “a process that includes: the identification of a specific social problem and a specific solution to address it; the evaluation of the social impact, the business model and the sustainability of the venture; and the creation of a social mission-oriented for profit or a business-oriented non-profit entity that pursues the double (or triple) bottom line” (p.95). Robinson (2006) description affirms various notions held by many entrepreneurship researchers that the ability to recognise an unattended to need in the market is the first step in becoming entrepreneurial. He further recommended that there should be an evaluation of the social impact which in essence ensures that resources are well accounted for and social ventures are sustained in the long run. 21 University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh Other scholars such as Sullivan et al. (2003) define SE as a multi-dimensional construct, arguing that SE culminates in the formation of original social enterprises as well as the continued advancements of prevailing ones. Again scholars such as Chell (2007), Roberts and Woods (2005), and Mair and Marti (2006) used the operational process or mechanism the basis of the definition of the SE concept. Alternatively, some scholars place emphasis on the mission aspect, for example, Dees (2001) believes that SE is about extraordinary individuals who seek to create and sustain social value, as well as identify and chase new prospects to attend to that mission. Further to that, the individual participates in a practice of constant “innovation”, “adaptation” and “learning”, not being limited by available resources but acting boldly. Again scholars regard SE as a philanthropic activity (Bornstein & Davis, 2010; Ostrander, 2007), whereas some other scholars such as Certo and Miller (2008) as well as Van de Ven, Sapienza and Villanueva (2007) view persons or establishments involved in entrepreneurial activities which benefit the whole society as social entrepreneurship. As highlighted already, a generalised SE definition is yet to materialise (Bacq & Janseen, 2011), but there are diverse motives with regards to the creation of social entrepreneurial organisations which have also constantly been a source of confusion among scholars and have further aggravated the difficulty in the concept‟s definition (Kerlin, 2006). Authors such Dacin et al. (2010) and Zahara et al. (2009), having analysed a lot of literature on SE, compiled a list of definitions used by various authors to describe the concept. Below are some definitions of SE. 22 University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh Table 2.1: Social entrepreneurship, social entrepreneur and social enterprise definitions and descriptions SOURCE DEFINITION Austin, Stevenson, & Wei-Skillern SE is “as innovative, social value creating an activity that can occur within (2006) or across the non-profit, business, or government sectors” (p. 2). Bacq &Janssen, (2011) Social entrepreneurship is “the process of identifying, evaluating and exploiting opportunities aiming at social value creation by means of commercial, market-based activities and of the use of a wide range of resources” (p. 388) Dees (1998) Social Entrepreneurs “play the role of change agents in the social sector, by 1) Adopting a mission to create and sustain social value (not just private value); (2) Recognizing and relentlessly pursuing new opportunities to serve that mission; (3) Engaging in a process of continuous innovation, adaptation, and learning; (4) Acting boldly without being limited by resources currently in hand; and (5) Exhibiting heightened accountability to the constituencies served and for the outcomes created” (p.4). Mair & Martı´ (2006) SE refers to a “process involving the innovative use and combination of resources to pursue opportunities to catalyse social change and/or address social needs” (p. 37). Sharir & Lerner (2006) The social entrepreneur acts “as a change agent to create and sustain social value without being limited to resources currently in hand” (p. 3). Thompson & Doherty (2006) Social enterprises defined simply as “organisations seeking business solutions to social problems” (p.362). Yunus (2007) “Any innovative initiative to help people may be described as social entrepreneurship, the initiative may be economic or non-economic, for-profit or not-for-profit” (p. 32). Zahra, Gedajlovic, Neubaum, “Social entrepreneurship encompasses the activities and processes & Shulman (2009) undertaken to discover, define, and exploit opportunities in order to enhance social wealth by creating new ventures or managing existing organisations in an innovative manner”(p. 5). Source: Adopted and adapted from Dacin, Dacin and Matear (2010, p.39) and Zahra et al. (2009, p.521) 23 University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh Notwithstanding all these definitional debates of SE, a general agreement exists regarding the confines of SE in addition to its differences from constructs like non-profit organisations, corporate social responsibility and others (Lumpkin, Moss, Gras, Kato & Amezcua, 2013). The work by Gregory Dees, who has been accredited as the father of the SE (Dees, 1998), and his definition has so far been the most widely used in scholarly research and has been the basis for the conceptualization of SE concept (Doherty, Haugh & Lynon, 2014). For the purpose of the current research, SE will be defined according to Bacq and Janssen (2011), who stated that; social entrepreneurship is “a process of identifying, evaluating and exploiting opportunities aiming at social value creation by means of commercial, market-based activities and of the use of a wide range of resources” (p.388). This definition will be used in this study because it emphasises on the double-bottom line approach as well as the use of a wide range of resources; the definition is also in agreement with Dees (1998), and Peredo and McLean (2006).These authors stressed the fact that social entrepreneurs ignore the limitations place on them by the unavailability of resources but rather they act boldly to pursue social good. In their opinion, these authors knowing that social entrepreneurs just like commercial entrepreneurs have challenges with acquiring resources opine that for an individual to be referred to as a social entrepreneur, the onus lies on the individual to ensure that resources are used efficiently and create the needed social value in a sustained manner. In essence, SE is basically an amalgamation of business knowledge and entrepreneurial principles used to solve critical economic, social and environmental problems encountered in the 24 University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh society (Germak & Singh, 2009). Wealth creation for the general society is the principal goal in social entrepreneurship, while “economic” value creation, which takes the form of made-income is of necessity in that it ensures the sustainability and financial self-sufficiency of the initiative (Mair & Marti, 2006). In this study, the researcher postulates that SE refers to a process of creating value for society through the use of available resources in an innovative manner whilst ensuring its sustainability. The SE process is often spearheaded by an individual, who identifies, evaluate social problems as business and takes advantage of them by proposing an innovative solution that result in value creation for the society. Such a person is referred to as a social entrepreneur (Shaw & Carter, 2007; Hynes, 2009). Inferring from this, to acknowledge that there is a societal need which requires innovative business models to produce sustained solutions qualifies an individual to be referred to as a social entrepreneur. In a similar vein, social entrepreneurs, as described by Tony Blair, the former UK Prime Minister, are “those people who bring to social problems the same enterprise and imagination that business entrepreneurs bring to wealth creation” (Levie & Hart, 2011, p .3). In his view, therefore, social entrepreneurs bring wealth to the socially disadvantaged in the society through the social ventures they embark on. Citing the example of Mohammed Yunus of the Grameen Bank would be in the right order. In line with Dees‟ (1998) that assertion, “social entrepreneurs are a special breed of leaders”, Hynes (2009) postulates that one distinguishing characteristic of the social entrepreneur are their capability to combine different business models to ensure social wealth creation. Inferring from Hynes‟ assertion, not every individual can combine business ideas to address social challenges 25 University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh and at the same time ensure not placing his motive on profit but on social good. Fayolle and Matlay (2010) in their description of social entrepreneurs noted that they are seen as the “Very Important Personalities” at global events for instance at the “Clinton Global Initiative” and they are the preferred investors of the „new‟ philanthropists: the Jeff Skolls or Bill Gates of this world. This assertion confirms how well respected social entrepreneurs are all over the world. Similar to “traditional” entrepreneurs, social entrepreneurs recognise prospects that present themselves as complications requiring solutions and endeavor to form entrepreneurial teams to come out with solutions for them. Such activities include reducing illiteracy, solving substance abuse issues or raising awareness of environmental protection concerns (Sullivan, 2007). Social entrepreneurs serve as a catalyst in societies and use unconventional entrepreneurial methods to get challenges solved. Their motivation is to see lives being transformed for the betterment of society as a whole. As argued by Santos (2012), the distinction between the business and social entrepreneur shows in their motivation: for the social entrepreneur, society wealth creation is of the essence to him, whereas the business entrepreneur seeks to gain profit for his shareholders. The social entrepreneur is deemed an important economic and social resource because of their potential to serve a “double bottom line” that is a blend of financial and social returns concurrently (Doherty, Foster, Meehan, & Mason, 2009). In a recent seminal contribution, Mort and Weerawardena (2007), identified the core attributes of social entrepreneurs as proactiveness, innovativeness and risk-taking similar to the main attributes of commercial entrepreneurs. In effect, according to these authors, social entrepreneurs need to have foresight and anticipate needs; at the same time, they must be creative, experimental and also be ready to take bold steps in the creation of social ventures. 26 University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh The literature describes social entrepreneurs as being “entrepreneurially virtuous” (Mort, & Weerawardena, 2007, p. 82). p.8, “community-centric individuals” (Sharir & Lerner, 2006), and “reformers and revolutionaries” (Schumpeter, 1942) who have a heightened sense of responsibility towards the society (Drucker, 1989). Dees (1998) in acknowledging who a social entrepreneur is, placed high importance on these individuals, naming them as individuals who “combine the passion of a social mission with an image of business-like discipline, innovation, and determination commonly associated with, for instance, the high-tech pioneers of Silicon Valley” (Dees, 1998). He regarded the social entrepreneur as the individual who has to be proactive in the pursuit of opportunities as well as make swift decisions in a resource-constrained environment, take bold and risky decisions and at the same time be innovative. His regard for who a social entrepreneur led to him to come out with one of the more comprehensive definitions of social entrepreneurs: “Social entrepreneurs play the role of change agents in the society, by:  Adopting a mission to create and sustain social value (not just private value),  Recognizing and relentlessly pursuing new opportunities to serve that mission  Engaging in a process of continuous innovation, adaptation, and learning  Acting boldly without being limited by resources currently in hand and  Exhibiting a heightened sense of accountability to the constituencies‟ served and for the outcomes created” (Dees, 1998, p.4). 27 University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh 2.2.2 Social Entrepreneurship in North America Social Entrepreneurship is creating astounding developments on both sides of the Atlantic (Defourny & Nyssens, 2010; Kerlin, 2006). It is believed that the concept made its first appearance in both Europe and North America in the early 1990s (Defourny & Nyssens, 2010). The acceleration of social entrepreneurial organizations according to Kerlin (2006), in the 1980s in North America and Europe was perhaps as a result of government endorsement, institutional and academic interest. While Europeans stress that social entrepreneurship mostly takes place in the “third sector”, Americans rather tend to emphasise on the “blurred boundaries” amongst legal and institutional systems for a “blended value creation” (Defourny & Nyssens, 2008). Social Entrepreneurship movements in North America and Europe have taken on a growing importance over the past two decades (Kerlin, 2010). Though the trend and ultimate objective of SE in both regions are the same, differences, however, remain in the conceptualization of social enterprise comprising emphasis and discrete outcomes (Kerlin, 2006). Broader divisions exist in terms of understanding such as use, context and policy apart from the definitions. Kerlin (2009) claims that different models of social entrepreneurship are represented throughout the world. Inferring from the theory of social origins, he postulates that the history of a country has an impact on the socio-economic situations of the people, which subsequently impacts the kind of social entrepreneurial activities in any country. Similarly, Fayolle and Matlay (2010) together with Kerlin (2010) stated that social entrepreneurship demonstrates itself uniquely in diverse contexts, therefore the concept scholars and policymakers should situate the “social entrepreneurial actor” in a fixed setting for proper 28 University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh understanding. In North America, specifically the United States, for instance, social entrepreneurship is believed to have emerged at the intersection between the marketplace and society in contradiction of the foundation of a robust but unwilling state and a historical tradition of market dependence. Conversely, social entrepreneurship in Europe has the firm support of local government as well as European Union policy (European Commission, 2009; Kerlin, 2009). Short et al. (2009) assert that social entrepreneurship in North America occurs in a various array of organisational forms, comprising non-profit organisations with some kind of activities that ensure earned income, running through to for-profit companies that have a social purpose. Furthermore, Welsh and Krueger (2012) claim that in North America, the perspective of social entrepreneurship differs widely among academics and practitioners. The authors add that differences persist also in where social entrepreneurship is heading: the concept is seen by some as the future saviour among Generation X, which is poised to make a difference in the economy. Social entrepreneurship can also be felt in the political band, for instance in December 2007, the then-presidential candidate, Senator Obama called for an attention social entrepreneurs since they are change agents and further requested for increment in investments in the social sector (Welsh & Kruger, 2012). This suggests the SE is gradually getting the interest of politician as well. SE was met with confident reactions in the United States in the early part of the 1990s (Defourny & Nyssens, 2010), and the interest was further aggravated with the inauguration of the “Social Enterprise Initiative” by the Harvard Business School in 1993. Academics and practitioners, 29 University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh even though not in total agreement with regards to the definition in North America, still consider the revenue aspect in the broad definitions. Social enterprise in North American academic circles is meant to include: businesses which are profit-based but engaged in social activities, double- purpose business with social objectives (hybrid) and organisations which are non-profit and involved in a commercial activity with mission-supporting goals (Kerlin, 2006). According to Fayolle and Matlay (2010), social entrepreneurial activities in the USA are focused more on specific groups such as the inner poor and Native Americans who have been marginalised by public social systems. In the United States, it was realized that more than 1.4 million social entrepreneurial ventures generated $ 1.36 trillion in revenue, representing about 5% of GDP (Rangan, Leonard, & McDonald, 2008). 2.2.3 Social Entrepreneurship in the United Kingdom In the United Kingdom (UK), claims that SE has been around for years as far back as the eighteenth century, with firm its origins stemming from settlement movements, cooperatives, mutual societies and settlement movements (Ridley-Duff, 2008). During the late 1990‟s however, a fertile ground was provided for SE in the UK, and social entrepreneurs were seen to be critical in tackling social problems; hence the concept was given recognition in policy circles (Ziegler, 2011). Furthermore, in the UK, social entrepreneurs were compared to business entrepreneurs and were seen to be associated with the private sector. The concept inspired politicians both in rhetoric and policy proposal (Ziegler, 2011). For instance, “Tony Blair” during his opening speech as Prime Minister stated: “We will be backing thousands of social entrepreneurs-those people who bring to social problems the same enterprise and imagination that business entrepreneurs bring to wealth creation” (Blair, 1997). 30 University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh Essentially, several organisations that identify, support, and fund social entrepreneurs have sprung up as a result of the enactment of SE policy in the United Kingdom with over thousand social entrepreneurs being identified and trained between 1997 and 2006 (Ziegler, 2011). Levie and Hart (2011) together with Turner and Martin (2005) observed that the sort of people who become social entrepreneurs in the UK are of high importance to policy-makers because there has been a move of many public services to the social enterprise rather than commercial professional services. “Social enterprise” has been the brand name both in policy and development discourse for several years and this concept fits in well with the political agenda and also in broad perspective with the “third world”, which combines “social justice” with “economic dynamism” in the UK (Defourny & Nyssens, 2008). These authors further notes that included in the various kinds of social enterprises in the UK are social cooperatives, traditional cooperatives/mutual, contracting services and voluntary organisations, health and social care mutual and as well as social firms among many others. The total turnover of social enterprises in the United Kingdom according to the Cabinet Office (2013) was valued at 27billion pounds with a GDP contribution of 8.4 billion pounds. 2.2.4 Social Entrepreneurship in Africa In Africa, the concept SE is comparable to its meaning in Latin America and Asia, therefore social enterprises integrate non-governmental organisations with limited options for earned income as well as for-profit start-ups organizations with a social-oriented mission (Austin et al., 2007; Seelos & Mair, 2005). Rivera-Santos et al. (2015), in a study of 384 social enterprises 31 University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh comprising 19 countries from Africa identified four predominately African contextual dimensions related to social entrepreneurship. These are namely: “acute poverty, informality, colonial history and ethnic group identity”. These authors, therefore, concluded that the SE concept emerged in Africa because the majority of the population in this region are at the “Bottom of the Pyramid” coupled with the devastation of war, poor governmental leadership, famine and many other social challenges. On the other hand, Poon (2011) claims that SE emerged in the African context mainly after the withdrawal of state funding, which resulted from conditions enacted by international actors and the absence of institutional support provided by international mission aid organizations. As a developing continent, Poon (2011) recognised the importance of donor support in solving the numerous societal challenges and this led to his assertion for the reasons behind the emergence of the concept in Africa. In spite of the disparity across and within countries in Africa, the continent serves as a good example of a place where social entrepreneurial models can be used (Santos, 2012); the continent is typically known for high poverty levels. About 26 countries on the continent are included in the list of the thirty most deprived nations in the world (International Monetary Fund, 2013). Added to this is the failure of government, with about 14 African countries classified among the 30 highly corrupt nations (Transparency International, 2012). Moreover, according to a World Bank (2012) report, the continent is seen as lacking basic infrastructure, coupled with a high failure of market actors, and further aggravated by an economy which is informal, having 23 nations noted among the 30 most awful countries for commerce. Furthermore, colonial tendencies persist in the region‟s institutional environment (Acemoglu, Johnson, & Robinson, 32 University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh 2000) and the issue of robust ethnic groupings which sets the continent apart from other developed countries (Michalopoulos & Papaioannou, 2015; Nyambegera, 2002). Considering all these, therefore, Rivera-Santos et al. (2015) argue that the African region offers a particularly appropriate image of how socially entrepreneurial venture can influence the environment. In the agreement, Casimir and Samuel (2015) posit that it is necessary for African regions to have social entrepreneurs who deliver solutions to most of the continent‟s persistent challenges such as poverty, conflicts, and unemployment in a workable method. In effect Gupta, Beninger and Ganesh (2015) argue that social entrepreneurship in Africa is often viewed as having a constricted concentration on identified issues, therefore resources are diverted from other intermediations and eventually, financial goals are given priority over social ones. This results in dislocating independent and country reforms, which undermine economic development efforts. Social entrepreneurs, therefore, have a better opportunity to see social problems in the African environment considering the various social challenges. The African continent, according to is therefore constantly offered as the next business frontier (Rivera-Santos et al., 2015). Scholars believe that the continent is seldom considered for research in management as well as entrepreneurship literature. As a result, several calls for a more first- hand empirical inquiry in Africa abound (Julian & Ofori-Darkwa, 2013; Zoogah & Nkomo, 2013). Research on SE from Africa is moderately low, and hence literature is scarce (Doherty et al., 2014). In an assessment of 80 business and management journals between 1950 to 2011, Zoogah and Nkomo (2013) noticed just 216 articles which focus on the continent of Africa, and therefore stated regretfully that these works do not indicate “the unique attributes of Africa 33 University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh that can be shared” (p. 19) within other jurisdictions. Thus, though there seems to be high interest by researchers to delve into social entrepreneurship, the African continent is still understudied. 2.3 Contrasting Social Entrepreneurship and Commercial Entrepreneurship It is of necessity to distinguish between business/commercial entrepreneurship and social entrepreneurship so as to highlight the exclusive features of social entrepreneurship. In the creation of ventures, processes such as the “necessity to innovate, to take risk as well coordinate resources” (Schumpeter, 1934), are mostly the same for both entrepreneurs in social and commercial business (Estrin, Mickiewicz & Stephen, 2016). Evidence from the literature however further points out differences and similarities with regards to business and social entrepreneurship (Austin et al., 2007; Mair & Marti, 2006). Building on prevailing literature, researchers show realistic proof that commercial and social entrepreneurs have the same strategies with regards to resource acquisition and their processes of operation, and hence emphasised that these two kinds of entrepreneurs utilize resources in a similar way and therefore not completely unique (Meysken et al., 2010). Other scholars such as Bornstein and Davis (2010), Mair and Marti (2006) and Yunus et al. (2010) however claim that social entrepreneurship has its unique field since the central emphasis is on the creation of social value as well as maximising social impact over shareholder wealth. Bornstein and Davis (2010) and Dees (1998) postulate that the differential factor between SE and commercial entrepreneurship lies in their purpose and what the enterprise seeks to maximise; hence social impact is to SE, as shareholder wealth is to commercial entrepreneurship. These 34 University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh authors believe that while commercial entrepreneurs focus on wealth creation, social entrepreneurs concentrate on social value, which is their core responsibility. However, wealth creation is a necessity for sustainability. Similarly, for the commercial entrepreneur, Martin and Osberg (2007), highlight that the value proposition is forestalled and planned to serve markets that can comfortably provide financial profit, whereas, for the social entrepreneur, value is seen in the form of significant, advantageous change that accumulates in a substantial value to the underprivileged in the society. Santos (2012) joined the chorus by stating that commercial entrepreneurs seek to achieve “sustainable advantage” for their organisation, whilst social entrepreneurs rather seek to attain “sustainable solutions” to resolve societal glitches. Bacq and Janssen (2011), in agreement with the previous scholars, assert that social entrepreneurs are motivated by social needs, whereas financial needs are the main motivations for commercial entrepreneurs. In addition, Estrin, Mickiewicz and Stephen (2016) also suggest that both business and social entrepreneurs create value, however, the former capitalize on their reserved welfare and take the outstanding benefits for themselves, whilst the latter create social welfare through providing goods and facilities that the government and the market have refused to address. In effect, Bornstein and Davis (2010) conclude that both kinds of entrepreneurship are important to the world and neither should be regarded as superior since both social entrepreneurs and commercial entrepreneurs are concerned with social responsibility; social entrepreneurs often earn profits from social enterprises which are reinvested for social impact, whereas commercial entrepreneurs are concerned with social responsibility. In a quest to differentiate between these 35 University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh two forms of entrepreneurship, Austin et al. (2006) highlight some primary issues: differences in terms of their core mission, performance measurement and finally differences in how resources are mobilized especially financial resources, and the nature of opportunities pursued (Austin et al, 2006; Bacq, Ofstein, Kickul & Gundry, 2015; Zahra et al, 2008, 2009). In conclusion, both social and commercial entrepreneurship are grounded firmly in the theoretical tradition of entrepreneurship research (Dees, 2001; Mair & Marti, 2006) since both entrepreneurs address related conceptual areas such as opportunity recognition, evaluation, and implementation (Shane & Venkataraman, 2000). 