S E J

Social Enterprise Journal Volume 3, Issue 1 © 2007 Social Enterprise London

Making sense of social enterprise Pam Seanor* has 20 years experience of working in co-operatives, developing community projects in local development trusts and regeneration projects and has also worked with a variety of community groups across Kirklees. This paper has been researched as part of her PhD on social enterprise networks, which is supported by the Huddersfield University School of Business. Julia Meaton is Head of the Centre for Enterprise, Ethics and the Environment research unit and Senior Lecturer at the Huddersfield University School of Business where she teaches social entrepreneurship.

INTRODUCTION This is a critical time for community organisations. Third sector groups with experience of delivering services within their communities are expected to change the ways in which they secure funding. For example, many third sector organisations have been caught as key funding streams (e.g. European Regional Development Fund and Single Regeneration Budget) come to an end and there is more competition for charitable grants. In this time of change, many academics working on social enterprise, practitioners and the government are advocating social enterprise as the way forward. Much of the social enterprise literature (e.g. Leadbeater 1997; Dees et al. 2001; Bornstein 2004) builds on the foundation that a social entrepreneur works differently from those in the third sector and uses a business acumen model to achieve social change. The tacit value of the individual entrepreneur, as with Dee’s (2001) ‘forceful engine,’ is underscored as key to shaping and driving the sector. The allegory of the lone social entrepreneur appears to be the only image on offer for social enterprises to follow. Successful social enterprises are assumed to be heroic, innovative and risk taking. Dart (2005:1) highlights that where the concept of social enterprise focuses ‘broadly on improved organisational processes and design for achieving pro-social goals… little research has examined the effects of social entrepreneurial changes.’ This study seeks to uncover and understand how people are making sense of the effects of these changes in those organisations. Social enterprises cannot drive social change alone. They are dependent on government policies and practices and their development is also influenced by support agencies. This paper questions whether the social entrepreneurial model is the most appropriate one for all groups. The assumption that it is has implications for the development of these organisations as well as the potential of the social enterprise sector as a whole.

90

Social Enterprise Journal

March 2007

Making sense of social enterprise

This paper starts with the issues and concerns of participants in a social enterprise network in Bradford, West Yorkshire. This network includes those organisations identified as social enterprises as well as agencies offering them support. It takes an overview of organisational changes, looking beyond the individual social entrepreneurs and engaging each actor in the network to reflect upon the processes they have undergone in making sense of their decisionmaking and actions. The paper asks the following interrelated research questions: 1. What are the shared meanings and sense of shared identity that actors use to make sense of social enterprise? 2. How are these related to actions and projects within the social enterprise sector? 3. In responding and adapting to changes, is there network integrity? If so, is this creating a foundation for sustainable and flexible social enterprise development? APPROACHES AND MODELS FOR SOCIAL ENTERPRISE DEVELOPMENT Opposing views and approaches are presented under the one banner of social enterprise. One of those views suggests that social enterprise offers a radically different model for society (Pearce 2003; Drayton 2005). Those holding this view see social enterprise as a social movement. This process is linked to those in other social movements and is understood as being more than collective action, one which involves adopting a specific language and a common identity (Massarsky 2006). Borzaga and Solari find that ‘from a social movement, social enterprises have grown into (even in the opinion of most policymakers) a socio-economic reality’ (2001: 340). Others view the sector as delivering social projects through traditional, market mechanisms (Michael 2006). These perspectives influence the goals that social enterprises pursue as well as the ways in which intermediary agencies frame help and support for the sector. Social enterprise is included in the government’s agenda for change. Much of the literature advocates using a business approach for organisations that are part of the social economy and delivering services to their communities. Exhibit 1 (see overleaf) depicts a DTI view of social enterprises in the UK (DTI 2005). Organisations in the overlapping areas of the model indicate those that are identified as social enterprises within co-operatives, charities and voluntary community organisations (VCOs). According to the Government’s Annual Small Business Survey 2005, there are at least 55,000 social enterprises in the UK (SBS 2005). However, this data provides only a partial view of the development of social enterprise and could indicate either a dynamic, growing sector or simply a confusing picture, which is reflected in debates within the literature on the confused identity of social enterprise (Borzaga & Solari 2001; Defourny 2001). Social enterprise is not a distinct sector and it is informative to examine the ways in which it is being perceived and mapped, especially where lines and boundaries are being drawn. This study explores the ways that existing organisations, especially from the voluntary community sector, are grappling with the concept of social enterprise. Government has long acknowledged that the voluntary community sector plays a ‘vital role’ and brings ‘added value’ to the services they deliver to disadvantaged communities (e.g. Deakin Commission Report 1996; Home Office 1998). Pearce (2003) identifies different levels of a social economy system, which radiate outward from community to social enterprises in relation to voluntary organisations. In the UK, community group and social enterprise ethos is rooted in their social capital and local-level involvement (Spear 2001). Though some are concerned that this strategic and ‘rational’ emphasis upon a business-like approach and financial management may lead to social mission ‘drift’ (Anheier 2000; Evers

March 2007

Social Enterprise Journal

91

Making sense of social enterprise

2001; Foster & Bradach 2005). Dart (2005:412) suggests that ‘social enterprise is likely to continue its evolution away from forms that focus on broad frame-braking and innovation to an operational definition more narrowly focused on market-based solution and businesslike models because of the broader validity of promarket ideological notions in the wider social environment.’ This focus upon the commercialisation end of Dees et al. (2001) spectrum of social enterprise may have implications for the development of the sector if innovation and finding new ways of delivering services are lost from sight. Defourny (2001:2) describes the transformation of organisations into social enterprises as ‘a process, a new [social] enterprise spirit which takes up and refashions older experiences.’ Voluntary groups may be transforming their organisations and adopting social enterprise models. However, to date, they have a way of doing business that has been working. They may be changing specific practices rather than embracing the whole concept of social enterprise in order to make serious organisational changes. In other words, they may not be innovative but may instead be copying good practice that has been seen to work elsewhere. They may also be averse to being held solely responsible for risks being proposed. Therefore, one question that arises is just how do organisations and intermediate support agencies make sense of these changes?