2.3.1 Contrasting Social Entrepreneurship and Corporate Social Responsibility Social entrepreneurship has been practiced for a long while (Zahra et al., 2009), even though it has only recently gained the attention of academics and practitioners (Mair & Marti, 2006; Peredo & McLean, 2006). Similarly, even before SE gained so much attention, commercial enterprises have been using different forms of activities to gain attention (Asongu, 2007). One such activity is the concept of Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR). CSR became an integral part of business since the 1990‟s and has therefore gained significant push (Skouloudis, Evangelinos, & Malesios, 2015). Asongu (2007) believes that discussions regarding the social responsibilities of organisations began as early as the 1920 and over the years have been advanced as modern CSR initiatives. CSR, according to Haskins (2009), features as a mechanism for encouragingng triple bottom lines, which comprise economic, social and environmental concerns of businesses in the communities where they operate. Hinson and Ndhlovu (2011), assert that the thinking of corporations has changed from the idea that their sole existence is for 36 University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh the purpose of making a profit to rather a new business model which postulates business entities should be involved in other responsibilities apart from profit maximising of the corporations. As important as CSR is, major corporations such as General Electric, IBM, Google, Unilever, Nestle and much more in their quest to create shared value between their business and the society have adopted it as a strategy (Porter & Kramer, 2011). CSR just like SE has no consensus with regards to its definition (Gray, 2000; Kotonen, 2009; Chen & Bouvain, 2008). For instance, to Sweeney (2009), CSR is an onus placed on corporations such that it owes all its stakeholders in the business arena. Mordi, Opeyemi, Tonbara and Ojo (2012), however, use the legitimacy perspective as the bases of CSR definition and therefore asserts that CSR is a corporation‟s moral obligation to the society which is performed for the aim of promoting societal values peaceful coexistence in their business environments. According to The World Business Council for Sustainable Development (WBCSD), (1999), CSR is defined as a “business commitment to contribute to sustainable economic development, working with employees and their families, the local community, and society at large to improve their quality of life”. This bears similar attributes with social entrepreneurship in that CSR is viewed as a means to sustainable development by ensuring that the quality of life people are improved and economic growth is further attained. Social entrepreneurship, on the other hand, is “the process of identifying, evaluating and exploiting opportunities aiming at social value creation by means of commercial, market-based activities and of the use of a wide range of resources” (Bacq & Janssen, 2011, p.388). 37 University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh The distinction between CSR and SE is also seen in the concept of value creation. The initial difference between these two concepts as argued by Hart and Christensen (2002) lies in the scope of their initiative, whereas for commercial corporations their intention is to solve social challenges raises out of obligation to the stakeholders and also as a form of publicity, SE emphasis on social wealth creation while monetary profit becomes a surplus which is eventually reinvested in the organisation. Meanwhile, the original view of CSR according to Baron (2007), indicates commercial organisations do CSR activities purely as a social cause and further as an innovative way of expanding their market. CSR initiatives in the form of social value creation are therefore given attention by commercial business only after they have succeeded in value capturing, that gaining profit.Commerical business, therefore, has to maximize profit which is their core objective however in order to obey laws and be perceived well by their customers and stakeholders these businesses try to satisfy social value through CSR initiatives (Ghauri, Tasavori & Zaefarian, 2014). By contrast, social entrepreneurship has the maximization of social value as its core objective but however have to capture value as a means to sustain its activities. For Durieux and Stebbins (2010), companies that engage in CSR activities have certain advantages accruing to them, these include an improvement of access to capital, reduction in bad publicity, and expansion in the market and an appreciation of the company‟s publicity. The basic variance between social entrepreneurship and corporate social responsibility, therefore, lies in the fact that the latter does not give primacy to the social role although it integrates it (Bacq & Janseen, 2011). 2.3.2 Contrasting Non- Governmental Organisations and Social Entrepreneurship 38 University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh According to Parson and Hailes (2004), non-governmental organisations (NGOs) are “self- managed organisations that do not depend on government, operate with no profit motivation, and raise at least a portion of their revenue from donations. Simsa (2003) however, equate NGO to non-profit organisations (NPO) and therefore defines the term according to global empirical literature subject (Badelt, 1999; Salamon & Anheier, 1992), hence NGO or NPO refers to “entities that are seen as non-profit organizations if they have : (1) an institutional presence and structure, (2) private, i.e. institutionally separate from the state, (3) non-profit distributing, (4) self-governing, (5) voluntary, i.e. membership not legally required and they attract some level of voluntary contribution of time or money”. Meanwhile, Ichilov (2012) asserts that NGO embodies a network of interest groups that are deprived of formal representation, and are usually associated with goals that are philanthropic and not-for-profit in nature. Rose (2009) however argues that the activities of NGOs are always philanthropic but the motive of economic may be somehow included. NGOs are known to be corporations that are not part of the public or private sector, however, they aim to serve the interest of the society both on the local and global level (Schwenger, Straub, & Borzillo, 2014). The authors further pointed that NGOs serve as advocates with the focus on social, economic as well as political goals, furthermore, they seek to ensure equity in all aspects of human existence including health, education, protection of the environment and human rights protection. From the perspective of Smith and Nemetz (2009), NGOs form part of the three legs for solving societal challenges which have evolved over the past hundred years. Scholars such as Dees (2007), believe that that social entrepreneurship originated not as a result of weight swaying from government and back to charity but rather SE is a form on a non- 39 University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh governmental organisation that stress on the use of innovation, experimentation as well as flexibility in resolving social problems. Lard and Barres (2007) and Rauch (2007) postulate that the focus on social entrepreneurship is to create improvements which are sustainable. NGOs, on the other hand, are dependent on donors and as their propensity to be sustained is very uncertain. Social entrepreneurial ventures are differentiated from traditional not for profit enterprises or NGO in the way they seek varied forms of financing. Converse to NGO that solely depend on grants and donations in order to achieve their social goals, social enterprises rather employ profit-making activities to enable them to fund their social missions as also attain financial self- sufficiency (Austin et al., 2006; Thompson & Doherty, 2006). Researchers argue that an essential aspect of social entrepreneurship is it earned income or financial self-sufficiency as well as sustainability (Boschee, 2008). 2.4 Models of Social Enterprise An “organisation which pursues social missions or purposes that operate to create community benefit regardless of ownership or legal structure and with varying degrees of financial self- sufficiency, innovation and social transformation” is known as a social enterprise (Fayolle& Matlay, 2010, p.39). Kerlin (2009) postulate that a region‟s history can shape and influence the social entrepreneurial activity in a particular country. Social entrepreneurship as already noted is largely influenced by a country‟s social, political as well as economic contexts In this regard, the different organisational formations that have emerged are as a result of American (Social/business) and the European traditions ( co-operatives and NGOs), (Hoogendoorn, Pennings & Thurik, 2010). 40 University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh Again in comparing social enterprises in the United State and Europe Kerlin (2006) asserted that the subsequent kinds of social enterprises seem to be for appropriate the precise needs and institutional structures of each country and therefore in the United States, there are varieties of social enterprises. Defourny and Nyssens (2010) and Doherty et al. (2014) also added that social enterprises lie within the boundaries of private, public and non-profit sectors. Dees, Emerson and Economy (2002) in their view indicated that social enterprises can be separated and located on a diametrically divergent scale between enterprises which are purely philanthropic and those purely commercial while a hybrid model comes between the two extremes. Dees (1998), on the other hand posited that SE comprises of commercial entities with social purpose, for instance, “for-profit community development banks” and “hybrid organisations” which combines features of “not-for-profit” entities and “for-profit” elements, with examples including business that trains and employs homeless and also provides them with shelter. Hartigan (2006) using organisational structure and source of income as the basis of differentiation grouped social enterprises into not-profits, “hybrid not-for-profit” and “hybrid for-profit”. Hartigan‟s classification seems to be acknowledged by most practitioners since organisations like the Schwab Foundation have adopted it. In a quest to set the margins of SE, Abu- Saifan (2012) proposed that social entrepreneurs function with dual business strategies which are: “non-profit with earned income strategies and for-profit with mission-driven strategies,” where the former, in order to achieve self-sufficiency, performs hybrid social and commercial activities whereas, for the latter, the venture seeks to act 41 University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh as a societal business that performs social and commercial entrepreneurial events concurrently so as to achieve sustainability. Below is the model by Abu- Saifan (2012) Figure 2.1: A Framework Showing Social Entrepreneurship Boundaries Source: Adopted From Abu-Saifan (2012, p. 26) Abu-Saifan (2012) used this framework to expatiate on their proposed definition of social entrepreneurship in which boundaries were proposed to place social entrepreneurs properly in the range of entrepreneurs. The framework depicts the “non-profit with earned income strategies”, this he claims that refer to a social enterprise carrying out hybrid social and commercial activities so as to ensure self-sufficiency, this is done through using revenues and profits generated to advance social value delivery. Further mores Abu- Saifan (2012) postulated that with “for-profit with mission-driven strategies,” the social entrepreneur runs an organisation which is both social 42 University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh and commercial as such the entity is independent financially and thus the founders, as well as investors, can have access to monetary gain. 2.4.1 For-Profit Social Enterprises Social entrepreneurial entities as already highlighted in extant literature are recognised highly for providing a positive impact on the socio-economic development of any economy (Doherty et al., 2009; Galera & Borzaga, 2009). Based on this fact, Blundel and Lyon (2015) pointed out that the attention of policy makers especially in the United Kingdom have been drawn to the activities of social enterprises. He further asserted that governments all throughout the world are considering the propensity of social entrepreneurial ventures as “alternative vehicles for service delivery” and hence it is important for social enterprises to be motivated to nurture and increase in numbers and in scale so as to prefer solutions to social, economic and environmental concerns (Jenner, 2016). On the basis of this, Defourny and Nyssens (2010) and Peattie and Morley (2008) assert in order to reduce direct funding from governments, new ways are being sought after by these social entrepreneurial ventures. Social ventures are therefore increasingly resorting to commercial activities for their sustainability (Boschee, 2008; Chell, 2007; Dees, 1998). Scholars such Dees and Anderson (2003), Diochon and Anderson, (2009) and Mair and Marti (2006) therefore argues that the search for a more innovative, cost-effective as well a sustainable way of attending to social problems culminates in the idea of for-profit social entrepreneurship. According to Dees and Anderson (2003), “for-profit social ventures” are entrepreneurial organisations that are legally incorporated as for-profit entities, with one or more owners who can exercise control over the 43 University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh business and have an entitlement to its residual earnings as well as net profits. Yunus (2007), pointed that out it is necessary for these enterprises to move beyond using business models dependant on grants and grounded on “cost covering” philosophy to a model that identifies a requisite for “more than full cost recovery”. In this direction, therefore, Kupolokun (2015) together with Wilson and Post (2013) asserted that profitability is regular with social entrepreneurship. Therefore accepting the need for using business focused strategies that deliver surplus can further ensure the sustained provision of social impact and the provision of positive social impact (Doherty, Haugh & Lyon, 2014); Hynes, 2009). In their seminal work on for-profit social enterprises, Dees and Anderson (2003) highlighted on their potential benefits and grouped these benefits into five, namely: “promoting efficiency and innovation”, “leveraging scarce public and philanthropic resources”, “responding quickly to demand”, “improving access to skilled personnel”. These benefits notwithstanding, the authors further emphasised on the challenges associated with joining social purpose with a profit motive, and also the complexities likely to come out of combining two diverse quite contradictory as objectives and also not forgetting the probable pressures to compromise on one or both intentions. On particular mention is the issue of distrust and eventual disputes with stakeholders arising out of the unavailability of a clear and consistent scale for measuring social impact. In addition to these challenges, there is also the difficulty to build an integrated organisation which results in the difficulty in achieving organisation development. In all the likely challenges as outlined by Dees and Anderson (2003) are “social and political pressures to compromise on financial performance and “market pressures to compromise on social value creation. In addition, strategies were proposed by these authors as to how to deal with these potential challenges, 44 University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh hence they indicated that in order to run a for-profit social enterprise successfully, it is important that ambiguity regarding mission is avoided, again the venture should have a well-crafted and compelling model. Furthermore it is expedient for performance to be measured and assumptions well tested, in addition, the maintenance of sympathetic hands should be in control, and finally, investment needs to be made in energy and time so as to ensure a team which is committed to the venture. In conclusion, if social entrepreneurs withstand and remain firm regarding their central social and economic goals, they can be flexible and make adjustments in their strategies so as to achieve their objectives as they learn alongside. 2.5 Issues Affecting Social Entrepreneurship: A Global Perspective Entrepreneurial ventures in Africa as indicated in a report by UNDP (2013) suffer the challenges of; “market research firms”, “credit bureaus”, “value chain facilitators”, as well as “incubators, and venture capital firms”. Additionally, the report indicated that a frail governing environment and legal structures have resulted in laborious, unreliable and possibly regulations which are not strict enough. Amoako and Lyon (2014) pointed out a detailed account of damaging outlooks entrepreneurs have of the legal system in Ghana. These authors claimed that entrepreneurs have to rely on relationships and trust to overcome challenges and access resources instead of structured systems. Smith and Darko (2014) upon accessing the numerous constraints entrepreneurs go through, concluded that running a conventional business is demanding, then running a social enterprise is even harder. Gupta, Beninger, and Ganesh (2015) admitted that handling extensive social issues, such as health and food insecurity issues among the several social issues tackled by social entrepreneurs are really an overwhelming task. 45 University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh In an article by Goyal, Sergi and Jaiswal (2016) in which they undertook a field study of social entrepreneurship oriented organisations in India, the authors identified multi-dimensional challenges that occur through the life cycle of the organization of the ventures from inception through the growth phase. These authors further assert that multiple challenges are encountered by social entrepreneurs deciding on the target needs at the base of the pyramid as well as well as deciding on the choice of value offerings to address their needs. Challenges pertaining to the environment culture were also identified as well as issues relating to competition from the informal market economy and finally, the challenge pertains to the design of affordable, available and accessible solutions. Evidence from literature shows that one major challenge faced by social entrepreneurs is the “ethical dilemma” in sustaining the equity that is supposed to exist between the social mission and monetary returns for the stakeholders (Austin et al., 2007; Tracey & Philips, 2007; Wilson & Post, 2013; Zahra et al., 2009 ). These authors may be right in several instances since the basic motive for setting up ventures is profit motivated. In a similar vein, André and Pache (2016), drawing from the resource dependence theory argued that given the resource constraints environment that social entrepreneurs operate in, the temptation to shift focus to shift focus from serving the under-privileged beneficiaries to the stakeholder‟s demands since which they depend on them for their vital resources. Mair and Marti (2006) also identified problems related to the measurement of social impact, the author, therefore, emphasised on the difficulty in quantifying the impact given the dual objectives and the intricacy of measuring mission-related outcomes. Marshall (2011) further 46 University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh identified cultural and language differences, geographical distance as well as economic and educational disparities being likely to thwart the management of limited resources Laratta, Nakagawa and Sakuri (2011) in analysing Japanese social enterprise identified two key challenges that occur in that jurisdiction namely; the regulatory system and financial viability. They observed that the lack of a definite legal structure for social enterprise make it challenging for the concept to become popular in the country, added to this, is the absence of policies supportive of social enterprise by the government which has resulted in the difficulty in accessing finances. Legal restrictions together with inadequate information on social enterprises also create limitations for social entrepreneurs in Australia too (Barraket, Collyer, Connor & Anderson, 2010; Kernot & McNeil, 2011). 2.6 Explaining Social value and Impact Assessment Entrepreneurs try to create value in whatever business they do since it is their stock in trade (Nicholls, 2008). Dees (1998) states that in business, when customers are ready to pay for a product more than its cost, then it is believed that value is created. Commercial entrepreneurs have well conventional methods for determining how much value they make (Nicholls, 2008) and firms who are able to generate a value which is most economic invariable have the financial wits to entice the most required resources for development (Dees, 1998). In a sharp contrast, social entrepreneurs create social value (Nicholls, 2008), however, it is fundamentally difficult to measure since its calculations are contentious and hard (Dees, 1998). In effect, as asserted by Abu-Saifan (2012), social value creation is the ultimate goal tied to 47 University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh social entrepreneurship whilst their strategies to create revenue- are designed to assist that mission. Social entrepreneurs together with their venture-capital-like investors aims at using business principles and practices also hope to accomplish positive long-term, large-scale, sustainable goals (Volkmann, Tokarski &Ernst, 2012), however if they are to continue growing and achieve sustainable impact then, there is the need to show their relevance through their social impact (Mair & Marti, 2006; McLoughlin et al., 2009) . One of the greatest limitations to social entrepreneurship practitioners and researchers is assessing social performance and impact (Mair & Marti, 2006). The measurement per se is not the real problem but rather how to quantify the performance and social impact (Ebrahim & Rangan, 2010; Mair & Marti, 2006). In recent years, however, the pressure for social entrepreneurs to demonstrate their social impact for the proper monitoring of their resources acquisition, mission reinforcement, and general stakeholder accountability is mounting up (Arvidson & Lyon, 2014; Pathak & Dattani, 2014). According to Costa and Pesci, (2016), the debate regarding the issue of “accountability mechanism of SEs” has changed to the “mantra” of social impact and social impact measurement, drawing further focus from both practitioners and the academia (Ebrahim & Rangan, 2010). Increasing importance has been placed on the measurement of social impact for creating organizational legitimacy and trust (Luke, Barraket & Eversole, 2013). In recounting the benefits of measuring social impact, Lyon and Arvidson (2011) postulated that it would ensure increased accountability, transparency, support and meaning to the process of making decisions and also the visibility of organization and legitimacy (Haski-Leventhal & Mehra, 2016). In addition, measuring performance would assist in monitoring interventions and approaches as well as results (Volkmann et al., 2012) 48 University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh Social impact or mission-related impact refers to the changes to one or more of the following “people‟s way of life, their culture, community, political systems, health and wellbeing, personal property and rights and their rights as well as fears and aspirations” (Dees, 1998; Vanclay, 2003, p.2),which have been affected by creation by a social venture (Volkmann et al., 2012). Extensive difference exists measuring social entrepreneurship; for instance, an array of measurements exist from the qualitative assessment: including types of innovation, opportunity with community objectives, implementing strategies as well as more easily measurable targets which includes more easily quantifiable targets (Short et al., 2009; Volkmann et al., 2012). Meanwhile, Nicholls (2008) argues that there are three important questions are necessary to ask when doing impact assessment; these are: what is being measured and reported; how do they measure it and why and what is the purpose of measurement and reporting? Volkmann et al. (2012), further posit that these approaches for measuring impact include: tools that assess performance based on fixed indicators as well as “Impact Value Chain methods”. Nicholls, Lawlor, Neitzert & Goodspeed (2009), on the other hand, suggest that measurement of social impact should be based on accountancy and classical cost-benefit analysis and therefore he prefers that a principles-based framework in the form of “Social Return on Investment (SROI) which is used in extra-financial value measured should be considered. Challenges and difficulties, however, abound in an attempt to measure, interpret and communicate social impact performance; it is of necessity that a system of indicators is developed for the social entrepreneurship field since it will be useful to both academics and practitioners. (Volkmann et al., 2012). 49 University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh Brooks (2009) also agree that as a result of their “double bottom line”, measuring of social impact is not straightforward. He further asserts the ability to measure social value will serve the interest of social enterprises in order to verify the general effectiveness of these organisations. Four main components are involved the measuring of social impact, these are accountability, evaluation, outcomes, and effectiveness, he proposed a model for measurement in a social impact, which incorporates inputs, activities, outputs as well as outcomes and impacts. 2.7 Explaining Resources In the entrepreneurship process, Penrose (1959) asserts that resources are part of the critical sub- elements hence the vital role played by resources in the advancement of any entrepreneurial venture cannot be underscored (Desa & Basu, 2013). It‟s been argued by Schumpeter (1942) that organisations that possess rich resources have the potential of surviving environmental turbulence Resources according to Barney (1991), is broadly defined to include “all assets, capabilities, organisational processes, firm attributes, information, knowledge, etc. controlled by the firm that enable the firm to conceive of and implement strategies that improve its efficiency and effectiveness” (1991, p. 101). Evidence from the literature shows the various forms of resources used by firms and all entrepreneurial ventures. Earlier time authors such as Wernerfelt (1984), classifies resources into technological skills, brand names trade contact, capital as well as efficient procedures or employment of skilled personnel. Authors such as Galbreath (2005) and Saunila and Ukko (2014) assert that resources can either be grouped intangible for instance finances, materials and employees or intangible that is skills and capabilities. Also, resources are distinguished between 50 University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh classes, such as human, financial, or physical (Rangone, 1999). Tangible resources as indicated by Barney (1991) include financial, physical human capital and organisation resources. With regard to financial resources, access to funding and financial opportunities are included. The author further explained that physical technology used in a firm is what represents physical capital resources. Human capital resources, however, comprise of training, intelligence, experience judgment, relationships as well as insights of individual managers and workers in a firm. In addition to these resources are organisational capital resources comprising of a firm‟s formal reporting structure, informal planning, controlling and coordinating systems and also relations existing between groups within the firms and those within its environment which are not informal. On the other hand, intangible resources according to Grant (1991) comprises of values and leadership, organisational styles, added to these are intellectual property rights, contracts, reputation, trade secrets, knowledge and culture (Hall, 1992). According to Madhavaram and Hunt (2008), resources are made of basic resources and higher-order resources, higher-order resources involve a combination of both tangible and intangible basic resources that link that link together in a coherent manner to ensure that organisations meet their core objectives. Meanwhile, Evans, Joas, Sundback and Theobald (2006) argue that they are also known as competencies or capabilities and these are subset of resources. In effect money, experts, specialised knowledge, reputation, and trust are all resources and competencies whether they are categorised as basic or second-order (Barrutia &Echebarria, 2015). For this study, inferring from the works of Roy and Karna (2015), resources will be grouped into four main types, managerial resources, corporate sources, as well as the founder‟s network and reputation. These authors agree that managerial resources mostly in the form of human capital 51 University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh assist in shaping the business model by ensuring the optimum utilization of all other resources. The corporate resources on the other hand help to create an ecosystem for the success of social enterprises. Reputation is an essential resource in that it assists in smooth engagement with all other stakeholders. The social entrepreneur‟s network is also an important resource in that it mostly drives the choice of market and geographies to be served and in effect aid in overcoming any socio-cultural constraints that impede the progress of any social enterprise. 2.7.1 Social entrepreneurship and Resource Mobilisation Enterprises of all kinds need to strategically marshal resources which show in the form of valuable assets and resources in order in order to be able to perform effectively (Barney, 1991, Jenner, 2016). Acquiring resources which may tangible or intangible (Barney, 1991) is critical to the success of any venture and their long-term sustainability (Katz & Gartner, 1988). Likewise in the operation of social enterprises, securing the essential resources to create the required social impact is very important (Hynes, 2009). Social entrepreneurial organisations, in their efforts to gather the needed resources, have to encounter enormous challenges mainly because of the vision which mostly involves a “double bottom” and sometimes a “triple bottom” (Desa & Basu, 2013). For instance, Mendell and Nogales (2009) postulate that acquiring funding is a foremost issue for social enterprises. This claim has further being collaborated by authors such as Di Domenico et al. (2010) as well Mair and Marti, (2006) who assert that social entrepreneurs are more challenged in their efforts to acquire resources than commercial entrepreneurs in that most social enterprises are located in environment characterised by limited infrastructure as well as market failure. In developing 52 University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh economies, for instance, social enterprise is faced with resource-limited environments accompanied by weak financial institutions (Desa, 2008; Seelos & Mair, 2005; Zahra et al., 2008), Even in the developed regions, authors acknowledge the difficulty encountered by social entrepreneurs in resources mobilisation as a result of ambiguity with financial returns and social mission (Austin et al., 2006; Desa & Basu, 2013). According to Doherty et al (2009) and Ridley-Duff and Bull (2011), social enterprises are mostly “necessity multi-resource organisation” which means that the search for resources from several sources including earned income, government grants and philanthropic sources, volunteers as well as donations (Young & Grinsfelder, 2011). In a sharp contrast, Barraket et al. (2010) argues that social enterprises rely principally on their earned income gained from their core trading activities, and also these enterprise desire to expand their trading income as the evolve so as to elude their reliance on grants or other development loans (Bull & Crompton, 2006; Sunley & Pinch, 2012). The acquisition of other relevant resources as managerial resources, physical assets and another intangible resource such as reputation especially during the initial stages of social enterprises according to extant literature can be challenging (Haugh, 2009, Meysken et al., 2010; Roy & Karna, 2015). According to Roy and Karna (2015), for social enterprises especially in their formative stages, the integrity exhibited by the founder is of utmost importance in building the right reputation of the organisation. He further argues that reputation serves as critical resources in that it assist in having a smooth engagement with the organisations stakeholders such as regulators, beneficiaries and others. The capacity to source the required human resource though 53 University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh very necessary seem very problematic for social enterprises as a result of salary as well as career development issues (Desa & Basu, 2013) as a result most social enterprises rely ,mostly on labour from volunteer (Doherty et al. 2009; Hynes, 2009). Meanwhile such needs to be curtailed since it does not represent a sustainable strategy for social enterprises (Hynes, 2009). An important resource required by all enterprises is entrepreneurial networks (Starr & MacMillan, 1990). For the success of small businesses, entrepreneurial networks are well acknowledged for their provision of critical information, resources as well as innovation (Shaw, 1998). Relational resources are mostly hard to imitate and as such form a formidable basis for the sustainable competitive advantage and also generate extensive value for organisations (Gulati, 1999). In social enterprises, an essential resource to their success is the networks and relationships available to the social entrepreneur (Dacin et al., 2010; Roy & Karna, 2015; Shaw & Carter, 2007). These relationships and networks mostly become influential in the operation of social enterprises as a result of their provision of resources in the form of collaborative partnerships, innovative ideas, capacity development, as well as providing diverse income streams (Meyskens et al., 2010; Sharir, Lerner & Yitshaki, 2009; Shaw & Carter, 2007). According to authors such as Di Domenico et al. (2010) and Desa (2012), social entrepreneurial organisations need to make use of concepts such as bricolage and optimisation in their acquisition of resources considering the fact the SE has a positive correlation with penurious environments. According to them, in applying the concept of bricolage. Social entrepreneurs need to ensure that they “make do” with their available resources, also “refuse to be constrained by limitations” as well as “improvise” (Di Domenico et al., 2010; Desa & Basu, 2013). 54 University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh 2.8 Theoretical Foundations for the Study The theoretical foundation of this study is based on the Resource Based View (RBV) Theory and the adoption of this theory has been necessitated by the fact it has become important in entrepreneurship and firms resource acquisition research which is similar to the objectives of this study (Desa & Basu, 2013; Meyskens et al., 2010; Roy & Karna, 2015). 2.8.1 The Resource-Based View Theory The Resource-Based View theory has its roots in strategic management but has become popular in the adjacent and complementary field such as marketing, human resource, and entrepreneurship (Hitt, Xu, & Carnes, 2016). According to Penrose (1959) and Wernerfelt (1984), the RBV theory propounds that a firm is a collection of resources. Building on the works of Penrose (1959), Barney (1991) upon using the RBV to study a firm‟s internal strength and weakness indicated that the theory rests on two fundamental assumptions; the firm is considered as a package of productive resources and that different bundles of resources are possessed by different firms (Ferreira, Azevedo & Oritiz, 2011). Wernerfelt (1984) claims further that, the resource-based view is used as a tool to analyse an organisation‟s resource position as well as to study the relationship between profitability and resources. Added to this, the proponents of the RBV further posit that the theory offers a substitute view in exploring how firms strive to grow despite the limitations of the resource (Penrose, 1959; Wernerfelt, 1984). Barney (1991) in adding to this view used the RBV to define an organisation‟s resources as assets, attributes, knowledge, and capabilities, whereas Grant (1991) grouped resources into these features: human, physical, technological and capital. Both researchers however used RBV theory as a board to predict and clarify the reason for some organisation‟s competitive advantage and ability to earn a 55 University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh superior profit, although both researchers identified different features as main components of the RBV. Barney (1991) proposed a theoretical model in order to understand sources of competitive advantage with regard to a firms resources, the model consists of four main must-have attributes for a firm‟s resources in order to have sustained competitive advantage, these are: valuable, rare, non-imitable and unable to substitutes. For resources to be valuable, Barney (1991) assets that those resources should assist a firm to develop strategies which will ensure the firm‟s efficiency and effectiveness, moreover for resources to have an attribute of rarity, it means that those resources should be unique and not used simultaneously by other organisations. Barney (1991) maintains further that valuable and rare resources serve to provide a competitive advantage, thence if a firm does not possess them, they cannot by any means obtain them. Finally, in order for sustained competitive advantage to be gained, there must be no deliberately comparable valuable resources that are themselves either not rare or imitable. In applying the RBV to the SE concept, Desa and Basu (2013) argue that for social entrepreneurs achieving competitive advantage over rivals is not a primary concern, however the ability to create strong competencies that aids in serving their target market effectively is most necessary. Using the resource-based view theory to understand social entrepreneurship, Meyskens et al. (2010) believes it is appropriate in that this theory serves as a means to better understand social enterprises resource acquisition process and he asserts further that the theory takes into consideration inputs and resources, but not purely the characteristics of performance such as outcome. Furthermore, these author argues that social enterprises are acknowledged as 56 University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh competitive organisations whose ability to attain their goals and create social value is impacted by being able to combine and convert acquired resources. In view of this, using the RBV offers an option for firms to explore ways of thriving in resource scare environment (Desa & Basu, 2015; Meyskens et al., 2010). The RBV theory despite being well acknowledged has its own limitations, for instance, Newbert (2007) stresses on the unchangeable nature of the link that exists between resources and competitive advantage. Further criticism emanated from scholars such as Makadok (2001), Priem and Butler, (2001) as well as Teece, Pisano, and Shuen (1997) who pointed out that it is not adequate to use strategic resources to gain competitive advantage. Of more importance, is the firm‟s capability in organising and distributing these resources so as to maximise productivity (Newbert, 2007). To counter this criticism, Barney (1991; 2001) did a review of the RBV and suggested that in addition to owning valuable, rare, inimitable and non-substitutable resource base, it is imperative that the firm is organised such that it is able to take full advantage of its resources so as to obtain a competitive advantage. In essence, the basic principle of the upgraded aspect of the RBV,known as the “VRIO” framework postulates that to achieve sustainable competitive advantage, it is required that the firm possess strategic resources together with firm- specific capabilities that and effectively exploit these resources to create value for the firm (Markides & Williamson, 1996). This dramatic evolution of RBV paved the way for the study of dynamic capabilities and their impact on firm performance. Dynamic capabilities include the firm's ability to integrate, build and reconfigure internal and external competencies to address rapidly changing environments (Teece et al., 1997). 57 University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh CHAPTER THREE CONTEXT OF THE STUDY 3.0 Chapter Overview This chapter gives information on the study area so as to put the study in an appropriate context. The first section discusses some general issues concerning Ghana. The chapter starts with a brief review of the profile of Ghana and Accra emphasising on the landscape, demographics as well as its socio-economic development. The remaining sections focus on social entrepreneurship development in Ghana with particular emphasis on supporting agencies. 3.1 Overview of Ghana Within the African continent, Ghana finds itself located in the western part and is bounded by Togo on the East, Cote D‟Ivoire on the west, further to the North by Burkina Faso whilst the Atlantic Ocean bounds the region to the South. Covering an area of area of 238, 537 kilometres square, Ghana‟s population is estimated to be 26.3 million, the Ashanti and Greater Accra regions are considered as the most inhabited regions having a percentage of 19.4 percent and 16.3 percent and further with a growth rate of 3.4 percent and 4.4percent respectively (Ghana Statistical Service, 2015). According to the Ghana Living Standard survey 6 reports piloted by the Ghana Statistical Service (GSS, 2015 ), the Ghanaian economy reached a lower-middle income status during in 2010 and therefore attained goal one of the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) ahead of the target year of 2015 (GSS, 2015). In spite of this attainment, about 24.2 percent of the population is deemed to be living below the national poverty, this implies that about 24.2 percent 58 University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh of Ghanaians totalling about 6.4million cannot manage to spend GHS3.60 on food a day, added to this is the fact that about 8.4 percent of Ghanaians based mostly in the rural areas live in extreme poverty inferring their inability to expend more than GHS2.17 on food in a day. Poverty in the Northern, Upper East, and Upper West regions linger at the highest rate when it comes to the regional level. This further indicates that income disparities between northern and southern Ghana cannot be overlooked in Ghana, this is well evident in the nature of infrastructure, civil society, and acute poverty as well as food insecurity (Al-Hassan & Diao, 2007).It is disappointing to note that despite the country‟s economic growth over the last two decades or so, the impact on the country‟s key social arena has not been enough. 3.1.1 Overview and Social-Economic Outlook of Greater Accra. Greater Accra which is the capital of Ghana has the smallest land surface of about 3,245 square kilometers, however, the region has the second largest population of about 4,010,054 representing 15.4% of the country‟s total population. Greater Accra is well acknowledged for its youthful age structure, accompanied by a high rate of fertility. This indicates that that the region is largely densely populated with 1,236 persons occupying a square kilometer (Ghana Statistical Service, 2010). By virtue of it being the capital city, the region is over-populated as result of constant rural-urban migration. There is, therefore, persistent pressure on the limited social facilities such as schools, hospitals among others in the region. Meanwhile, this rural-urban migration has also lead to a large number of low-income earners emerging in the region. The region also has a large community of urban poor; these communities include Nima, Sodom, and Gomorrah, Korle-Gorno, Madina. People within these communities find it difficult to afford basic necessities of life, hence the services of social entrepreneurs are required to help solve the 59 University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh numerous socio-economic challenges faced by these people. It is further estimated that the population within these communities have about three million people, with an average household of 4 people; in addition, about 31% of them have not been to school and for their health requirements mostly depend on the national health insurance scheme (GSS, 2008). According to GSS (2010) of the economically active population in the region, 92.2% of the population in Accra are employed, whilst 7.8% are unemployed. Meanwhile, records from the 2015 Ghana Labour Force survey estimates that out of the 12% of the labour force who are unemployed about two-fifths of that proportion is located within the Ashanti a and the Greater Accra region (21.3%) (GSS, 2016). Within the region, a major proportion estimated to be about 35.6% of employed persons, work as sales workers and also within the services sector. In terms of education and health, Greater Accra can boast of adequate academic and health facilities. It is however estimated that of every ten people who are six years old, one of them has never been to school (GSS, 2010). In addition, 10.7% of persons aged eleven years or older is not literate in any language, however, about 34.9% of the people are literate in English. In terms of health, ISSER (2015) reveals that in spite of the numerous efforts made by the government to prioritise the healthcare sector, access and social inequalities dominate the sector mostly at the regional level. Most healthcare resources are focused in the Greater Accra region, especially Accra and Tema metropolitan areas. It is estimated that there are hospitals within all communities within Accra, furthermore, over 50% of doctors live and work with the region (GSS, 2010). 60 University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh A vast majority of Greater Accra‟s population lives in compound houses with its accompanied overpopulation issues. Water and sanitation issues abound in the region; about half of household have their solid waste being collected, whilst about 25.7% use public container dump and 8.4% use public open space. There also persist indiscriminate disposal of rubbish which eventually leads to the outbreak of diseases, such as cholera. In the Greater Accra region, some major areas prone to cholera include Chorkor and Agbogbloshie market area. 3.2 Overview of Entrepreneurship in Ghana In Ghana, entrepreneurship even before the colonisation of the country had been part of the country (Sheriff & Muffatto, 2015), it is believed that there was the establishment of trade routes with a flourishing trade ongoing between the coastal areas and the hinterland, however during the colonial era, the entrepreneurial zeal was diminished (Austin, 2010). Generally, in Ghana, an entrepreneur handles virtually all the roles of firm management that is from being the general manager, accountant as well as public relations among others (Robson, Haugh, & Obeng, 2009). According to Buame (2012), entrepreneurs are from diverse backgrounds, have a varied orientation with some born with rich resources, some into poverty also from both rural and urban areas. He postulates further that all these entrepreneurs apply the principles of innovation, creativity as well as alertness to opportunity through the recognition of opportunities. Mostly in Ghana, a large proportion of entrepreneurs is engaged in trading, handicrafts, and artisanship. Additionally, entrepreneurs and entrepreneurial activities manifest differently, Buame (2012) argues that in Ghana, there are: “survival entrepreneurs”, “lifestyle entrepreneurs”, “growth entrepreneurs” as well as “serial entrepreneurs”. In addition, based on numerous categories such 61 University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh as level of operation, funding source, motivation, type of business, entrepreneurs are further grouped in to “peasant entrepreneurs”, “ makola entrepreneurs”, “sleeping entrepreneurs”, also “remote control entrepreneurs”, “portfolio entrepreneurs”, “appendage entrepreneurs” and finally “new generation entrepreneurs” (Buame, 2012). In Ghana, Abor and Quartey (2010) argues that most entrepreneurs are into small enterprises which features mostly in the production landscape providing averagely 85% of employment, contributing about 70% to Ghana‟s GDP as well as representing about 92% of businesses (Abor & Quartey, 2010). 3.3 Social Entrepreneurship in Ghana Social entrepreneurship as indicated in the previous page has no consensus with regards to its definition. In Ghana, just the rest of the world, the concept has no definite definition. The concept is relatively new and as such not really known. Until recently the concept was not even taught in our tertiary institutions. It is pertinent that the definition of the concept is situated to be aligned with the Ghanaian context. Therefore at the Draft Ghana Social Enterprise Policy meeting recently, the team proposed a definition of social enterprise “as an organization that applies commercial strategies to maximize improvements in social and environmental goals. The focus of the organisation could be more geared towards social and environmental impact than profits for external shareholders. In Ghana, social enterprises can be structured as for-profit or non-profit” (Ministry of Trade and Industry [MOTI], 2016). 62 University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh 3.4 Supporting Agencies There are institutions responsible for the development of the SE sector in Ghana, below are some of them. 3.4.1 The Ministry Of Trade and Industry (MOTI) The ministry has the sole obligation of formulating, implementing and monitoring Ghana‟s internal and external trade as well as creating policy direction for businesses 3.4.2 Social Enterprise Ghana In a quest to get an organized body that that would see to the welfare of social entrepreneurs in Ghana, a group of like-minded individuals with innovative and effective solutions to society‟s most pressing social problems, came together to form an association known as “Social Enterprise Ghana”. The meeting was summoned by Co-founders Amma Sefa-Dedeh Lartey of Reach for Change and William Senyo of Impact HuB. Ghana was born in December 2015 and was formally launched in February 2016 (Social enterprise Ghana, n. d.). The association was therefore made up of like-minded social entrepreneurs and other organisation including; Reach for Change, the British Council, Impact Hub, Growth Mosaic, TEDxAccra, mPedigree, TANOE, Street Library, Challenging Heights, Ashesi University, AACT, Nneka Foundation, Farmable, CRESSENT, InnoHuB, phinklife, Kokroko foundation, GEW and Center for Social Innovation. The association currently has a membership of about 120.SE Ghana as an association seeks to establish and come out with a strong ecosystem for social enterprises through increased funding, pushing for the policy document of social 63 University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh entrepreneurship, strengthening learning and innovation and finally ensuring that the sector has enough research and data. Added to this, the association through its initiatives gather social entrepreneurs all over the country and through it support each other, share innovative ideas and further fight for their shared interest and create more awareness of the social entrepreneurship concept. SE Ghana has four action groups to drive learning and innovation, funding, policy change and research on social enterprise. 3.4.3 British Council In effort to provide to provide training, business consulting and mentoring, access to funding and investment opportunities and event as well as networking opportunities to social entrepreneurs, the British council in effort to share learning and lessons operates a supporting role and therefore operates social enterprises across Europe, South and East Asia as well as Africa (British Council, 2016). With a well-developed social enterprise model in the United Kingdom, the British council can share its best practice experience to the new social entrepreneurship ecosystem in Ghana (Darko & Koranteng, 2015). 3.5 Policy Environment of Social Enterprise in Ghana Social entrepreneurship is a new concept in the Ghanaian environment and currently there is no legislation directly supporting social enterprise. Recently, however, the Ministry of Trade and Industry in collaboration with other stakeholders are in consultations on drafting a policy for social enterprises known as Ghana Social Enterprise Policy (GSEP). This comes as a result of the government quest to fulfill his promise of ensuring the growth of social enterprises, this they believe would have a positive impact on livelihood, especially on the youth. In essence, the 64 University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh policy will serve as a compliment for Ghana‟s Second Medium-Term Private Sector Development Strategy (PSDS II, 2012-2017) as well as other strategies and development programs aimed at boosting the county‟s private sector. The policy when in full place is expected to become the principal driver of innovation, increase productivity, income increment and subsequent improvement of livelihoods of the entrepreneurs and their employees. Furthermore, it is expected that a regulatory and legal environment will be created to develop the sector In conclusion, it is anticipated, the policy once is established, will particular pay attention to the areas where social entrepreneurs are already making impact, that is: economic empowerment and financial inclusion, agriculture, agriculture, sustainable energy as well as education and health (MOTI, 2016). 3.6 Importance of Social Entrepreneurship to Ghana Development It is important to note that the role of social entrepreneurs is a crucial role in reaching the UN‟s sustainable development goals (Social enterprise Ghana, n. d). Social entrepreneurship contribution is increasingly being celebrated and was evident during the 2006 World Economic Forum Conference on Africa in Cape Town (World Economic Forum, 2006). The contributions of social entrepreneurship in Ghana have been obvious in the areas of unemployment, education, health. According to Agyemang-Togobo et al. (2016), about 103,148 people have been supported through social entrepreneurship. They further indicated that the contribution of social entrepreneurship to unemployment is seen in their creation of about 958 jobs. 65 University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh CHAPTER FOUR RESEARCH METHODOLOGY 4.0 Introduction This chapter is about the method used for this study and it includes research paradigm adopted for the study, the approach used for the research, research design, and data sources and sampling design, which includes the sampling technique, sample population, sampling size and eligibility criteria. Also included are the instruments used in the collection of data, data analysis method finally concludes with ethical issues. 4.1 Research Paradigm A paradigm according to Kuhn (1970) is made of techniques, values, beliefs that people of a specific scientific community share and they are guided in terms of the specific problems that need to be addressed. Boateng (2014) upon inferring from existing literature outlined the various paradigms as follow: interpretivism, positivism, realism, relativism and critical realism and they reveal the major theoretical directions in social science research. He further emphasised that several and varied taxonomies exist to differentiate these paradigms. In addition, these paradigms have its own category of epistemological, ontological and methodological assumptions used for their differentiation (Creswell, 2009). Reasoning from the research objectives of the study, the researcher considers it necessary to follow the interpretivism paradigm so as to use the experiences of social entrepreneurs to examine the concept of social entrepreneurship resource management in Ghana. Philosophers of this worldview believe that multiple realities exist subject to individual experiences and their 66 University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh interpretations (Boateng, 2014). In other words, the interpretivism paradigm believes in the capability of observing and recognising the world from the subject‟s viewpoint. In essence, complexities of this world demand the maintenance of a good insight and as such the complexity need not be lowered absolutely to generalisations all the time (Cooper & Schindler, 2003). 4.2 Research Approach Generally, two main research approaches are known, these are qualitative and quantitative. Creswell (2009) advances that there is a third method which combines these two types which is known as the mixed method. He, therefore, outlines three main approaches: “qualitative, quantitative and mixed methods” and adds that these approaches are not as disconnected as perceived. Authors such as Cassell and Symon (2006) believe that these approaches are not in any form of competition since each has their merits and demerits. This assertion has further been collaborated by Creswell (2009) who hold the view that each approach is used in situations when it is most appropriate. Neuman (2007) expresses a similar view and therefore believes that the choice of a specific approach of research used should be based on the research purpose, as well as the method that would enable the researcher to come out with the best and most precise appreciation of the issue under study. In the view of Bryman and Bell (2007), quantitative research is deductive whereas qualitative research is inductive with regards to views on the relationship between research and theory. 4.2.1 Qualitative and Quantitative Research According to Creswell (2009), “qualitative research is a means for exploring and understanding the meaning individuals or groups ascribe to a social or human problem (p.4). To Morgan & 67 University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh Smircich, (1980, p.491),” qualitative research is an approach rather than a particular set of techniques and it appropriateness derives from the nature of the social phenomena to be explored”. In qualitative research according to Hogg and Maclaran (2008), knowledge is gained within context-specific stance on the studies phenomena, and further subjective to participant‟s interpretations, reference frames as well as representation of societal experiences. 4.2.1.1 Quantitative Approach Quantitative research is an approach used to conduct research whereby natural science is applied and data is quantified through the application of statistical analysis (Bryman, 1984; Bryman & Bell, 2007). According to Tull and Hawkings (1990) in quantitative research, a large sample size of data is obtained and finalised and eventually analysed statically and further objective theories are tested through the examination of the relationship among variables Creswell, 2009). The advantage of using quantitative approach lies in its ability to show empirical results in the form of numbers and statistics through establishing relationships that exists between facets of the phenomenon (Boateng, 2014). Kothari (2004), in a sharp contrast, argues that mere quantification without understanding the fundamentals will lead to errors in the final results. This assertion has further been collaborated by Creswell (2009), who postulates that though quantitative research provides relationships information, it is unable to provide information on the reactions of people, their deeper thoughts as well as the conduct that influenced their responses. 68 University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh 4.2.1.2 Qualitative Approach Qualitative research is exploratory, hence for a phenomenon that needs to be well comprehended, it calls for the use of this approach (Creswell,2009).Qualitative research is noted for the fact that it seeks depth rather than breadth, hence researchers who favour this approach do not draw from a large, representative sample of an entire population but rather acquire from a smaller group of persons in-depth and intimate information. Again, this approach of research aims at exploring the behaviour, thoughts of people rather than what a large scale of people do or believe (Bryman, 1988). Using qualitative approach, McGivern (2006) believes allows the researcher to gain rich and comprehensive description as well as the insight of a phenomenon as opposed to measurement in the quantitative study. On the basis of the above-mentioned reasons, the researcher deemed it suitable to use a qualitative approach. Social entrepreneurship being a new phenomenon is currently at an exploratory stage hence the justification for using the qualitative approach for this study. Authors such as Zikmud and Babin,(2010) recommends that in studying issues which have scanty information available and needs to be explored using a qualitative approach is the most suitable. Furthermore, the researcher choice of qualitative approach will allow the researcher to use the research findings and come out with constructs, themes, and explanations which are appropriate. In an effort to examine social entrepreneurship in Ghana, using qualitative approach confirms with Eldabi, Irani, Paul and Love (2002) who believes that understanding the study context demands an in- depth information of the research setting. Another justification was that most researchers who used the resource-based view theory for social entrepreneurship research employed the qualitative approach (Mair & Schoen, 2007; Kannampuzha & Suoranta, 2016; Roy & Karna, 69 University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh 2015). It stands to reason that this approach would allow the researcher to have the chance of feeling the participant‟s experience for a proper appreciation of the situation. 4.3 Research Design A “research design is a framework for the generation of evidence that is suited both to a certain set of criteria and to the research question in which the investigator is interested” (Bryman & Bell, 2007, p. 39). A research design is needed to enable the researcher to get answers to the research questions, therefore it implies that different research questions require different research designs (Rugg & Petre, 2007). Bryman and Bell (2007), further defined five noticeable types of research designs, which includes; “experimental and related designs (such as the quasi- experiment), cross-sectional design, longitudinal design, case study design and comparative design”. In contrast, Saunders, Lewis and Thornhill (2007) corroborated by Yin (2003) refers to these five prominent designs as research strategies. They, therefore, postulate that a research strategy composes of the “selection of the research design in addition to the systematic plan of required actions” (p.42). The case study strategy was used for this study eventually. 4.3.1 Case Study Boateng (2014) iterates that a case study embodies a descriptive intensive analysis of a bounded system. Creswell (2013), lists the various type of cases studies as, multiple or collective case study intrinsic case study and a single instrument case study. He explained further a that a case study with a single instrumental study recognises an issue within a single selected system whereas a multiple case study takes into consideration the observation of two or more issues and with the intrinsic study, the principal interest is on the unit or case under observation. Advocates 70 University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh for the case study approach such as Wimmer and Dominick (2011) believe that to enable the proper understanding of the issue being studied, the case study method should be used since this method is helpful in gathering in-depth information on the study topic. In addition, David and Sutton (2004) posit that by its nature case study process aims at exploring unique cases intensively. Meanwhile according to Yin (1994), such an intensive study could be either holistic or embedded. Furthermore, using this approach afforded the researcher an occasion to participate in a comprehensive and extensive research on the acquisition of resources among social entrepreneurs in Ghana. Miles and Huberman (1994) caution that using qualitative data from case studies deliver vital insight that aids in exploring meanings, perceptions and presuppositions with a business and social environment similar to this study objective. This aligns with Yin (2003) and Eisenhardt and Graebner (2007) notion that case studies designs are ideal when „how‟, „why‟ and „what‟ questions are asked and added further that studies involving case design can be in the form of exploratory, explanatory and descriptive research. 4.3.2 Justification for Multiple Case Study Method In considering a method for this study, a multiple case study was considered; this was decided upon inferring from Bryman and Bell (2007) explanation which asserts that multiple case study designs have become common in business and management research. He further suggests that using this design would enable the researcher to compare and contrast the study outcomes and as such consider what is unique as well as what is common across the cases, he added further that promotes theoretical reflection of the findings. The diversity of issues that exist in social 71 University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh entrepreneurship requires that a multiple case design is used since it would allow for balanced analysis of results. Using a multiple case approach also enabled the research to investigate the various themes across the cases and eventually assisted the researcher to do a cross-case analysis (Eisenhardt & Graebner, 2007; Yin, 2003), which has the advantage over a single case in that it allow enable the creation a tougher foundation needed for theory building (Eisenhardt, 1989). Hence, since each social entrepreneur/social enterprise is independent and different, resource management decisions vary depending on several factors such as their mission and vision, hence studying a single case would have been insufficient to acquire the detailed information necessary for investigating the research problem. This affirms Boateng (2014) suggestions that in order to make a research more representative, it is more suitable to use a multiple case design as oppose to the single case since it allows for themes and pattern to be extracted for analysis. 4.4 Sampling Design A sample design was chosen to gather relevant data for the research problem based on the justification of the research design. Malhotra (2007) believes that using a chosen design is appropriate in that it provides quicker and lower-cost results rather than studying every case of the study problem. This section is therefore made up of the sampling technique, sample population, sampling size and the inclusion criteria. 72 University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh 4.4.1 Sampling Technique Sampling in the view of Boateng (2014), involves the process of choosing from a group or population to become the underpinning for the study from whom data to address the research problem would be obtained. This stage is viewed as an essential aspect of conducting research since it is not possible to use an entire population in any study. In view of this, Saunders, Lewis and Thornhill (2009) proposed that it is necessary to have a sampling process as it helps in categorising the study population into a manageable size. Bryman and Bell (2007) in agreement with Guy, Edgley, Arafat and Allen (1987) postulate that sampling techniques are conventionally grouped into two; Probability and Non-probability. Malhotra (2011) distinguished between the two by emphasizing that, in probability sampling equal chance exists for selecting of respondents based on statistical methods, whereas in the case of non-probability sampling, the researcher judgment is permitted in sample units‟ selection 4.4.2 Purposive Sampling Technique In carrying out this study, a non-probability sampling technique was chosen, specifically purposive sampling. Tongco (2007), argues that researchers who opt for this technique have greater freedom and flexibility in selecting units of the population than using probability sampling. Further in agreement, authors such as Saunders et al. (2009) admonish that it is appropriate for qualitative researchers to opt non-probability sampling technique than probability technique which is often suitable in quantitative studies where the researcher‟s interest is in statistical inferences rather than insights. 73 University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh In carrying out an exploratory study, Creswell (2009) posits that the various options for non- probability sampling such as; purposive sampling, convenience, quota, snowball and self- selection sampling can be used, however purposive sampling in comparison with the other options is well-known for minimal bias in reaching a definite target of respondents. On the basis of this, purposive sampling was deemed most suitable for selecting the right participants for this exploratory study as it allowed for the identification of common patterns of behaviour among the sample population who were all into social entrepreneurs. Furthermore, Patton (2002) in collaboration with Boateng (2014) has stressed on the necessity of using purposive sampling as it aims to select information-rich cases that offer valuable manifestation of the phenomenon and further allows for examination of meanings, interpretations as well as processes Based on this foundation, the study participants had to meet the eligibility criteria for this study. 4.4.3 Sample Population In the words of Bell & Bryman, (2007) a sample population refer to the universe of entities within which the sample is to be selected. Similarly, the study population according to Parahoo (2014), is the entire quantity of items through which data is collected, and these could be made up of individuals, events, artefacts, events as well as organisations. Inferring from this, social entrepreneurs registered as members of Social Enterprises Ghana were selected for the study. This decision was made because it is the only organisation which is recognised currently as be handling and coordinating the affairs of social enterprises in Ghana. 74 University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh 4.4.4 Sample Size In carrying out any research, it is imperative for the size of the sample to be specified since not everybody can be considered (Miles & Huberman, 2002). To Morse (1994), a sample size of at least 6 is appropriate for a qualitative work whereas Creswell (1998) argues for a sample size of between 5-25 respondents. Mason (2010) affirms that generally with qualitative studies, the sample size is not established but rather reflects the point of saturation of the research work. A sample size of six respondents was designated for the study. This number was considered given the fact that Patton (2002) asserts that no specific rules exist for a sample size in qualitative research, however, the particular sample size depends on the phenomenon being investigated as well as the study objective, time and resources accessible to the researcher. Inferring from this, therefore, these number of respondents were therefore adequate to ensure that a comprehensive and information-rich data required will be provided. 4.5 Eligibility Criteria Creswell (1998) believes that for excellent assurance, the use of criterion sampling is resourceful. It was therefore essential for the researcher to have eligibility criteria. An eligibility criteria, refer to an outline of features that are necessary for membership in the target population (Burns & Grove, 2003). Based on this, the following criteria for eligibility was used in selecting participants for the study:  The social enterprise had operated for not less than one year.  The mission of the enterprise should be aligned with sustainable development goals.  The social enterprise must have their focus on either urban or rural poor in our societies. 75 University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh  The social enterprise had to be at least micro (between 1 to 4 employees), small (between 4 to 19 employees) or medium (20 to 99 employees) in size. 4.6 Data Sources In carrying out any study, two core bases of data can be used. Ghauri and Gronhaug (2005), as well as Yin (1994), categorised these sources into primary and secondary data sources. Data generated from the researcher‟s findings for the exact intention of solving the research problem is what Malhotra (2007) refers to as primary data, secondary sources of data, however, refer to data gathered for a different purpose other than the current study but nevertheless relevant to the current study (Malhotra, 2007). Included in primary data sources are interviews, observations, surveys, and experiments, on the other hand, secondary data sources include journal articles, books, reports, census data, online data as well as catalogues. Using secondary data has the advantage of being less costly and easy to access than primary data, however since the intention of collecting it is normally for a different purpose. In this light, Hair, Joseph and Lukas (2014) believe that its contents are likely to relate to the current researcher‟s needs poorly. With this mind, the researcher utilized primary data sources for this study. Using primary data source was critical since no readily available information on social entrepreneurs and social enterprises could be located to depict how they manage resources in Ghana. Primary data was therefore collected through interviews with registered members of social enterprises Ghana. 76 University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh 4.6.1 Method for Data Collection In this study, data collection was done specifically through face-to-face in-depth interviews. Interviews according to Saunders et al. (2007) is a conversation which is sought by an interviewer, in which there are chosen subjects based on the strength of a data collection plan and having an intellectual purpose which is led by the interviewer on the basis of a uniform or flexible conversation plan. Myers (2013) added that, three main types of techniques used in interviews: structured interviews, semi-structured and unstructured interviews. The researcher opted for the semi-structured interview technique which encompasses a list of themes and questions for discussing. The interview guide was deemed preferably for finding solutions to the interrogations the research sought to solve and also acquire in-depth information and eventually also allow for a face-to-face counter. In conducting the interviews, the researcher designed an interview guide and this confirms with Johnson and Christensen (2012) assertion that using this method permits the investigator to gather an in-depth information about the beliefs, thoughts, knowledge, reasoning, motivations, feeling of the respondent. Meanwhile, the researcher may vary the order of questions subject to the present circumstances as well as the drift of the conversation. In all, there were twenty open-ended questions in the interview guide which were framed based on the questions the research seek to answer, in addition, related literature pertaining to social entrepreneurship. With the aid of the interview guide, the researcher was able to probe further to acquire clarity of response as well as needed additional information as stipulated by (Creswell, 77 University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh 2003). Added to this, most often using interviews makes it possible for themes often unimagined to emerge from the varied experiences of people rather than from prejudiced ideas The principal supervisor for this study assisted with reviewing the interview guide to check for grammatical errors, spelling as well as comprehension. An average of twenty-five minutes was used for each interview. As part of the process of data recording, permission was sought from the respondents for the interview to be recorded and also short notes on most salient issues were also taken. 4.7 Data Analysis Data analysis in general term refers to organising, providing structure and eliciting meanings from data. Polit, Beck, and Hungler (2001), posit that the analysis of qualitative data involves a dynamic and interactive process. Saunders et al. (2007) advance that the qualitative researcher accordingly has the option of using numerous styles of data analysis methods such as data display and analysis, thematic analysis, template analysis, grounded theory, analytic induction, discourse analysis and narrative analysis and many more. Similarly, Creswell (2012), postulates that in qualitative studies, analysis of data involves the preparation, organising of raw data that is the transcripts, followed by groping the data into themes through reduction of data and also processing into codes and eventually discussions of the data findings. In the study in agreement with Marks and Yardley (2004) who recommend that using thematic analysis offers the chance of appreciating the prospects of any subject more largely. The researcher opted for thematic data analysis. According to Anderson (2007, p.1), thematic 78 University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh analysis refers to “a descriptive presentation of qualitative data”. Thematic analysis hence requires that the researcher scans the transcribed interview and come out with phrases or words which cuts across all cases and develop theme and sub-themes (Anderson, 2007). In analysing the research findings, therefore, the researcher started by transcribing the recorded interviews which lasted for between 25 and 30 minutes. Transcription took an average of 2 hours for each recorded interview. The transcripts were read thoroughly for emerging patterns which were eventually used as themes. This was done based on the perceptions of the respondents devoid of the feelings of the researcher. Respondents‟ answers were quoted to support the themes. It must be emphasised that the data analysis was done manually in line with the works done by Adom & Asare Yeboa (2016). Even though manual methods are mostly burdensome and require a lot of time due to the huge data gathered, it, however, has the benefit of being less costly and allows the researcher to gain more knowledge compared to the use of software analysis. In brief, Miles and Huberman (1994) principles served as a guide in this data analysis. 4.8 Ethical considerations In carrying out this study, ethical principles were strictly stuck to and therefore the respondents were well assured of the protection of their privacy. This confirms with Saunders et al. (2007) assertion that for the researcher, ethics is the right kind of behaviour that the researcher demonstrations to keep the confidentiality of the respondent. Furthermore to ensure honesty from the respondents, the study aims, methods, benefits were made known to them. An introductory letter as well requests permission for the study was seeks from the Marketing and 79 University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh Entrepreneurship Department. Respondents participated voluntary and were not in any way coerced or threatened to take part in the study. 4.9 Limitations of the study The study has its fair share of challenges. First of all, the subject area is underexplored with a scanty literature regarding the concept in Ghana; hence the study relied on literature mostly from the western countries. Furthermore, the study was limited to social entrepreneurs in the Greater Accra and therefore the findings may not relate to other regions, hence similar investigations can be carried in other regions. Also, there was a constant rescheduling of interview dates which had implications for the researcher. Another notable challenge was the unfavourable location that some of the interviews were carried out. Consequently, more time had to be allocated for transcriptions. 4.10 Chapter summary This chapter provided details of the research methodology used for this study. It provided literature on the research paradigm adopted for the study, also discussed what the research approaches available, research design, and data sources. In addition, the sampling design adopted for the study, which includes the sampling technique, sample population, sampling size and eligibility criteria has been highlighted. Finally, the chapter concluded with included with the instruments used in the collection of data, data analysis method and ethical issues. 80 University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh CHAPTER FIVE DATA ANALYSIS AND DISCUSSIONS OF FINDINGS 5.0 Introduction This chapter entails an analysis of the data collected from the field. It begins with the demographic analysis of the respondents. The data gathered from the six social entrepreneurs are firstly analysed through “within-case” analysis. However, a cross-case analysis with gender dimension is done later alongside the themes identified from the data In order to ensure anonymity, the social enterprises are coded as (AE, YE, ES, RE, KE, SS). The analysis is done based on the following themes: social value creation, sustainability, and innovation in relation to the dimensions of SE. Furthermore, with regards to objective two of the study, the following themes are used corporate resources (personal savings, philanthropic sources, donations and loans from close family), managerial resources (volunteerism, contract workers, and founder‟s previous work experience), founder‟s network as well as reputation. For objective three, financial and managerial challenge are the main themes. The section then continues with a cross- case analysis between females and males social entrepreneurs. This is also done based on the following thematic areas: reputation, network, type of social entrepreneur, and use of volunteers. This analysis hence highlights the major difference and similarities that are identified in the study findings. 5.1 Demographic and Socio-economic Characteristics of Respondents Evidence from literature indicates that numerous variables exist when it comes to demographic characteristics, for this study, however, the main variables used are age, education, sector of operation, gender, and years of operation as well as the model of social enterprise. Table 5.1 81 University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh below indicates that the study has three males and three females as respondents indicating a gender balance in the sampled population. With regards to age, it is obvious that majority of the respondents are quite youthful; 67% are between the ages of 21-30 while 33% are between the ages of 31-40. This indicates that the concept has a growth potential in the country since the youth is embracing it. With regards to education, from table 5.1, it can be seen that all the respondents have some form of tertiary education; 50% of the respondents indicating half of the respondents have first degree certificates, whilst with the remaining respondents, 16.7% have diploma certificate and the other 33.3% have postgraduates certificates. This suggests that the calibre of people engaged in social entrepreneurial activities are people with intellectual aptitude. Furthermore, the educational level records indicate the rate at which graduates are perhaps looking for ways to be employers instead of employees, in addition, it is probably that students of tertiary institutions are becoming more entrepreneurial and equally the concept of SE is catching up with the upcoming generation. In terms of the sector of operation, education dominated with 50%, and the remaining sectors, sanitation, renewable energy, and agriculture/women empowerment had 16.6% each. This result indicate the priority that is placed on education since it is an important component of any country‟s societal development likewise Ghana as indicated in the GLSS 6 report (GSS, 2015). Furthermore, from the data, it came to light that two-thirds of the respondents representing 67% of the social enterprises have existed for over three years, with 33% having been in operation for less than two years. This confirms that social entrepreneurship is actually an emerging concept in the country and more awareness needs to be created by all stakeholders for the concept to be 82 University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh accepted. The study also found that 50% of the respondents operate a “non-profit with earned income” strategy model of social enterprise with the other 50% operating as “for-profit with social mission enterprise”. These findings show that most social enterprises started initially as non-governmental organisations but eventually incorporated the SE concept into their operations. Table 5. 1 Profile of Respondents Respondent Gender Age Education Sector of Type of SE Years of operation operation AE Female 30 Postgraduate Agricultural Non-profit Two YE Male 28 Diploma Education For- profit Three ES Female 27 First degree Education Non-profit Three RE Male 35 Postgraduate Renewable For-profit Four energy KE Female 26 First degree Education Non-profit Two SS Male 36 First degree Sanitation For-profit Four Source: Field data, 2017 5.2 Analysis of Individual Cases 5.2.1 Case 1: Agricultural Enterprise (AE) Background AE is a social enterprise formed with the objective of grooming, mentoring, and empowering other females to be economically independent by instilling in them an interest in agribusiness and entrepreneurship. The social enterprise, therefore, works with schools as well as market women by getting females interested in the agricultural value chain. AE believes that through this, females can create employment on their own through agriculture and therefore become financially independent. As part of their activities, the social enterprise has so far been to about 83 University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh fifteen schools and about six markets within the Greater Accra region to talk to females specifically on the essence of engaging agriculture. In order to ensure financial independence and sustainability, the social enterprise runs a poultry farm. AE was founded by a young female in 2015.She holds a master‟s degree certificate and works in a corporate organisation but handles the activities of the social enterprise during weekends. The social entrepreneur believes that women need not depend solely on men for financial support. The study, however, probes why AE is into social entrepreneurship. In response, she states: “Okay so the motivation basically is giving girls a voice; that is one. And the other thing is to-- the need for me to see girls do well, the need to see women have their own economic opportunities because agric is a vast area which provides a lot of entrepreneurial and career opportunities for people. Unfortunately, a lot of young women or girls do not know about it. The information is not out there. And we all know that if you empower a woman economically, and she becomes knowledgeable and independent it benefits the whole society”. – AE The passion of seeing the financial liberation of females is of utmost importance. Hence AE„s motivation for the establishing the social enterprise lies in her belief that women need to take advantage of the numerous job opportunities in agriculture so as to be economically independent. a. Dimensions of Social Entrepreneurship The study shows that the concept of SE is emerging in the country and its dimensions of “social value creation” and “sustainability” are quite familiar to the respondents. Meanwhile, the 84 University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh aspect of “innovation” is not evident in the assertions of most respondents. In relation to the dimensions of social entrepreneurship, AE explains: “For me, I think that social entrepreneurship is supporting a good cause; supporting a community development so you finding a challenge in your community and then finding solutions to work towards those challenges. But for the key thing is also not just giving out because, whatever project or challenge it is, you would have to find sustainable means of working towards that challenge. Yeah, so the main thing is, sustainability”- AE It is observed that AE understands the essence of running a social enterprise which is to make the lives of target beneficiaries a little better. Also, AE points out the importance of ensuring the sustainability of its activities in the long run. Even though sustainability came out as an emerging theme that was frequently mentioned, financial sustainability is the main focus for AE. This suggests that AE knows that financial sustainability would enable the social enterprise to create social value continuously and also scale up. b. Resource Acquisition Story In acquiring resources, within all the cases similar patterns emerge as to how resources are acquired. The findings show that all social enterprises require corporate, managerial, and network resources. With regards to financial, it is evident that almost all the respondents including AE depend on personal savings, philanthropic sources, donations as well as income from their activities. Volunteerism and founder‟s experience are highlighted as being the major source of human/managerial resource in the running of the social enterprise. The role of the 85 University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh network is also seen as a significant resource for the survival of any social enterprise. AE remarks: “So as I mentioned earlier, for the finances. Now we are using our own finance. So what we do is that i take from my own pocket and family and friends. Also when we have an activity we call on family and friends and then we pool our resources together.” – AE For finances rather than opting for a loan facility, AE rather depends on her personal funds as well as charitable giving from her relations for the running of the social enterprise. Relying on relations for finances though has been highlighted in entrepreneurship literature as a reliable source for any venture, however, it has its own negative consequences. Meanwhile, in order to be financially sustainable, AE mentions that a poultry farm has been started as part of their earned- income strategies. AE emphasises further on the important role her past work experience has had on her ability to operate the social enterprise: “I was working in one organisation where I had to do a lot of school engagement. And so we were moving from school to school, speaking to young students on sexual and reproductive health and we were doing training for them as well. I realised that, in schools where you had to put both the boys and girls together, the girls were always laid back and they won’t talk, they won’t engage in discussions and things like that. And so it dawned on me that, in this country, we have been talking about women empowerment for a long while but then you go down to the grassroots, the challenges are still there so how 86 University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh do we support these young ones. I believe that I have gathered enough experience from my previous work which can also help me make an impact in other people’s lives. ”. – AE Experience and knowledge acquired through previous work experience is a valuable resource and serves to add to any organisation‟s human capital. Having worked initially with an NGO, AE believes that her previous work experience has been a source of valuable human capital resource for her social enterprise. AE further believes that by possessing this intangible resource, she has been able to create social value in a unique way through diverse processes and structures. c. Resource Challenge A major challenge AE contends with is getting funds for an office space as well as managerial resources. These constraints as AE highlights is an impediment to the scaling up of the social enterprise. Hence AE says: “So, I think that the social enterprise is challenged with regards to not having enough time allocated to its operations and also inadequate resources. Because it would have been nice if we have a small office, and then maybe just one or two persons who will manage the office. And then from time to time, as and when we have a program, then we call on these young women to serve as resource personnel. So that we all don’t have to play the role of resource persons and play the role of managers of the social enterprise as well” – AE From AE statements, it is clear that enough time is not allocated to the activities of the social enterprise because of her other job responsibilities. This has stalled the activities of the social 87 University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh enterprises. Probing further, it comes to light that AE needs to still maintain her full paying job because income from the activities of the social enterprise is not enough. Additionally, AE asserts that not having an office space with permanent staff to administer the activities of the social enterprise is having a negative impact on their activities. This perhaps is as a result of not having a strong income source that can be used for rent and salaries. 5.2.2 Case 2: Youth Empowerment (YE) Background YE is a social enterprise established to empower the youth through training, motivation and mentoring to ensure that they have a better future. Core to their activities is organising motivational speaking seminars for the youth within the target community.YE use professionals as counsellors for these youth who have become a social outcast in the society and have subsequently lost hope in life. YE was founded in 2014 by a young gentleman who believes that with a little guidance and mentoring, the youth will be able to develop their potential and make meaningful contributions to the society. The founder holds a diploma certificate in computer science and hence works as an information techno person as part of his earned-income activities to ensure the social enterprise sustainability. This is his motivation for setting up the social enterprise: “A lot of the youth don't know what they want in life so it's obvious that they need to enable them to discover what they really need to do with their various lives”. –YE 88 University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh The passion to see improvement in the lives of the youth and see them make something better out of their lives serves as an impetus for the setting up of the social enterprise. Dimensions of social entrepreneurship YE identifies social value creation and sustainability as the dimensions of SE. YE emphasis that: “Social entrepreneurship is a form of intervention carried out by entrepreneurs in society whilst making some money to sustain the intervention. The primary objective is to make a positive impact in the society”. Therefore it is clear that YE understands the dimensions of social value creation as well as sustainability. However, the innovation dimension of SE did not come out in his explanation. This probably is because YE does not consider innovation as an important dimension of SE or is unaware of innovation as a key dimension of SE as literature. b. Resource Acquisition Story YE specifies that he depends solely on his personal savings for funding of the social enterprise and also relies basically on volunteers to run the social enterprise. Interesting, YE notes that he does not get any support from his relational network and as a matter of fact, his immediate family members prefer that he rather looks for a corporate job which is more financially fulfilling. “Okay, for the human resource, what we did, as I rightly said, initially, we started as an IT company so we had most of the guys working there. So, one of the strategies we're trying to adopt is that as the IT company grows, anybody who works with us 89 University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh automatically becomes a volunteer for the social enterprise. […]. So, whatever work you do in the social enterprise, you're not going to be paid for it. So, most of the guys I work with on the IT projects are the guys I re-enrolled on the project.” –YE It is clear that in starting this social enterprise, YE decided to use employees working in his IT Company as volunteers for the social enterprise. In effect, the social enterprise does not have a team purposely employed to handle the operations of the social enterprise but rather relies on volunteers. “My family is really against, they are not supportive of my social enterprise. Because, my mum and family feel like, hey, you're being silly. How can you be doing something that yields no returns and you still have the encouragement to do it? So, it's pretty a challenge. For my family, they're out. Nobody really supports anything I do, seriously. Especially when they think that I have other responsibilities and I'm supposed to be working somewhere, and get paid so that at least I could leverage on that salary to do whatever I want to do. But here lies the case where there could be a couple of months and I don't even have money but I'm still pushing whatever I believe in. For friends, I have some people who believe in what I'm doing. Once in a while when I ask them for support and they have the means, they give out”-YE Even though evidence from entrepreneurship literature acknowledges the positive role of family on any enterprise, for YE, however, this is not the case. This is because in the Ghanaian society a man is expected to be a breadwinner for his family especially after tertiary education, hence men 90 University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh are required to be involved in more financial fulfilling ventures. Perchance his inability to support his family financially has led to the lack of support from them. c. Resource Challenge According to YE, the social enterprise encounters numerous difficulties in its operations especially with regards to corporate resources (funding) and adds the fact that he had to forfeit his personal pleasure to ensure the sustainability of the enterprise. Another challenge that YE mentions is his inability to attract other organisations to partner with. “We don't have money. The whole thing is on me alone. I'm pushing everything because I believe in what I'm doing. […]. Sometimes I have to deny my employees certain things because I want to help society. So sometimes, it's pretty difficult to really do some of them. Because it slows the work down as well. I’ve planned that bi-annually i would have a program but due to the resource constraint, I’m able to carry out the activity that is expected of me. So these are the barriers that are really affecting my operations”.-YE “Organizations are not willing to even partner with my organisation. If I decide to charge for organising seminars, it's likely the environment alone will not allow people to come if i want to charge. Even when I’m not charging, it's difficult for them to come, how much more when I decide to charge...”-YE In terms of resource challenges, one main problem YE admits is financial limitation and he asserts that it is a major hindrance to the operation of the social enterprise. This challenge has 91 University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh resulted in YE decision to seek for partnership with other social enterprises, however, this has also not been successful. 5.2.3 Case 3: Educational Services (ES) Background ES is social enterprise set up with the sole aim of making the lives of the less privileged better by providing them with basic life necessities such as shelter, clothing, food and ultimately education. ES was initially registered as a non- governmental organisation and has transformed into a social enterprise. Education is the main focus of the social enterprise and therefore their activities involve giving of scholarship to brilliant but needy children to ensure that they stay in school. As part of their business model, ES sells art paintings as an earned income strategy. In addition; the social enterprise has international partners who provide financial support. The social enterprise has been operating since 2014 and it has a female as its founder. The founder is a Bachelor‟s degree holder who works as an administrator in a law firm but operates the enterprise during weekends. The passion to make an impact in the society is the motivation for the establishment of this social enterprise: “We had our internship in a village. When we went there, I noticed that the living conditions of the children were very bad; they also lacked education, so that’s when i decided to set up a foundation to help the kids”. –ES 92 University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh Social entrepreneurs feel the need of others, ES believes that seeing the suffering that innocent children had to endure and also not being able to access basic education as a result of their economic status created an opportunity for her to set up the social enterprise. a. Dimensions of Social Entrepreneurship Responding to what the dimensions of SE mean, ES aligns with the dimension of social value creation as well as sustainability. Therefore ES points out that SE is about impacting lives which translates into the creation of social value and ensuring its sustainability: “Personally, social entrepreneurship is impacting lives and at the end of the day, ensuring that, it is a form of a business, but the core business is the fact that, you're impacting and adding value to people’ lives”. - ES ES response reveals that she understands the concept of applying business principles to solving social issues so as to ensure that the organisation continues to make an impact in the long run, however, the practical aspect of her earned-income strategy for the social enterprise is not obvious. Furthermore, ES is unable to indicate how innovative the social enterprise is in carrying out their activities. This shows that the idea of being creative and innovative which core dimension of SE are needs to be critically looked at. b. Resource Acquisition Story The study indicates how ES rely on philanthropic sources, donations from international sponsors, and depends on volunteers as a human resource for the social enterprise. 93 University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh “I started with my own money and also had support from my friends, it was just small money from us to buy things for the children: clothes, food, that’s how the social enterprise started. I started by just helping the children with their clothes, their food, the basic things, however currently I get help from sponsors outside. I have one sponsor in the UK. In addition, I sell art paintings so as to generate additional income”. – ES In all, ES depends on international sponsors for finances in addition to philanthropic sources from her local network. This suggests that she has gained the trust of these donors, however, this is not sustainable and it is clear that ES has to build her capacity on strategies that would enable her to generate enough income internally from her social enterprise. c. Resource Challenge ES complains of the difficulty in getting funding from corporate organisations and other investors, and further stresses the difficulty in quantifying the impact her organisation has made in people lives. “You go somewhere to seek for sponsorship, they’ll tell you that you are going to spend the money on yourself. Also, most companies or organisations want to benefit so it’s not easy getting funds because it’s not for profit. So they always weigh, unless they’re going to benefit from it before they will sponsor you or help you out. But for commercial, they know definitely you’re going to make a profit. So definitely you’re going to get something out of it. But for the social enterprises, it’s not easy raising funds”. - ES 94 University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh The idea that SE is about societal wealth makes social enterprises unattractive to most investors because of their hybrid mission. In addition, a major difficulty the concept faces is its inability to quantify the social impact created. This makes it difficult to prove to donors and potential investors what their money was/would be used for. Equally, there is a challenge for social entrepreneurs to prove that they are trustworthy. 5.2.4 Case 4: Renewable Energy Space (RE) Background RE is a social enterprise which operates in the renewable energy space and seeks to contribute to the society through reduction of global warming, providing a cleaner society as well as providing job opportunities for low-income women in the marginalised communities in Ghana. RE has been in existence for four years and operates by turning biodegradable wastes such as coconut husk to fuel which is environmentally friendly, smokeless, and odourless for cooking and other heat needs. RE was founded by a gentleman with a postgraduate degree who having experienced the hustle women go through in searching for firewood decided to seek for alternative fuel which is convenient, cheap as well as affordable sources for homes. Eventually, the business opportunity showed up after observing how coconut husk was disposed of improperly and therefore he came up with an idea of turning the coconut husk into charcoal. The charcoal is given out to identified low-income women who are already in the charcoal business and these women also sell and hence make a living from it.RE states that: “We collect waste and turn it into useful energy and income for people”, -RE 95 University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh In the words of the founder, RE has a mission of protecting the environment through reduction of waste, as well as providing jobs and income for women. RE significantly contribute to the country economically, socially and environmentally which translates into triple bottom returns. a. Dimensions of Social Entrepreneurship The study reveals that for RE, the ability to solve social and environmental issues in an innovative way and at the same time generating income represents what SE is. The dimension of being innovative as well as creating social value and also ensuring sustainability is well represented in RE business model. “It is applying some innovative techniques to a start-up that will improve or solve social and environmental issues while providing a little profit to the entrepreneur”.-RE Operating in a technical space such as energy requires a lot of creativity and innovation, it is evident that RE seeks to protect the environment as well as making a profit for the sustenance of the social enterprise. “Okay. So we’re trying to have franchises around. We’re trying to secure raw materials, as many as we can, we’re trying to get the best brains, people who know more than we do to also help”- RE It is obvious that RE acknowledges that SE encompasses the ability to create social value, be innovative as well sustaining the social enterprise. Sustainability of the social enterprise from the onset has been given the needed attention as income from the charcoal is reinvested in getting 96 University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh modern technical equipment for the social enterprise. Similarly, AE recognises the need to have skilled human capital for the social enterprise as a result of its highly technical nature. b. Resource Acquisition Story RE indicates that his sector of operations is very technical compared to other social enterprises and as such acquisition of resources is usually along the lines of getting the right experienced managerial resources, as well as finance, furthermore, RE mentions that he has tremendous support from his previous work colleagues. “I think the first key resource I needed was the expertise. Yeah. I needed the expertise. I needed to understand the finance, business management, these are things I really didn’t know, I think first with the expertise, with the knowledge, I had to just learn myself, and there was nobody to go to learn how to make charcoal. Especially when we started we didn’t even know it was possible to use coconut to produce charcoal. So it was just like, being on your own, just trying to you know. It has helped us because we’ve not really made any fatal mistakes. Everything has been smooth for us since we started”. – RE Operating in technical space such as the renewable energy space requires highly skilled human capital; RE acknowledges the significance of getting the right expertise for the operation of the social enterprise. RE acknowledges that having adequate business skills enables the efficient running of any venture; this suggests why he had to acquire enough knowledge to help him manage the social enterprise. 97 University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh “They have been tremendously impactful. We have great networks and they help. We have the British Council, Netherlands Embassy. These are people that are helping. We have some institutions, Ashesi University, some professors there, and they are helping; they’ve been very helpful because after I ran out of money, they were next people I was bothering. I was always on their necks”-RE RE agrees that having a strong partnership with established institutions have assisted in providing him with financial aid for the effective management of the social enterprise. With their assistance, the quest of opting for a credit facility which requires high-interest payment does not become an option. RE recognises how he has support from his previous work colleagues, he states that: “Before starting this, I was a DJ. I was able to use my friends in the media, people I used to be in the DJ industry with. . . […]. . Even designing most of our things, I had to use some of the networks. For instance, my friends at 4syte tv do some of the graphics for me. As at now, anytime I want anything done or put out in the media, I’m able to get it done through some of these contacts”- RE Having worked in a media organisation has offered RE the opportunity to get access to people who use their experience to assist the social enterprise. This suggests the valuable support a founder‟s network play in the operating of social ventures. Again perhaps people want to be associated with ventures that provide social wealth. 98 University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh c. Resource Challenge The findings reveal that operating in a sector which is capital and technical intensive like the energy space has it accompanied challenges. The study indicates further that RE encounters other challenges in the form of the inability to attract investors as a result of the hybrid mission of the social enterprise. In addition RE reveals that there is lack of understanding among investors when it comes to social enterprises. “I think, in this country, people rather invest in commercial ventures than social ventures. I know people who, we started this whole thing together, but then because they are more into commercial venture, they got investments and a lot of funding and we are still where we are. Because they believe that with a commercial venture, they can easily get their money back”. - RE For RE, it would have been easier to get investors if his organisation was purely commercial, however operating a social enterprise which is hybrid in nature makes it difficult to attract investors. “I do have some experience with them. Most of them don’t really understand the social enterprise base. Also, most of them think because they are bringing in this amount of money, they deserve to have majority control of the business”. - RE RE indicates that though it would have been better to get financial assistance from an angel or capital investors, he does not opt for them because of their lack of understanding of the SE concept. This probably shows that the concept of SE is yet to gain understanding in the country. 99 University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh 5.2.5 Case 5: Kids Education (KE) Background KE is a social enterprise established with the focus on academically intelligent children who are underprivileged and also other needy and homeless children. In addition, the social enterprise is involved in activities aimed at teaching parents in low-income communities on the importance of educating their children, hence the social enterprise is involved in providing income-generating activities such as hairdressing, carpentry and others for these adults. In total, the activities of the social enterprise includes: advocating and promoting the needs to education, providing scholarships to our beneficiaries, providing alternative route to education through IT, vocational and development training for sustainable employment, empowering the women through education, self-help, cooperative network and to access rights and rehabilitating child labour and empower the children on their rights KE has been in existence for more than two years and was founded by a young lady. With a Bachelor‟s degree in social work, the founder works in the formal sector but has time to handle the social enterprise on a part-time basis, and believes that every child has the right to educations and hence states that: “Basically, I believe in the fact that every child has the right to education so whatever is supposed to be done to ensure that is in school and is having a quality education is what pushes me to do whatever I have to do”. KE 100 University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh KE believes that education is an enabler and as such advocates that every child should be educated so as not to be a burden in the society. a. Dimensions of Social Entrepreneurship KE entirely agrees to the fact that SE is about social wealth creation through the application of business principles. However similar to other respondents, the innovative dimension of the concept did not show in KE„s explanation. “Personally, social entrepreneurship is impacting lives and at the end of the day, ensuring that it is a form of a business, but the sole business is the fact that, you're impacting, you're adding value to people's lives or your”- KE It is clear that KE appreciates that SE is about value creation for the society as well as ensuring its financial independence. However similar to other respondents, KE does not seem to acknowledge the need to be innovative. Thus it may be that KE is ignorant of innovation as a key dimension of SE as literature. b. Resource Acquisition Story It was obvious that KE relies on philanthropic sources for funding, and also use volunteers as human/managerial resources for the social enterprise, in addition, the founder‟s previous work experience serves as a valuable human capital resource. 101 University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh “With the volunteers we have between 10 or 15. With the formal organization I was working with, we were doing a few programs in there so I had contacts of some students there and that’s the contacts that we used to get our volunteers. It's really important in getting the work done and I'm really grateful for the fact that I have great people who are willing to help... Because, in my journey as an entrepreneur, I have mentors...we have provided support in the form of finance as well as human resource”- KE It is clear from the statements above that network resources in addition to the motivation to solve societal issues become an enabler in the acquisition of other resources such as funding, capacity building. KE obviously relies on volunteers as their human resource for the social enterprise which she acquires through her previous work associations. c. Resource Challenge Findings from the study indicate that KE also has similar challenges with regards to finance. “You know, like when you're trying to get external resources like a grant, getting the applications process through is so hectic, and after all this struggle sometimes the application may be refused.”- KE Clearly depending on grants does not help in the sustenance of any social enterprise, KE needs to concentrate on working strongly on earned income strategies rather than rely on grants. 102 University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh 5.2.6 Case 6: Sanitation Space (SS) Background As a social enterprise working to solve sanitation issues, SS is involved in services aimed at providing micro-flush toilets for schools and communities. The activities of the social enterprise address the improper disposal of faecal waste through the provision of an affordable and easy to use toilet facility. The activities of SS has further served as a solution to female students‟ absenteeism in schools who normally missed school especially during their monthly flow as a result of the unavailability of proper toilet facilities. Furthermore, SS also provides health education campaign for children. The social enterprise is established by a gentleman, who is a first-degree holder. Initially registered as NGO, but has transitioned to a social enterprise. He works as a full-time social entrepreneur. The mission of the social enterprise is the make an impact through solving sanitation issues: Speaking on the motive of starting the social enterprise, SS posits: “So I believe that wherever you find yourself, you should be able to touch lives. So umm I have had the passion to affect lives, to impact lives and I want to make an impact by solving sanitation issues”. - SS Solving sanitation issues in his community gives SS the fulfillment he seeks as a social entrepreneur and he eventually creates social value for his community. 103 University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh a. Dimensions of Social Entrepreneurship From the findings, SS understands that social value creation and sustainability are important dimensions of SE. SS reveals the plans that he has put in place to ensure financial sustainability of the social enterprise in the long run. On the notion of the dimensions of SE, SS highlights: “Is a form of doing business with a social impact, doing business as well as impacting lives”- SS In revealing his plans for financial sustainability, SS indicates that: “Okay, I am planning of going into farming and that’s where my organic fertilizer will become useful. I’ve listed a couple of projects I have. I’m also looking at going into the water supply. But I’m looking more at a community water supply where I make a big bore hole and will serve the community and will charge a minimum amount. I’m looking at also the pure water business. I have a list of them”- SS Even though the dimension of innovation did not come up in the response of SS, his activities show that a dimension of social enterprise is creativity in all of its activities. SS further shows foresight with regards to having adequate plans for ensuring financial sustainability of the social enterprise. 104 University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh b. Resource Acquisition Story SS discloses that his operation demands a lot of capital as such, though initially, he had to depend on his personal income which he had from winning a competition; he also had to depend on his network resources for loans. When questioned about his knowledge of angel and capital investors, SS explains that he does not believe in their ability to assist to social entrepreneurs. Furthermore for human/managerial resource for the social enterprise is provided through the founder‟s previous experience. SS also depends mostly on contract workers. “[…] I’ve worked in a couple of NGOs where I’ve done one or two projects to impact lives. So when I got hold of this technology, I had no choice than to bring my passion to bear. So I started with the school project, and that’s when the idea of social enterprise began and this experience has helped me in the operating the social enterprise.”- SS SS leverage on the experience he gathered from his previous work and hence possess adequate knowledge and experience which assists him inefficient management of the social enterprise. These experiences and knowledge serve as an important valuable resource in the running of any enterprise. “Oh, a couple of times my mum gives me money in the form of loans and sometimes I get some from my aunties and friends. If I need 1000cedis to sort out something right now, my friends can assist easily. When I need contract workers, mostly my friends recommend them and some of my workers also bring their friends who are like them. Again within the community some parents also bring their children to work as casual workers”. – SS 105 University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh In acquiring resources, not only is the role of one‟s network necessary but is an essential valuable resource which facilitates the acquisition of other resources such as financial and human resource. SS is able to make do with the support from his family and friends through the financial assistance he gains from them. c. Resource Challenge With regards to challenges, SS emphasis that the social enterprise is constrained with regards to financial and managerial resources. “You see, when you have to get a qualified person, you can’t pay. If you have to hire a qualified accountant, they charge you the commercial rate and I can’t afford to pay. And if you have to go for the unqualified too, they also pose a lot of challenges. It will be like you are doing everything. It is further difficult to get the required technical people to work for the enterprise”. - SS Being limited financial translates into the difficulty of getting the required skilled human capital for the social enterprise. SS indicates how he has to make do with the available human resource though he encounters challenges as a result of using low-quality skilled labour. 5.3 Cross-Case Analysis In the previous section, the analysis of the individual cases provided an understanding of how each social entrepreneur understand social enterprises, their resource acquisition strategies and the challenges they encounter. The next section will provide a cross-case analysis data analysis between the social enterprises operated by males and females based on the following themes: 106 University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh reputation and volunteerism. In addition, an analysis of the nature of social entrepreneurs is provided. a. Reputation In terms of reputation, the findings reveal that male social entrepreneurs are very conscious of their reputation within the communities that they operate. The female social entrepreneurs on the other hand indifferent. “I’d say reputation is important to me, if for instance somebody uses our product today and doesn’t like it, it affects us in the long run. Personally, if I do something wrong, it affects the brand. So I think reputation is very important” - RE “Reputation is important because if you build a reputation well, you'll get a lot of people to support you. Nobody will like to deal with criminals. . . . […]. . If you're able to build a reputation for your brand very well, other things will follow. People will like to work with you and support you, based on your profile, integrity, and reputation, everything will follow automatically” - SS Over the years, reputation is very important. It's a very key thing. Integrity and reputation work in hand. You have to build that reputation for yourself because know you by your attitude. I try as much as possible to build my reputation. I don't indulge in things that I'm not supposed to indulge in.Nobody can accuse me, so my reputation is really important to me.”- YE 107 University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh The statements show that reputation is of high importance to males than females. It is possible that these male social entrepreneurs know that in order for their social enterprises to succeed, it is important for them to gain the trust of all the stakeholders within their communities. b. Volunteerism The finding further reveals that the females‟ social entrepreneurs depend more on volunteers as their human/managerial resource whilst the male counterparts who rather rely on contract workers: “So we have a few volunteers that support us during our outreach, permanent staff No, no it’s all voluntary”. - AE. “With the volunteers we have between 10 or 15. With the formal organization I was working with, we were doing a few programs in there so I had contacts of some students there and that’s the contacts that we used to get our volunteers”.- ES “Personnel, when we get jobs, we look for masons. But now we have masons. And now I get masons on contract and that’s a different thing. I get them and give the job to them on contract. So more like subcontractors” - SS It is a fact that females generally get support easily, hence most female social entrepreneurs are given the needed support in diverse ways. This suggests that most people are willing to offer their service free of charge in support of female ventures. Contrary, males are mostly perceived 108 University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh to have economic motives in all they do and are presumed to be necessity-driven entrepreneurs hence it is difficult for people to volunteer for their activities. c. Network The study reveals further that both and female social entrepreneurs rely on their network for the success of their social enterprises, however, it is clear that females see their network as their most important asset. From the responses of KS and ES, it is obvious that their network resources assist them in acquiring finances, as well as human/managerial resource, furthermore, the findings indicate that their network provides other intangible assistance such as advice and emotional support. In support of the foregoing discourse, they express: “My family’s support can't be measured, they offer words of advice, direction, funds. I believe that Networking is the richest resource you can get in running a social enterprise because, when you get the proper people in your network circle, everything falls into place.” - KE “They donate towards the project, they motivate to keep us going. Have support from mum, sis, friends, cousins” – ES Generally, for all entrepreneurs, their network is an essential resource and normally has a positive effect on entrepreneurial activities. The views above suggest that network assist social entrepreneurs to pool other valuable resources needed to create social value. Perhaps without the support of their network, KS and ES could not have been able to keep their social enterprises. 109 University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh d. Full Time and Part Time Social Entrepreneurs Other notable from the study is that whilst the female social entrepreneurs work for other organisations in addition to operating social enterprises, the males, on the other hand, operate their social enterprises on a full time basis. “Yes, I have work on full time in an organisation but engage in my social entrepreneurs mostly during weekends” - AE “No, this is what I do from morning to evening, I don’t work for anybody” – RE Typically since most of the time there is no clear source of income for social enterprises especially during the initial stages, it is mostly assumed that social entrepreneurial entities may be more of the part-time undertaking. However interesting the male social entrepreneurs reveal that they do not have any other jobs apart from the social enterprise. Possibly it can be concluded that these males are more economically motivated than the female social entrepreneurs. 5.5 Discussion of Findings This section discusses the findings gained from the analysis of data on how social entrepreneurs understand social entrepreneurship, how they acquire the resource and the resource challenges their enterprises face. The discussion is done with inference from empirical literature as well as relevant theories. The research questions, as well as the objectives, are the main items used in these discussions. 110 University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh 5.5.1 Understanding the Dimensions of Social Entrepreneurship (Research Objective One/ Question 1) Pertaining to the objective one of the study which was to find out if the social entrepreneurs themselves really understand the dimensions (social value creation, sustainability, and innovation) of the SE concept, the study finds that social entrepreneurs understand the fact that social entrepreneurship is about creating social good for the whole society. They further emphasise the need to ensure the sustainability of their activities in the long run. However, the dimension of sustainability and innovation is not clarified in terms of its practicability in the activities of these social entrepreneurs. These could be the reasons why the association of social entrepreneurs in Ghana; Social Enterprise Ghana, together with other stakeholders like the British Council is working to ensure the ecosystem of SE which is at its initial stages is developed through getting a draft policy to regulate the activities of social enterprises. In relation to literature, the findings regarding social value creation aligns with propositions in the SE literature (Bacq & Janssen, 2011; Dees, 1998; Peredo & McLean, 2006) which postulate that in spite of the numerous definitional debates, the keyword that distinguishes social entrepreneurs from other entrepreneurs is about the creation of social value. On the issue of sustainability, even though the findings show that with the exception of AE, RE, and SS who really had sustainability plans, the others could not really prove that their social enterprises would be sustained in the long run. Respondents agree to the fact that in order to remain relevant and continue making a social impact. It is necessary that they put in plans to sustain their social enterprises. 111 University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh These findings, on one hand, do not confirm the assertion of Gupta et al (2015) that sustainability is the motive for the existence of all social entrepreneurial ventures, on the other hand however, the findings collaborates the work of Gupta et al (2015) who postulate that to be considered socially entrepreneurial, organisations must strive for sustainability by using business models in a manner equal to commercial enterprises. About innovation, respondents display limited knowledge about the essential role innovation plays in the SE concept. These findings disconfirm the assertions by authors such as Alvord, Brown and Letts (2004), Mair and Marti (2006), Nicholls (2006), Robinson, Mair and Hockerts (2009) who argue that SE is an innovative process and concludes that social entrepreneurs need to be innovative in their quest to create social value. These findings also align with the work of Quaye and Acheampong (2013) who argue that in Ghana, entrepreneurs and likewise social entrepreneurs are not innovative. 5.5.2 Resource Acquisition (Research Objective Two/ Question 2) Resources as already highlighted in literature play an important role in any entrepreneurial activity. In general, the finding reveals the social entrepreneurs acquire resources along these lines; corporate resource (financial), managerial resource (human), reputation as well as a resource in the form of the founder‟s network needed for effecting bundling of other resources (Desa & Basu, 2013). The study reveals that resources are acquired from a varied of sources, for instance, financial resource which is grouped under corporate resources come from sources such as personal 112 University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh savings, philanthropic sources, international sponsors, as well as loans from relations. These findings confirm both literatures on conventional entrepreneurship as well as social entrepreneurship (Doherty et al., 2009; Ridley-Duff & Bull, 2011). These findings support the assertion of Desa and Basu (2013) that social entrepreneurs unlike commercial entrepreneurs are unable to tap into capital markets as a result of the non-distributive restriction of the surplus created by non-profit ventures and also the embedded social purpose of for-profit and hybrid organisations ( Lasprogata & Cotten, 2003). In addition, with regards to philanthropic sources, the findings are aligned with the works of Young and Grinsfelder (2011) who assert that the most common principal avenue for social enterprises are from philanthropists. Furthermore, the hybrid mission of these social enterprises does not permit them to charge market prices as well as targeting customers who have the highest reservation prices for their products and services which leads to low financial position and therefore are perceived not to be creditworthy by credit institutions. Hence, their immediate source of funding revolves around their personal savings, donations, philanthropic sources and other informal sources. On managerial resources, the study reveals that volunteers from the major human resource base for social enterprise in Ghana. The study findings align with the findings of Austin et al. (2006); Dacin et al. (2010) and Doherty et al. (2014) that who asserts that financial constraints make it difficult for social entrepreneurs to provide market-level compensation to employees, hence most of the time they rely on volunteers who mostly lack the required skills set. However, even though using volunteers is seen as a strength in the short term, Barraket et al. (2010) and Hynes (2009) argue that it does not indicate a secure long-term strategy for the sector. 113 University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh With regards to the network of the founder, findings reveal that intangible resources prove to be highly profitable for the activities of social entrepreneurs. The findings confirm that intangible resource has the attributes of the RVB, which confirms that it can be bundled to gain access to other important key resources such as finance as well managerial resource. This finding collaborates the fact that founder‟s network cannot be overlooked especially in acquiring resources for social enterprises. Findings confirm that in social enterprises, an essential resource to their success is the networks and relationships available to the social entrepreneur (Dacin et al., 2010; Roy & Karna, 2015; Shaw & Carter, 2007). These relationships and networks mostly become influential in the operation of social enterprises as a result of their provision of resources in the form of collaborative partnerships, innovative ideas, capacity development, as well as providing diverse income streams (Meyskens et al., 2010; Sharir et al., 2009; Shaw & Carter, 2007). In addition, collaborative works and partnerships aid in accessing a wider pool of resources, and further enable social enterprises to develop capabilities they wouldn‟t have been able to do on their own (Meyskens et al., 2010). 5.5.3 Resource Challenges (Research Objective Three/ Question 3) Pertaining to this objective, the study identifies some of the resource constraints faced by social entrepreneurs in Ghana. In view of this, challenges relating to corporate resources (financial) as well as managerial resources are identified. These findings resonate with extant literature, for instance with researchers like to Doherty et al. (2009) and Ridley-Duff and Bull (2011) who claim that one of the major challenges faced by social enterprise relate to funding which is basically as a result of ambiguity with regards to the hybrid mission of these enterprises. Desa and Basu (2013) further collaborate that the challenge is further aggravated in a developing 114 University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh economy environment characterised by scarcity of resources accompanied by weak institutional financing environment. Another notable challenge revealed through the study relates to the issue of the managerial resource (human capital), social enterprises similar to other conventional enterprises require the services of experts in order to achieve their social value creation objective. In addition, the hybrid mission of social enterprises requires that the calibre of human capital have a range of skills including business skills which can assist in the effective and efficient operation of the social enterprises. As indicated in the study, a major challenge faced by social entrepreneurs relates to compensation of employees (Austin et al., 2006). Been limited by financial resources requires for recruiting and retaining the necessary skilled personnel, social entrepreneurs mostly use volunteers as their major human resource (Doherty et al. 2009; Hynes, 2009). Meanwhile, though the use of volunteers and contract workers may seem to be cheaper during the initial stages of the social enterprise Tandon (2014), this may be ineffective in the long run as the social enterprise grows and expertise may be needed for its sustainability. 5.6 Discussion of Cross-Case findings Further findings relating to cross-case analysis between male and female social entrepreneurs revealed interesting insights. On the aspect of reputation, the study finds that its importance to social entrepreneurs varies. For instance, though reputation is mentioned as important, the study reveals that men rely on reputation because they are perceived not to be trustworthy as social entrepreneurs as compared to females. This emanates from that fact that men are mostly motivated by money in the setting 115 University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh up of any entrepreneurial venture. Meanwhile, the female social entrepreneurs are not reputation- conscious. The finding, however, disconfirms that assertion by Roy and Karna (2015) to an extent, in that they argued that for social enterprises especially in their formative stages, the integrity exhibited by the founder is of utmost importance in building the right reputation of the organisation. He further argues that reputation serves as critical resources in that it assists in having a smooth engagement with the organisation's stakeholders such as regulators, beneficiaries, and others. On the other hand, female social entrepreneurs tend to place importance on their network resources and in actual fact, the findings reveal that female social entrepreneurs depend extensively on their network resources to acquire other resources. This collaborates the works of Sharir and Lerner (2006) as well as Meyskens et al. (2010) who finds out that social network provides social entrepreneurs with information and resources including (emotional, financial and physical) which are essential for the development of these ventures in the face of several challenges. Furthermore, these collaborative networks assist in the provision of training which assist in the capacity development of these social entrepreneurs. Furthermore, the study shows that females tend to use more volunteers as their managerial resource whereas male social entrepreneurs use contract workers. This finding echoes the argument of Hynes (2009) and Tandon (2014) that funding constraints make it impossible for social entrepreneurs to provide commensurate salaries for employees hence curtail their ability to hire the permanent worker: they resort to the use of volunteers as well as contract workers (Austin et al., 2006). Other notable revelations from the study are that the female social entrepreneurs are part-time social entrepreneurs whilst the men are a full time social entrepreneurs. This, however, 116 University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh disconfirms the assertion of Levie and Hart (2011) who claim that social entrepreneurs are likely to be women who devote their time fully to social entrepreneurial activities and that women are likely to reject business opportunities which require long hours but rather prefer to work full time on the social ventures than their male counterparts. Table 5.2 below presents how the six social enterprises value resources. AE places priority on corporate, managerial and network resources; YE‟s main concern is on reputation, corporate and managerial resources. As for ES, managerial, corporate and network resources are of much value to her. RE, on the other hand, places equal importance on all four resources. KE believes that corporate, managerial and network resources are very important. Finally, SS places precedence on corporate and network resources. Table 5. 2 Resources as per Specific Cases Case / Resources AE YE ES RE KE SS Reputation * * Corporate * * * * * * Managerial * * * * * Network * * * * * Note: Adopted from: Blankson and Crowford (2012) *means the case valued the corresponding resource as a major resource at the expense of the others. Empty portions show no relationship between the success of the resource and case corresponded. 117 University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh 5.8 Chapter Summary This chapter analysed data obtained through the in-depth interviews. The method was to consider the thematic areas and further address the three research questions. Transcribed data were analysed to generate meaning and findings were discussed in relation to extant literature. 118 University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh CHAPTER SIX SUMMARY, CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS 6.0 Introduction This chapter serves as a conclusion to the study and contains a summary of the study findings, followed by the appropriate recommendations intended at informing social enterprises as well as policy and finally suggestions for future research. The study set out to examine social entrepreneurship; through insights from social enterprise Ghana. In view of this, extant SE literature was reviewed regarding the definition of the concept, resources acquisition among social entrepreneurs, and resource based-view theory among others. A qualitative research approach was used, data were collected through interviews with members of social enterprise Ghana. Recorded interviews were further transcribed and afterward data analysis was done thematically. The research findings were presented and discussed in relation to extant literature, finally a tabulated summary adopted from Blankson and Crowford (2012) was used to show the value that each of the social enterprise place on the various resources. 6.1 Summary of findings Research Objective I This objective was to assess social entrepreneurs understanding of the dimensions of social entrepreneurship in Ghana. These dimensions include; social value, sustainability, and innovation. For all the dimensions, Ghana social entrepreneurs identify mostly with social value creation, hence most of them believe that the ability to make a meaningful impact in somebody‟s life as well contribute to their communities is the core essence of SE. From the findings, has 119 University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh been revealed the dimension of creating social value is well understood by social entrepreneurs in Ghana. To begin with, with regards to the issue of sustainability, the study finds that Ghanaian social entrepreneurs know that in order for their social enterprises to be sustained, it is essential that they operates a business model that promises financial independence as it is necessary to ensure the survival of their organisations. Most of the respondents, however, could not prove how they intend to sustain their social enterprises in the long run. This suggests that social entrepreneurs are not proactive enough and hence it is imperative that social entrepreneurs understand the importance of incorporating a business model that would ensure that they become financially independent. Also, in relation to innovation, the study reveals that social entrepreneurs in Ghana do not display adequate creativity in carrying out their activities. This proves that innovation and creativity is a challenge for entrepreneurs in Ghana, likewise social entrepreneurs. The use of ideas similar to non-governments organisations proves that social entrepreneurs are not oriented towards being innovative and hence it is essential that innovation is given priority in the running of a social enterprise. Research Objective II This objective was to explore how social entrepreneurs acquire resources, the study identifies that resources such as corporate resources (finance), managerial resources (human capital), and the network of the founder as well as reputation are acquired through varied sources. For 120 University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh instance for financial resources, social entrepreneurs depend on personal savings, philanthropic sources, international sponsors, as well as loans from relations. These further indicate that as result of the lack of understanding of the concept in Ghana, institutional actors do not appreciate the significance of the activities of social entrepreneurs and as such are unwilling to provide credit facilities to social enterprises. In addition, with respect to managerial resources, the use of volunteers dominated the research findings. The inability to pay market-based salaries as a result of financial limitations, leave social entrepreneurs with no alternative than to fall on cheap sources of labour such as volunteers. Furthermore, the study reveals the essential role of founder‟s network in social enterprises in Ghana. The findings show the vital role that founder‟s network plays in the acquisition of resources. This suggests that having a strong network (social capital) is a unique resource and this resource has the attributes of value, rarity, imitable and non-substitutability. These attributes are also the main components of the RBV theory. Research Objective III The study findings discovered that social enterprises encounter challenges associated with finances as well as a human resource. In addition, there is also the challenge of ambiguity with regards to the understanding of the concept among stakeholders. 121 University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh 6.2 Conclusion Social entrepreneurship is emerging in Ghana and is gradually gaining the attention of academia and practitioners. Research into the concept is however lacking. Hence this study set out to examine social entrepreneurship in the country through insights from members of “social enterprise Ghana” and the study therefore specifically aimed at exploring how Ghanaian social entrepreneurs understand the dimensions of social entrepreneurship. In addition, the study investigated how social entrepreneurs acquire resources as well as the challenges they encounter. In conclusion, the study showed that that though social entrepreneurship is being practiced and also has the potential of solving Ghana‟s socio-economic challenges. With regards to the dimensions of the SE concept, the study discovered that Ghanaian social entrepreneurs know what social value creation is about, however, the dimension of sustainability and innovation are not well understood. Evidence from the study showed that social entrepreneurs acquire resources similar to commercial entrepreneurs. Social entrepreneurs rely mostly on informal sources of finance such as personal savings and charitable giving from relations. Meanwhile, for the managerial resource, social entrepreneurs rely on the services of volunteers. In addition, the results showed that intangible resources such as founder‟s network and former work experience prove to be advantageous during the start- phase of the social enterprise. It was revealed that the stronger network relations social entrepreneurs have, the stronger the drive to start social entrepreneurial activities. It was revealed further social entrepreneurs encounter challenges relating to finances, human resources as well as ambiguity with regards to the understanding of the concept. 122 University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh Additionally, through the study, it was discovered that male social entrepreneurs are reputation conscious more than females. Meanwhile, female social entrepreneurs enjoy more relational support. The study found that the female social entrepreneurs have other formal jobs in addition to running a social enterprise whilst for the males, running the social enterprise is their full-time job. 6.3 Recommendations With inference from the study findings, the following recommendations are made; Social enterprises should be creative in developing a business model to ensure sustainability and scaling up.  SE concept lacks proper understanding. More awareness and interest need to be created to ensure that the concept is seen as an avenue for solving Ghana‟s social-economic challenges and also serve as a source of employment for the youth.  Social entrepreneurs must endeavor to be innovative. It therefore necessary that creativity is encouraged among themselves in performing their activities. In addition in order to ensure sustainability, it is essential that creative ways of getting income are adopted by social entrepreneurs, to create a strong revenue base for these social enterprises.  Social enterprises need to be positioned well so that their double-bottom line is appreciated by institutional actors so as to ensure that resources acquisition difficulties are curtailed. 123 University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh  Policy makers need to come out with a well-documented policy that will regulate and coordinate the activities of social enterprises, to ensure that the boundaries of the SE concept are well streamlined.  Policy makers and other stakeholders must strive to sure that social enterprises are sustained and scaled up through the organisation of capacity building training programmes for them. 6.4 Contributions The study sought to examine SE in Ghana, from social entrepreneurs in Ghana. The study contributes to the social entrepreneurship literature in Africa, specifically Ghana. Additionally, the study highlights the dimensions of the SE concept which extends the understanding of the concept in Ghana. Finally, the study provides an empirical insight into the process of social entrepreneurship with particular emphasis on how social entrepreneurs acquire resources. 6.5 Recommendations for Future Studies Further studies should focus on the revenue model used by social entrepreneurs so to generate insights as to how sustainable social enterprises can be. Furthermore the dual role of social enterprises brings a lot of ambiguity regarding their operations, hence a study of how social impact is created by social enterprises would bring out interesting results. A recommendation of the study of the entrepreneurial orientation of social entrepreneurs is recommended to ascertain how dimensions of proactiveness, innovation and risk-taking can be assessed among social entrepreneurs. It is obvious that social capital plays a major role in social enterprises, a detailed study of the negative and positive impact of social capital is recommended for further studies. 124 University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh Finally a study involving the target beneficiaries of social enterprises would also highlight new insights. 125 University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh REFERENCES Abor, J., & Quartey, P. (2010). Issues in SME development in Ghana and South Africa. International Research Journal of Finance and Economics, 39(6), 215-228. Abu-Saifan, S. (2012). Social entrepreneurship: definition and boundaries. Technology Innovation Management Review, 2(2), 22-27. Acemoglu, D., Johnson, S., & Robinson, J. A. (2000). The colonial origins of comparative development: An empirical investigation. Cambridge, MA: National Bureau of Economic Research. Adom, K. (2014). Beyond the marginalization thesis: An examination of the motivations of informal entrepreneurs in sub-Saharan Africa: Insights from Ghana. The International Journal of Entrepreneurship and Innovation, 15(2), 113-125. Adom, K. (2015). Recognizing the contribution of female entrepreneurs in economic development in sub-Saharan Africa: Some evidence from Ghana. Journal of Developmental Entrepreneurship, 20(01), 1550003. Adom, K., & Asare-Yeboa, I. T. (2016). An evaluation of human capital theory and female entrepreneurship in sub-Sahara Africa: Some evidence from Ghana. International Journal of Gender and Entrepreneurship, 8(4), 402-423. Agyeman-Togobo, K., Togobo, L-G., Darko, E. & Sharp, S. (2016). The state of social enterprise in Ghana. Retrieved from https://www.britishcouncil.org/sites/default/files/bc- report-ch1-digital_0.pdf. (Accessed on 23 November 2016) Al-Hassan, R. M., & Diao, X. (2007). Regional disparities in Ghana: Policy options and public investment implications. Washington, DC: International Food Policy Research Institute. Alvord, S. H., Brown, L. D., & Letts, C. W. (2004). Social entrepreneurship and societal transformation an exploratory study. The Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 40(3), 260-282. Amoako, I. O., & Lyon, F. (2014). „We don‟t deal with courts‟: Cooperation and alternative institutions shaping exporting relationships of small and medium-sized enterprises in Ghana. International Small Business Journal, 32(2), 117-139. Anderson, R. (2007). Thematic content analysis (TCA). Descriptive presentation of qualitative data. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. 126 University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh André, K., & Pache, A. C. (2016). From caring entrepreneur to caring enterprise: Addressing the ethical challenges of scaling up social enterprises. Journal of Business Ethics, 133(4), 659-675. Arvidson, M., & Lyon, F. (2014). Social impact measurement and non-profit organisations: Compliance, resistance, and promotion. VOLUNTAS: International Journal of Voluntary and Nonprofit Organizations, 25(4), 869-886. Asongu, J. J. (2007). Strategic corporate social responsibility in practice. Lawrenceville, GA: Greenview Publishing Company. Austin, G. (2010), “African economic development and colonial legacies”, International Development Policy Series, 1, 11-32. Austin, J., Márquez, P., Reficco, E., Berger, G., Fedato, C., Fischer, R. M., & Prado, A. M. (2007). Building new business value chains with low income sectors in Latin America. Business Solutions for the Global Poor: Creating Economic and Social Value. Austin, J., Stevenson, H., & Wei‐Skillern, J. (2006). Social and commercial entrepreneurship: Same, different, or both? Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 30(1), 1-22. Ayiro, L. P. (2010). The role of social entrepreneurship in HIV/AIDS management across the education sector in Kenya. Journal of European Industrial Training, 34(2), 167-182. Bacq, S., & Janssen, F. (2011). The multiple faces of social entrepreneurship: A review of definitional issues based on geographical and thematic criteria. Entrepreneurship & Regional Development, 23(5-6), 373-403. Bacq, S., Ofstein, L. F., Kickul, J. R., & Gundry, L. K. (2015). Bricolage in social entrepreneurship: How creative resource mobilization fosters greater social impact. The International Journal of Entrepreneurship and Innovation, 16(4), 283-289. Badelt, C. (1999). The role of NPOs in policies to combat social exclusion. Vienna, Austria: The World Bank. Barney, J. (1991). Firm resources and sustained competitive advantage. Journal of Management, 17(1), 99-120. Barney, J. B. (2001). Is the resource-based view a useful perspective for strategic management research? Yes. Academy of Management Review, 26(1), 41-56. Barney, J., Wright, M., & Ketchen Jr, D. J. (2001). The resource-based view of the firm: Ten years after 1991. Journal of Management, 27(6), 625-641. 127 University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh Baron, D. (2007) Corporate Social Responsibility and Social Entrepreneurship. Journal of Economics & Management Strategy, 16(3), 683-717. Barraket, J., Collyer, N., O‟Connor, M., & Anderson, H. (2010). Finding Australia‟s social enterprise sector. Report for the Australian Centre for Philanthropy and Nonprofit Studies, Social Traders, Melbourne. Barrutia, J. M., & Echebarria, C. (2015). Resource-based view of sustainability engagement. Global Environmental Change, 34, 70-82. Blair, T. (1997). The Will to Win Speech by the Prime Minister the RT Hon Tony Blair MP at the Aylesbury Estate. Southwark, 2 June 1997. Blankson, C., & Crawford, J. C. (2012). Impact of positioning strategies on service firm performance. Journal of Business Research, 65(3), 311-316. Blundel, R. K., & Lyon, F. (2015). Towards a long view: historical perspectives on the scaling and replication of social ventures. Journal of Social Entrepreneurship, 6(1), 80-102. st Boateng, R. (2014). Research Made Easy (1 edn). Accra, Ghana: PRF Publishing. Boddice, R. (2011). Forgotten antecedents: entrepreneurship, ideology and history. An Introduction to Social Entrepreneurship, Edward Elgar, Cheltemham and Northampton, MA, 133-148. Bornstein, D., & Davis, S. (2010). Social entrepreneurship: What everyone needs to know? New York, NY: Oxford University Press. Boschee, J (2008). Social Entrepreneurship: The Promise and the Perils. In Social Entrepreneurship: New Models of Sustainable Social Change, edited by A. Nicholls, 356-390.Oxford: Oxford University Press. Bosma, N. S., & Levie, J. (2010). Global Entrepreneurship Monitor 2009 Executive Report. Retrieved from: GEM%202009%20Global%20Report%20Rev%20140410.pdf.(Accessed on October, 2016). Braga, J. C., Proenca, T., & Ferreira, M. R. (2014). Motivations for social entrepreneurship– Evidences from Portugal. Tékhne, 12, 11-21. Bridge, S., Hegarty, C., & Porter, S. (2010). Rediscovering enterprise: developing appropriate university entrepreneurship education. Education+ Training, 52(8/9), 722-734. 128 University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh British Council (2016) British Council Home Page: Retrieved from: http://www.britishcouncil.org.gh/programmes/society/social-enterprise (Accessed on th 12 November, 2016). Brooks, A. C. (2009). Social entrepreneurship: A modern approach to social value creation. Pearson Prentice Hall. Bryman, A. (1984). The debate about quantitative and qualitative research: A question of method or epistemology? The British Journal of Sociology, 35(1), 75–92. Bryman, A. (1988). Quantity and Quality in Social Research. London: Unwin Hyman. nd Bryman, A., & Bell, E. (2007). Business Research Methods. (2 ed). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press. Buame, S. (2012). Entrepreneurship: Entrepreneurial Education, Venture Creation and SME Management in Ghana. Accra, Ghana: Big Mike‟s Publication Ltd. Bull, M. and Crompton, H. (2006), “Business practices in social enterprises”, Social Enterprise Journal, 2(1), 42-60. Burns, N. & Grove, S. K. (2003). Understanding nursing research. (3rd ed). Business Strategy, 7, 28-39. Cabinet Office (2013) Social enterprise: Market trends. UK: BMG Research. Cantillon, R. (1734). Essay on the Nature of General Commerce. Henry Higgs, Trans. London: Macmillan. Carlsson, B., Braunerhjelm, P., McKelvey, M., Olofsson, C., Persson, L., & Ylinenpää, H. (2013). The evolving domain of entrepreneurship research. Small Business Economics, 41(4), 913-930. Casimir, A., & Samuel, E. (2015). Social work and the challenge of entrepreneurship in Africa. Open Journal of Political Science, 5(02), 155. Cassell, C. & Symon, G. (2006). Taking qualitative methods in organization and management research seriously. Qualitative Research in Organizations and Management, 1 (1), 4‐12. Certo, S. T., & Miller, T. (2008). Social entrepreneurship: Key issues and concepts. Business Horizons, 51(4), 267-271. Chell, E. (2007). Social enterprise and entrepreneurship: Towards a convergent theory of the entrepreneurial process. International Small Business Journal, 25(1), 5-26. 129 University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh Chen, S., & Bouvain, P. (2008). Is corporate responsibility converging? A comparison of Corporate Responsibility Reporting in USA, UK, Australia and Germany. Journal of Business Ethics, 87, 299-317. Choi, N., & Majumdar, S. (2014). Social entrepreneurship as an essentially contested concept: Opening a new avenue for systematic future research. Journal of Business Venturing, 29(3), 363-376. Christie, M. J., & Honig, B. (2006). Social entrepreneurship: New research findings. Journal of World Business, 41(1), 1-5. Cooper, D., & Schindler, P. (2008). International Edition: Business Research Methods: New Delhi; MacGraw-Hill. Bulletin. District Development Report, (2007). Ministry of Planning, Murang‟a District, Kenya government District Development reports issue Bulletin. Costa, E., & Pesci, C. (2016). Social impact measurement: why do stakeholders matter?. Sustainability Accounting, Management and Policy Journal, 7(1), 99-124. Creswell, J. W. (2009). Research Design: Qualitative, quantitative and mixed Methods Approaches (3rd ed.). London, CA: Sage Publications. Creswell, J. W. (2012). Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five approaches (3rd ed.). London: Sage Publications. Creswell, J. W. (2013). Research design: A qualitative, quantitative, and mixed method th approaches. (4 ed). London: Sage publications. Creswell, J.W. (2003). Research Design: Qualitative, quantitative and mixed method approaches (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. Creswell, W.J. (1998), Qualitative enquiry and research design: Choosing among five traditions. London: Sage. Dacin, M. T., Dacin, P. A., & Tracey, P. (2011). Social entrepreneurship: A critique and future directions. Organization Science, 22(5), 1203-1213. Dacin, P. A., Dacin, M. T., & Matear, M. (2010). Social entrepreneurship: Why we don't need a new theory and how we move forward from here. The Academy of Management Perspectives, 24(3), 37-57. 130 University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh Darko, E and Koranteng, K (2015) Social Enterprise Landscape in Ghana. Retrieved from www.britishcouncil.org/sites/default/files/social_enterprise_landscape_in_ghana_report_ final.pdf. (Accessed on 8 December 2016). David, M., & Sutton, C. D. (2004). Social research: The basics. London: Sage. Dees, G.J. (2001). The meaning of social entrepreneurship. Paper CASE, Fuqua School of Business, Duke University, Durham, NC, available at: http://faculty.fuqua.duke.edu/centers/case/files/dees-SE.pdf (Accessed 12 November 2016) Dees, J. G., & Anderson, B. B. (2003). For-profit social ventures. International Journal of Entrepreneurship Education, 2(1), 1-26. Dees, J. G., Emerson, J., & Economy, P. (2002). Enterprising nonprofits: A toolkit for social entrepreneurs. New York, NY: John Wiley & Sons. Dees, J.G. (1998). The Meaning of Social Entrepreneurship, Kauffman Center for Entrepreneurial Leadership, Missouri, available at: https://csistg.gsb.stanford.edu/sites/csi.gsb.stanford.edu/files/TheMeaningofsocialEntrepr eneurship.pdf (accessed 20 November 2016) Dees, J.G. (2007). Taking social entrepreneurship seriously. Social Science and Modern Society, 44(3), 24-31. Defourny, J., & Nyssens, M. (2008). Social enterprise in Europe: recent trends and developments. Social Enterprise Journal, 4(3), 202-228. Defourny, J., & Nyssens, M. (2010). Conceptions of social enterprise and social entrepreneurship in Europe and the United States: Convergences and divergences. Journal of Social Entrepreneurship, 1(1), 32-53. Desa, G. (2008). Mobilizing resources in constrained environments: A study of technology social ventures. Washington, USA: University of Washington. Desa, G. (2012). Resource mobilization in international social entrepreneurship: Bricolage as a mechanism of institutional transformation. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 36(4), 727-751. Desa, G., & Basu, S. (2013). Optimization or bricolage? Overcoming resource constraints in global social entrepreneurship. Strategic Entrepreneurship Journal, 7(1), 26-49. 131 University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh Di Domenico, M., Haugh, H., & Tracey, P. (2010). Social bricolage: Theorizing social value creation in social enterprises. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 34(4), 681-703. Diochon, M., & Anderson, A. R. (2009). Social enterprise and effectiveness: A process typology. Social Enterprise Journal, 5(1), 7-29. Doherty, B., Foster, G., Meehan, J., & Mason, C. (2009). Management for social enterprise. Sage Publications. Doherty, B., Haugh, H., & Lyon, F. (2014). Social enterprises as hybrid organizations: A review and research agenda. International Journal of Management Reviews, 16(4), 417-436. Drucker, P.F. (1989). What business can learn from nonprofits. Harvard Business Review, 67, 88–93. Durieux, M., & Stebbins, R. (2010). Social entrepreneurship for dummies. Indianapolis, Indiana: Wiley Publishing, Inc. Dzisi, S. (2008). Women entrepreneurs in small and medium enterprises (SMEs) in Ghana. Available at: http://hdl.handle.net/1959.3/35690 (Accessed 15 October 2013). Ebrahim, A. S., & Rangan, V. K. (2010). The limits of nonprofit impact: A contingency framework for measuring social performance. Havard Business School. Retrievd from http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.1611810 Eisenhardt, K. M. (1989). Building theories from case study research. Academy of Management Review, 14, 488-511. Eisenhardt, K. M., & Graebner, M. E. (2007). Theory building from cases: Opportunities and challenges. Academy of Management Journal, 50(1), 25-32. Eldabi, T., Irani, Z., Paul, R. J. & Love, P. E. D. (2002). Quantitative and qualitative decision- Making methods in simulation modeling. Management Decision, 40(1), 64-73. Estrin, S., Mickiewicz, T., & Stephan, U. (2016). Human capital in social and commercial entrepreneurship. Journal of Business Venturing, 31(4), 449-467. European Commission. (2009). Social economy. Retrieved November, 2, 2016, from http://ec.europa.eu/enterprise/policies/sme/promoting-entrepreneurship Evans, B., Joas, M., Sundback, S., & Theobald, K. (2006). Governing local sustainability. Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, 49(6), 849-867. 132 University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh Fayolle, A., & Matlay, H. H. (2010). Handbook of research on social entrepreneurship. Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar Publishing Limited. Ferreira, J. J., Azevedo, S. G., & Ortiz, R. F. (2011). Contribution of resource-based view and entrepreneurial orientation on small firm growth/Contribución del enfoque de recursos y capacidades y la orientación emprendedora en el crecimiento de las pequeñas empresas. Cuadernos de Gestión, 11(1), 95. Galbreath, J. (2005). Which resources matter the most to firm success? An exploratory study of resource-based theory. Technovation, 25(9), 979-987. Galera, G., & Borzaga, C. (2009). Social enterprise: An international overview of its conceptual evolution and legal implementation. Social Enterprise Journal, 5(3), 210-228. Gartner, W.B. (1990).What are we talking about when we talk about entrepreneurship? Journal of Business Venturing, 5, 15-28. Germak, A. J., & Singh, K. K. (2009). Social entrepreneurship: Changing the way social workers do business. Administration in Social Work, 34(1), 79-95. Institute of Statistical, Social and Economic Research (2014). Ghana Social Development Outlook. Retrieved from http://isser.edu.gh/index.php/ghana-social-development- outlook/52-ghana-social-development-outlook-2014 (Accessed November 2016) Ghana Statistical Service (2008). Ghana Living Standards Survey 5, Accra, Ghana. Retrieved from http://www.statsghana.gov.gh/docfiles/glss5_report.pdf (Accessed October 2016). Ghana Statistical Service (2016) Ghana Statistics Development Plan, 2015 Labour Force Report. Accra. Retrieved from http://www.statsghana.gov.gh/docfiles/publications/Labour_Force/LFS%20REPORT_fia nl_21-3-17.pdf (Assessed November 2016). Ghana Statistical Service. (2010). Population and Housing Census, 2010. Accra, Ghana. Retrieved from http://www.statsghana.gov.gh/docfiles/publications/2010_PHC_National_Analytical_Re port.pdf (Accessed October 2016). Ghana Statistical Service. (2015). Ghana living standards survey, 6. Accra Ghana. Retrieved from http://www.statsghana.gov.gh/docfiles/glss6/GLSS6_Main%20Report.pdf (Accessed October 2016). 133 University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh Ghauri, P. N., & Grønhaug, K. (2005). Research methods in business studies: A practical guide. Pearson Education. Ghauri, P., Tasavori, M., & Zaefarian, R. (2014). Internationalisation of service firms through corporate social entrepreneurship and networking. International Marketing Review, 31(6), 576-600. Global Entrepreneurship Monitor. (2000). Executive Report. Retrieved from http://www.gemconsortium.org/docs/2408/gem-2000-global-report. (Accessed September, 2016). Global Entrepreneurship Monitor. (2015). Special Topic Report Social Entrepreneurship. Retrieved from http://gemconsortium.org/report/49542. (Accessed October 2016). Goyal, S., Sergi, B. S., & Jaiswal, M. P. (2016). Understanding the challenges and strategic actions of social entrepreneurship at base of the pyramid. Management Decision, 54(2), 418-440. Grant, R. M. (1991). The resource-based theory of competitive advantage: Implications for strategy formulation. California Management Review, 33(3), 114-135. Gray, R. (2000). Review essay: It's official our future is safe in the hands of business. Social and Environmental Accountability Journal, 20(1), 19-22. Gulati, R. (1999). Network location and learning: The influence of network resources and firm capabilities on alliance formation. Strategic Management Journal, 20 (5), 397-420. Gupta, S., Beninger, S., & Ganesh, J. (2015).A hybrid approach to innovation by social enterprises: Lessons from Africa. Social Enterprise Journal, 11(1), 89-112. Guy, R.F., Edgley, C.E., Arafat, I., & Allen, D.E., (1987). Social Research Methods: Puzzles and solutions. Massachusetts: Allyn and Bacon Inc. Hair Jr, Joseph, F., & Lukas, B. (2014). Marketing research. Australia: McGraw-Hill Education. Hall, R. (1992). The strategic analysis of intangible resources. Strategic Management Journal, 13(2), 135-144. Hart, S., & Christensen, C. (2002) "The great leap", Sloan Management Review, 44(1), 51-56. Hartigan, P. (2006). It's about people, not profits. Business Strategy Review, 17(4), 42-45. Haski-Leventhal, D., & Mehra, A. (2016). Impact measurement in social enterprises: Australia and India. Social Enterprise Journal, 12(1), 78-103. 134 University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh Haskins, C. (2009). Using the concept of sustainable development to encourage corporate responsibility in small enterprises. Norwegian University of science and Technology Trondheim, Norway. Haugh, H. (2009), “A resource-based perspective of social entrepreneurship”, in Robinson, J., Mair, J. and Hockerts, K. (Eds), International Perspectives of Social Entrepreneurship, Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan. Hébert, R. F., & Link, A. N. (2009). A history of entrepreneurship. London: Routledge Herbert, R.F. and Link, A.N. (1989). In search of the meaning of entrepreneurship. Small Business Economics, 1(1), 39-49. Hinson, R. E., & Ndhlovu, T. P. (2011). Conceptualising corporate social responsibility (CSR) and corporate social investment (CSI): The South African context. Social Responsibility Journal, 7(3), 332-346. Hitt, M. A., Xu, K., & Carnes, C. M. (2016). Resource based theory in operations management research. Journal of Operations Management, 41, 77-94. Hogg, M. K., & Maclaran, P. (2008). Rhetorical issues in writing interpretivist consumer research. Qualitative Market Research: An International Journal, 11(2), 130-146. Hoogendoorn, B., Pennings, E., & Thurik, R. (2010). What do we know about social entrepreneurship: An analysis of empirical research. International Review of Entrepreneurship, 8 (2), 71-112. Hynes, B. (2009). Growing the social enterprise–issues and challenges. Social Enterprise Journal, 5(2), 114-125. Ichilov, O. (2012). Privatization and commercialization of public education: Consequences for citizenship and citizenship education. The Urban Review, 44(2), 281-301. Institute of Statistical, Social and Economic Research (ISSER) (2015). The State of the Ghanaian Economy in 2014, University of Ghana, Legon. Retrieved from: http://isser.edu.gh/index.php/sger/50-the-state-of-the-ghanaian-economy-report-2014 (Accessed on November, 2016). International Monetary Fund. (2013). World economic outlook database. Retrieved from http://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/weo/2013/01/weodata/index.aspx Accessed on 23/8/2016. 135 University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh Jenner, P. (2016). Social enterprise sustainability revisited: an international perspective. Social Enterprise Journal, 12(1), 42-60. Johnson, B. & Christensen, L. (2012). Educational research: Qualitative, quantitative and mixed approaches. (4th edn). London: SAGE Publication Inc. Jones, G., & Wadhwani, R. D. (2006). SchumPeter's plea: Rediscovering history and relevance in the study of entrepreneurship. Division of Research, Harvard Business School. Julian, S. D., & Ofori-Darkwa, J. C. (2013). Financial resource availability and corporate social responsibility expenditures in a sub-Saharan economy: The institutional difference hypothesis. Strategic Management Journal, 34(11), 1314-1330. Kannampuzha, M. J., & Suoranta, M. (2016). Bricolage in the marketing efforts of a social enterprise. Journal of Research in Marketing and Entrepreneurship, 18(2), 176-196. Katz, J., & Gartner, W. B. (1988). Properties of emerging organizations. Academy of Management Review, 13(3), 429-441. Kerlin, J. A. (2006). Social enterprise in the United States and Europe: Understanding and learning from the differences. Voluntas: International Journal of Voluntary and Nonprofit Organizations, 17(3), 246. Kerlin, J. A. (2010). A comparative analysis of the global emergence of social enterprise. Voluntas: International Journal of Voluntary and Nonprofit Organizations, 21(2), 162-179. Kerlin, J. A. (Ed.). (2009). Social enterprise: A global comparison. London: University Press of New England. Kernot, C., & McNeil, J. (2011). Australian stories of social enterprise. Sydney, Australia: University of New South Wales. Kobia, M., & Sikalieh, D. (2010). Towards a search for the meaning of entrepreneurship. Journal of European Industrial Training, 34(2), 110-127. Kostetska, I., & Berezyak, I. (2014). Social entrepreneurship as an innovative solution mechanism of social problems of society. Management Theory and Studies for Rural Business and Infrastructure Development, 36(3), 569-577. Kothari, C. R. (2004). Research Methodology: Methods and Techniques (3rd ed.). Delhi: New Age International. 136 University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh Kotonen, U. (2009). Formal corporate social responsibility reporting in Finnish listed companies. Journal of Applied Accounting Research, 10(3), 176-207. Krueger, N. F. (2000). The cognitive infrastructure of opportunity emergence. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 24(3), 5–23. nd Kuhn, T. (1970). The structure of scientific revolutions. (2 ed). Chicago: University Of Chicago Press. Kumar, S., & Gupta, K. (2013). Social entrepreneurship: A conceptual framework. International Journal of Management and Social Sciences Research (IJMSSR), 2(8), 2319. Kupolokun, O. (2015). For-profit social entrepreneurship: A study of resources, challenges, and competencies in UK (Doctoral dissertation, Goldsmiths, University of London). Retrieved from http://research.gold.ac.uk/11394/1/ICCE_thesis_KupolokunO_2015.pdf Laratta, R., Nakagawa, S., & Sakurai, M. (2011). Japanese social enterprises: major contemporary issues and key challenges. Social Enterprise Journal, 7(1), 50-68. Lard, H. and Barres, I. (2007). Maximizing microfinance. Georgetown Journal of International Affairs, 8(2), 55-62. Lasprogata, G. A., & Cotten, M. N. (2003). Contemplating "enterprise": The business and legal challenges of social entrepreneurship. American Business Law Journal, 41(1), 67. Lepoutre, J., Justo, R., Terjesen, S., & Bosma, N. (2013). Designing a global standardized methodology for measuring social entrepreneurship activity: The Global Entrepreneurship Monitor social entrepreneurship study. Small Business Economics, 40(3), 693-714. Levie, J., & Hart, M. (2011). Business and social entrepreneurs in the UK: Gender, context and commitment. International Journal of Gender and Entrepreneurship, 3(3), 200-217. Luke, B., Barraket, J. & Eversole, R. (2013). Measuring value versus valuing measures: evaluating performance of social enterprise. Qualitative Research in Accounting and Management, 10 (3/4), 234-258. Lumpkin, G. T., Moss, T. W., Gras, D. M., Kato, S., & Amezcua, A. S. (2013). Entrepreneurial processes in social contexts: how are they different, if at all? Small Business Economics, 40(3), 761-783. Lyon, F., & Arvidson, M. (2011). Social impact measurement as an entrepreneurial process. Working Paper. Third Sector Research Centre (TSRC), Birmingham. 137 University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh Madhavaram, S., & Hunt, S. D. (2008). The service-dominant logic and a hierarchy of operant resources: developing masterful operant resources and implications for marketing strategy. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 36(1), 67-82. Mair, J., & Marti, I. (2006). Social entrepreneurship research: A source of explanation, prediction, and delight. Journal of World Business, 41(1), 36-44. Mair, J., & Schoen, O. (2007). Successful social entrepreneurial business models in the context of developing economies: An explorative study. International Journal of Emerging Markets, 2(1), 54-68. Makadok, R. (2001). Toward a synthesis of the resource‐based and dynamic‐capability views of rent creation. Strategic Management Journal, 22(5), 387-401 Malhotra, N. K. (2007). Marketing research: An applied orientation (5th ed.). New Jersey: Pearson Education Malhotra, N. K. (2011). Basic marketing research: Integration of social media (4th ed.). New Jersey: Pearson. Markides, C. C., & Williamson, P. J. (1996). Corporate diversification and organizational structure: A resource-based view. Academy of Management journal, 39(2), 340-367. Marks, D. & Yardley, L. (2004). Research methods for clinical and health psychology. Sage Publications. Marshall, R. S. (2011). Conceptualizing the international for-profit social entrepreneur. Journal of Business Ethics, 98(2), 183-198. Martin, J. S., & Novicevic, M. (2010). Social entrepreneurship among Kenyan farmers: A case example of acculturation challenges and program successes. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 34(5), 482-492. Martin, R. L., & Osberg, S. (2007). Social entrepreneurship: The case for definition. Stanford Social Innovation Review, 5(2), 28-39. Mason, C. (2012). Up for grabs: A critical discourse analysis of social entrepreneurship discourse in the United Kingdom. Social Enterprise Journal, 8(2), 123-140. Mason, M. (2010). Sample Size and Saturation in PhD Studies Using Qualitative Interviews. Retrieved from: http://www.qualitative-research.net/index.php/fqs/ article/view/1428/3027 (Accessed 12 November 2016). 138 University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh McGivern, Y. (2006). The Practice of Market and Social Research: An Introduction, (2nd ed.). London: Pearson Education McLoughlin, J., Kaminski, J., Sodagar, B., Khan, S., Harris, R., Arnaudo, G., & Mc Brearty, S. (2009). A strategic approach to social impact measurement of social enterprises: The SIMPLE methodology. Social Enterprise Journal, 5(2), 154-178. Mendell, M., & Nogales, R. (2009). Social Enterprises in OECD Member Countries. Local Economic and Employment Development (LEED), 89-138. Meyskens, M., Robb‐Post, C., Stamp, J. A., Carsrud, A. L., & Reynolds, P. D. (2010). Social ventures from a Resource‐Based perspective: An exploratory study assessing global Ashoka fellows. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 34(4), 661-680. Michalopoulos, S., & Papaioannou, E. (2015). On the ethnic origins of African development: Chiefs and precolonial political centralization. The Academy of Management Perspectives, 29(1), 32-71. Miles, M. B., & Huberman, A. M. (1994). Qualitative Data Analysis. Thousand Oak, CA: Sage Publications Miles, M., B. & Huberman, A., M., (2002). Qualitative data analysis: an expanded sourcebook. (4th Ed.). Thousand Oak, CA: Sage Publications. Ministry of Trade and Industry. (2016). Ghana Social Enterprise Policy. Accra, Ghana. Mordi, C., Opeyemi, I. S., Tonbara, M., & Ojo, I. S. (2012). Corporate social responsibility and the legal regulation in Nigeria. Economic Insights–Trends and Challenges, 64(1), 1-8. Morgan, G. and Smircich, L. (1980), “The case for qualitative research”, Academy of Management Review, 5(4), 491-500. Morse, J.M. (1994), “Designing funded qualitative research”, in Denizin, N.K. and Lincoln, Y.S. (Eds), Handbook of Qualitative Research. (2nd ed). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Mort, G., & Weerawardena, J. (2007). Social entrepreneurship. The Routledge Companion to Nonprofit Marketing, 220. Myers, M. D. (2013). Qualitative research in business and management. New York, NY: Sage Nations. Neuman, W., L. (2007). Social Research Methods-Qualitative and Quantitative Approaches. (International ed.) Boston: Pearson Education 139 University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh Newbert, S. L. (2007). Empirical research on the resource‐based view of the firm: An assessment and suggestions for future research. Strategic Management Journal, 28(2), 121-146. Nicholls, A. (2006). Playing the field: A new approach to the meaning of social entrepreneurship. Social Enterprise Journal, 2, 1-5. Nicholls, A. & Cho, A.H. (2006). Social entrepreneurship: The structuration of a field. Social Entrepreneurship: New Models of Sustainable Social Change, 34(4), 99-118. Nicholls, Alex, (2008) ed. Social entrepreneurship: New models of sustainable social change. Oxford, NY: Oxford University Press. Nicholls, J., Lawlor, E., Neitzert, E., & Goodspeed, T. (2009). A guide to social return on investment. London: Office of the Third Sector, The Cabinet Office. Nyambegera, S. M. (2002). Ethnicity and human resource management practice in sub-Saharan Africa: the relevance of the managing diversity discourse. International Journal of Human Resource Management, 13(7), 1077-1090. Omorede, A. (2014). Exploration of motivational drivers towards social entrepreneurship. Social Enterprise Journal, 10(3), 239-267. Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development, (1998). Maintaining Prosperity in an Ageing Society. Paris, France. Ostrander, S. A. (2007). The growth of donor control: Revisiting the social relations of philanthropy. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 36(2), 356-372. rd Parahoo, K. (2014). Nursing research: principles, process and issues. (3 ed). London: Palgrave Macmillan. Parsons, C., & Hailes, J. (2004). Voluntary organizations and the contribution to social justice in schools: Learning from a case study. Journal of Education Policy, 19(4), 473-495. Pathak, P., & Dattani, P. (2014). Social return on investment: three technical challenges. Social Enterprise Journal, 10(2), 91-104. Patton, MQ. (2002). Qualitative Research and Evaluation Methods, (3rd ed). California: Sage Publications Inc. Peattie, K. and Morley, A. (2008), Social Enterprises: Diversity and Dynamics, Contexts and Contributions. ESRC Centre for Business Relationships, Accountability, Sustainability and Society (BRASS), Cardiff University. Retrieved from: 140 University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh http://orca.cf.ac.uk/30775/1/SE%20Monograph%20Published.pdf. (Accessed on October, 2016). Penrose, E. (1959). The Theory of the Growth of the Firm, (3rd ed).New York, NY: Oxford University Press. Peredo, A. M., & McLean, M. (2006). Social entrepreneurship: A critical review of the concept. Journal of World Business, 41(1), 56-65. Polit, D.F., Beck, C.T. and Hungler, B.P. (2001), Essentials of Nursing Research: Methods, Appraisal and Utilization. (5th Ed). Philadelphia: Lippincott Williams & Wilkins Poon, D. (2011). The Emergence and Development of Social Enterprise Sectors. Social Impact Research Experience Journal. Wharton School. Retrieved from https://repository.upenn.edu/sire/8/ (Accessed on November 2016). Porter, M. E., & Kramer, M. R. (2011). The big idea: Creating shared value. Harvard Business Review, 89(1), 2. Priem, R. L., & Butler, J. E. (2001). Is the resource-based “view” a useful perspective for strategic management research?. Academy of Management Review, 26(1), 22-40. Quaye, D. M., & Acheampong, G. (2013). Are SME owner-managers entrepreneurs? Evidence from Ghana. European Journal of Business and Management, 5(23), 37-47. Rangan, V. K., Leonard, H. B., & McDonald, S. (2008). The future of social enterprise. Harvard Business School Working Paper, 8-103. Rangone, A. (1999). A resource-based approach to strategy analysis in small-medium sized enterprises. Small Business Economics, 12(3), 233-248. Rauch, J. (2007). This is not charity. Atlantic Monthly, 300 (3), 75-82. Ridley-Duff, R. & Bull, M. (2011) Understanding Social Enterprise. London: Sage. Ridley-Duff, R. (2008). Social enterprise as a socially rational business. International Journal of Entrepreneurial Behaviour & Research, 14(5), 291-312. Rivera-Santos, M., Holt, D., Littlewood, D., & Kolk, A. (2015). Social entrepreneurship in sub- Saharan Africa. The Academy of Management Perspectives, 29(1), 72-91. Roberts, D., & Woods, C. (2005). Changing the world on a shoestring: The concept of social entrepreneurship. University of Auckland Business Review, 7(1), 45-51. 141 University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh Robinson, J. (2006). Navigating social and institutional barriers to markets: How social entrepreneurs identify and evaluate opportunities. In J. Mair, J. Robinson and K. st Hockerts (Eds.), Social Entrepreneurship. (1 ed., pp. 95-120). Palgrave Macmillan UK. Robinson, J., Mair, J., & Hockerts, K. (Eds.). (2009). International perspectives on social entrepreneurship. Palgrave Macmillan. Robson, P. J., Haugh, H. M., & Obeng, B. A. (2009). Entrepreneurship and innovation in Ghana: enterprising Africa. Small Business Economics, 32(3), 331-350. Rose, P. (2009). NGO provision of basic education: alternative or complementary service delivery to support access to the excluded? Compare, 39(2), 219-233. Roy, K., & Karna, A. (2015). Doing social good on a sustainable basis: Competitive advantage of social businesses. Management Decision, 53(6), 1355-1374. st Rugg, G., & Petre, M. (2007). A Gentle Guide to Research Methods. (1 ed). England: Open University Press. Salamon, L. M., & Anheier, H. K. (1992). In search of the non-profit sector. I: The question of definitions. Voluntas: International Journal of Voluntary and Nonprofit Organizations, 3(2), 125-151. Santos, F. M. (2012). A positive theory of social entrepreneurship. Journal of Business Ethics, 111(3), 335-351. Sassmannshausen, S. P., & Volkmann, C. (2013). A bibliometric based review on social entrepreneurship and its establishment as a field of research. Universitätsbibliothek Wuppertal, University Library. Saunders, M., Lewis, P. & Thornhill, A. (2007). Research Methods for Business Students, (4th ed.) Harlow: Pearson Education. Saunders, M., Lewis, P., & Thornhill, A. (2009). Research Methods for Business Students (5th ed.). Essex, England: Pearson Educational Limited. Saunila, M., & Ukko, J. (2014). Intangible aspects of innovation capability in SMEs: Impacts of size and industry. Journal of Engineering and Technology Management, 33, 32-46. Schumpeter, J. (1942). Creative destruction. Capitalism, socialism and democracy, New York: Harper. Schumpeter, J. A. (1934). The theory of economic development. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. 142 University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh Schwenger, D., Straub, T., & Borzillo, S. (2014). Non-governmental organizations: strategic management for a competitive world. Journal of Business Strategy, 35(4), 11-19. Seelos, C., & Mair, J. (2005). Social entrepreneurship: Creating new business models to serve the poor. Business Horizons, 48(3), 241-246. Shane, S., & Venkataraman, S. (2000). The promise of entrepreneurship as a field of research. Academy of Management Review, 25(1), 217-226. Sharir, M., & Lerner, M. (2006). Gauging the success of social ventures initiated by individual social entrepreneurs. Journal of World Business, 41(1), 6-20. Sharir, M., Lerner, M., & Yitshaki, R. (2009). Long-term survivability of social ventures: Qualitative analysis of external and internal explanations. International Perspectives on Social Entrepreneurship, 75-96. Shaw, E. (1998). Social networks: their impact on the innovative behaviour of small service firms. International Journal of Innovation Management, 2(02), 201-222. Shaw, E., & Carter, S. (2007). Social entrepreneurship: Theoretical antecedents and empirical analysis of entrepreneurial processes and outcomes. Journal of Small Business and Enterprise Development, 14(3), 418-434. Sheriff, M., & Muffatto, M. (2015). The present state of entrepreneurship ecosystems in selected countries in Africa. African Journal of Economic and Management Studies, 6(1), 17-54. Short, J. C., Moss, T. W., & Lumpkin, G. T. (2009). Research in social entrepreneurship: Past contributions and future opportunities. Strategic Entrepreneurship Journal, 3(2), 161- 194. Simsa, R. (2003). Fighting heroes, repair–workers or collaborators? Strategies of NPOs and their consequences. Financial Accountability & Management, 19(3), 225-241 Skouloudis, A., Evangelinos, K., & Malesios, C. (2015). Priorities and perceptions for corporate social responsibility: An NGO perspective. Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, 22(2), 95-112. Smith, T. C., & Nemetz, P. L. (2009). Social entrepreneurship compared to government foreign aid: Perceptions in an East African village. Journal of Research in Marketing and Entrepreneurship, 11(1), 49-65. 143 University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh Smith, W., & Darko, E. (2014). Social enterprise: Constraints and opportunities–evidence from Vietnam&Kenya.ODI.www.odi.org/publications/8303-social-enterprise- constraintsopportunities-evidence-vietnam-kenya. (Accessed 12 November 2016). Social Enterprise Ghana. (n.d): About us. Retrieved from: http://www.seghana.net/who-we- are.html (Accessed February 4th, 2017). Sserwanga, A., Isabella Kiconco, R., Nystrand, M., & Mindra, R. (2014). Social entrepreneurship and post conflict recovery in Uganda. Journal of Enterprising Communities: People and Places in the Global Economy, 8(4), 300-317. Starr, J. and MacMillan, I. (1990), “Resource co-optation via social contracting; resource acquisition strategies for new ventures”, Strategic Management Journal, 11 (1), 79-92. Sullivan Mort, G., Weerawardena, J., & Carnegie, K. (2003). Social entrepreneurship: Towards conceptualisation. International Journal of Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Marketing, 8(1), 76-88. Sullivan, D. M. (2007). Stimulating social entrepreneurship: Can support from cities make a difference? The Academy of Management Perspectives, 21(1), 77-78. Sunley, P., & Pinch, S. (2012). Financing social enterprise: social bricolage or evolutionary entrepreneurialism?. Social Enterprise Journal, 8(2), 108-122. Swedberg, R. (2000). Entrepreneurship: The social science view. Oxford, GB: Oxford University Press. Sweeney, L. (2009). A study of current practice of corporate social responsibility (CSR) and an examination of the relationship between CSR and financial performance using structural equation modelling (SEM). Doctoral Thesis. Dublin, Dublin Institute of Technology. DOI: 10.21427/D79C7F Tandon, A. (2014). Investigating learning in social enterprises: A boundary perspective. Social Enterprise Journal, 10(2), 155-172. Teasdale, S. (2012). What‟s in a name? Making sense of social enterprise discourses. Public Policy and Administration, 27(2), 99-119. Teece, D. J., Pisano, G., & Shuen, A. (1997). Dynamic capabilities and strategic management. Strategic Management Journal, 18(7) 509-533. Thompson, J., & Doherty, B. (2006). The diverse world of social enterprise: A collection of social enterprise stories. International Journal of Social Economics, 33(5-6), 361-375. 144 University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh Tongco, M. D. C. (2007). Purposive sampling as a tool for informant selection. Journal of Marketing Management, 18, 120-126. Tracey, P., & Phillips, N. (2007). The distinctive challenge of educating social entrepreneurs: A postscript and rejoinder to the special issue on entrepreneurship education. Academy of Management Learning & Education, 6(2), 264-271. Transparency International, (2012). Transparency International Corruption Perceptions Index Accessed November 2016 from http://www.ey.com/Publication/vwLUAssets/2012_TI_CPI/$FILE/2012%20TI%20CPI.p df Tull, D. S. & Hawkins, D. I. (1990). Marketing research, meaning, measurement, and method: A text with cases, (5th ed.). New York, NY: Macmillan. Turner, D., & Martin, S. (2005). Social entrepreneurs and social inclusion: building local capacity or delivering national priorities. Intl Journal of Public Administration, 28(9-10), 797-806. UNDP (2013). Realizing Africa’s Wealth: Building Inclusive Businesses for Shared Prosperity, United Nations Development Programme, New York, NY. Van de Ven, A. H., Sapienza, H. J., & Villanueva, J. (2007). Entrepreneurial pursuits of self‐and collective interests. Strategic Entrepreneurship Journal, 1(3‐4), 353-370. Vanclay, F. (2003). International principles for social impact assessment. Available at: www.docente.unicas.it/useruploads/000507/files/2012-13/social_ia.pdf (Accessed 16 November 2016). Volkmann, C., Tokarski, K., & Ernst, K. (2012). Social entrepreneurship and social business: An introduction and discussion with case studies. Wiesbaden: Springer Gabler. Retrieved from https://sisis.rz.htw-berlin.de/inh2012/12423370.pdf Waddock, S. A., & Post, J. E. (1995). Catalytic alliances for social problem solving. Human Relations, 48(8), 951-973. Welsh, D. H., & Krueger, N. (2012). The evolution of social entrepreneurship: what have we learned? Journal of Technology Management in China, 7(3), 270-290. Wernerfelt, B. (1984). A resource‐based view of the firm. Strategic Management Journal, 5(2), 171-180. 145 University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh Wilson, F., & Post, J. E. (2013). Business models for people, planet (& profits): Exploring the phenomena of social business, a market-based approach to social value creation. Small Business Economics, 40(3), 715-737. Wimmer, R. D., & Dominick, J. R. (2011). Mass media research: An introduction. Belmont, CA: Thomson Wadsworth. World Bank. (2012). Doing business economy rankings. Washington, DC. Retrieved from http://www.doingbusiness.org/rankings on 23/8/2016. World Business Council for Sustainable Development (1999). Corporate Social Responsibility, World Business Council for Sustainable Development, Geneva. World Economic Forum (2006), Global Competitiveness Report 2006-2007, available at: www.weforum.org/en/initiatives/gcp (Accessed 23 November 2016). Yin, R. K. (2003). Case study research: Design and methods. (3rd ed.), Thousand Oaks, California: Sage Publications, Inc. Yin, R.K. (1994). Case study research: Design and methods. (2nd Ed). London: Sage Publications Limited. Young, D. R., & Grinsfelder, M. C. (2011). Social entrepreneurship and the financing of third sector organizations. Journal of Public Affairs Education, 17(4) 543-567. Yunus, M. (2007). Creating a world without poverty: Social business and the future of capitalism. Public Affairs. Yunus, M., Moingeon, B. and Lehmann-Ortega, L. (2010). Building social business models: lessons from the Grameen experience. Long Range Planning, 43(2), 308-325. Zahra, S. A., Gedajlovic, E., Neubaum, D. O., & Shulman, J. M. (2009). A typology of social entrepreneurs: Motives, search processes and ethical challenges. Journal of Business Venturing, 24(5), 519-532. Zahra, S. A., Rawhouser, H. N., Bhawe, N., Neubaum, D. O., & Hayton, J. C. (2008). Globalization of social entrepreneurship opportunities. Strategic Entrepreneurship Journal, 2(2), 117-131. Ziegler, R. (2011). An introduction to social entrepreneurship. Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar Publishing. Zikmud, W. G. & Babin, B. J. (2010). Exploring Marketing Research (10th ed.). South Western: Cengage Learning. 146 University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh Zoogah, D. B., & Nkomo, S. (2013). Management Research in Africa. Management in Africa: Macro and Micro Perspectives, 53, 9. 147 University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh APPENDIX 1: INTERVIEW GUIDE UNIVERSITY OF GHANA UNIVERSITY OF GHANA BUSINESS SCHOOL DEPARTMENT OF MARKETING & ENTREPRENEURSHIP RESEARCH INTERVIEW GUIDE The researcher is a Master of Philosophy (MPhil) marketing student at the University of Ghana Business School, Accra. The researcher is undertaking a study on “Examining Social Entrepreneurship in Ghana: The Resource-Based View Perspective”. This interview guide is designed to solicit views on how social entrepreneurs manage resources in the creating of social value .This is in partial fulfilment of requirements leading to the award of a master of philosophy degree in marketing. Information provided for the purposes of this research will be treated confidentially and used for academic purposes only. I would be very grateful if you could help by supplying information for this study. This is purely for academic purpose and your response will be treated with the strictest confidentiality and anonymity. Thank you for your anticipated co-operation. NAME: FRANCISCA DUAH-AGYEMANG TELEPHONE: 024-4303282 EMAIL: amanchesca@yahoo.com SUPERVISOR: DR. KWAME ADOM PARTICIPANT INTERVIEW QUESTION PERSONAL DATA/BACKGROUND OF RESPONDENTS Age: 31-40 [ ] 41-50 [ ] 51-60 [ ] 60+ [ ] Sex: Male [ ] Female [ ] Educational Level: SHS [ ] Diploma [ ] Graduate [ ] Post-Graduate [ ] Sector Of Operation: Education [ ] Health [ ] Other [ ] 148 University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh Objective 1 To explore the meaning of social entrepreneurship dimensions from “SE Ghana‟s” perspective 1. What is your understanding of social entrepreneurship and why is it important? 2. What do you think are the core dimensions of the social entrepreneurship concept? 3. Who would you describe as a social entrepreneur? 4. Why did you become a social entrepreneur? What is your motivation? 5. What are your main goals /what social problem are you solving? 6. What business model are you operating with? 7. How do you intend to ensure financial sustainability for the social enterprise? Objective 2 To discover how resource are acquired by social entrepreneurs in Ghana 8. What key resources did you need for starting your social enterprise and how did you acquire them and still do? 9. How did you acquire the initial funding for resources acquisition? 10. Can you explain any assistance you had in acquiring initial resources for your social enterprise? 11. How do you think acquiring resources for your social enterprise compares to getting resources for a more commercial enterprise? 12. In what ways do your resources assist your social enterprise to achieve its mission? 13. In acquiring/ managing resources, what strategies are you using to differentiate you from other social enterprises? 14. Do you have resources that are unique to you and how did you acquire these resources? 149 University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh 15. Do you envisage any other social enterprise trying to substitute the resources you use and services you provide? 16. What have been your experience in acquiring resources for your organizations? Please give instances of when you faced difficulties and had to come out with creative ways in acquiring resources. Objective 3 To identify resource challenges faced by social enterprises in Ghana. 17. What resource challenges s do you encounter? 18. How have you overcome these resources despite the constraints? 19. With your experience, what advice would you give to upcoming social entrepreneurs? 20. Any other comments thought or experience you are willing to share? THANK YOU 150