SENSE MAKING Without doubt ‘heroic’ social entrepreneurs lead to inspirational changes. Support for these individuals in organisations may well be fitted to the existing model. However, it may not be a single person, one social entrepreneur solely controlling the direction in which the organisation is going. As others comment, ‘negotiating deals between the social entrepreneur and various resource providers that create alignment between goals and incentives is

92

Social Enterprise Journal

March 2007

Making sense of social enterprise

considerably more complex and challenging in social than in commercial entrepreneurship’ (Austin et al. 2006:15). While not attempting to review the definition of social enterprise in this paper, it is noted that the terms social enterprise and social entrepreneur are often used interchangeably. A social enterprise is a group of people with varying aims. Dym and Hutson (2005) emphasise the need to move away from the individual leader model to one in which more diverse goals and aims are aligned through leadership within non-profit organisations. This paper considers that interaction within and between the social enterprises and the network of agencies offering support. Sense making begins in attempts to find clarity out of uncertainty and problems. It also begins with reflection and reconstruction of actions and events. The approach is constructionist in that it examines how actors make sense of social enterprise development. A first step in making sense of how people adapt to change is to ask them how they identify themselves and give meaning to what they are doing. This also uncovers what cues they chose not to act upon. The focus is on identity, reflection, and taking actions from cues in organisations (Weick 1979, 1995). The approach does not concentrate on any one individual’s characteristics or motivations but rather the leadership qualities of networking, negotiation and enabling (Hosking & Morley 1991). Sense making has a great deal to offer to the exploration and understanding of how groups and support agencies are coming to terms with social enterprise at this crucial time in its development. It would also help to identify the next steps in their development. The next section outlines the background of participants interviewed from a Bradford social enterprise network. BACKGROUND TO THE CASE STUDY Exploratory semi-structured interviews were conducted between November 2005 and February 2006 with 11 key actors involved in social enterprise networks in Bradford, England. All are involved in either delivering services to the community or are from agencies tasked with supporting these groups. Each attends a network meeting and is in contact with a support agency. However, it should be noted that at the time the research took place, no single, coherent social enterprise network exists in Bradford. The community organisation interviews were part of a larger feasibility study looking at successes and barriers to social enterprise in the area. Anonymity was promised to everyone participating in the case study. Hence, no actor or organisation will be identified in this paper. In addition to carrying out interviews, data was also collected from follow-up conversations, documents and social enterprise events. Eight of the interviewees work in community organisations. Most are small neighbourhoodbased organisations offering services to disadvantaged communities. Areas of work include childcare, social care and re-engaging disaffected youth through training and community arts. All are companies limited by guarantee and a few are registered charities with trading arms. Some have been delivering services for over 20 years. All of the groups surveyed have benefited from either Neighbourhood Renewal, Single Regeneration Budget or European Regional Development Fund programmes. With these funding streams coming to an end, it is anticipated that these groups will consider selling their services to customers such as Bradford local authority. That is in addition to a successful Local Enterprise Growth Initiative (LEGI) bid and potential income from contracts with National Health Service (NHS) Primary Care Trusts. As part of their strategy to support social enterprise, Government mainstreamed infrastructure support comes in two different streams: the Changeup and Changemakers

March 2007

Social Enterprise Journal

93

Making sense of social enterprise

programmes which develop capacity within the voluntary community sector and are led by Voluntary Action Networks. At the time of writing, under the Regional Development Agencies, Business Link is the lead body responsible for business advice for social enterprise development. This stream supports social enterprise job creation and the success of individual organisations. Three support agencies working to help social enterprises were interviewed. The support that they offer includes strategic planning for the sector, business planning for groups, access to grants and advice on procurement. This work is couched within regional strategy documents such as the Regional Investment Plans for Social Enterprise Development in Yorkshire and the Humber and the Regional Economic Strategy. Yorkshire Forward, the Regional Development Agency for Yorkshire and the Humber, has recently awarded a further £5.7 million to support this work until the end of 2009. It is anticipated that activity and investment in the sector will potentially transform it for the next decade (from 2004-2014). SENSE MAKING IN A SOCIAL ENTERPRISE NETWORK Five key themes emerged from the interviews with social enterprise actors. The patterns described are constructed with attention to how the actors reflect upon and make sense of the problems they are experiencing in their organisations. Similar to the mapping of social enterprise outlined in the literature, an attempt is made to create a conceptual map of the local network, to draw upon differences in that network and identify any patterns within it. Theme 1: Identifying as a social entrepreneur The ‘heroic’ leader was missing from all eight interviews with community organisations. There was no mention of a manager, local advisor, consultant or board member who stood out from the rest. Similar to Law’s (2004) use of allegory in working with community service delivery organisations, there were no tales of the leader who like a superhero flew in and put the organisation back on the rails to run smoothly. It would be naïve to suggest that organisations do not have key individuals with skills and networks which provide that organisation with access to information and resources. However, when asked if they would consider acting as a social entrepreneur, seven of the eight replied ‘no.’ There may be many factors underlying their rejection of this identity. For example all participants referred to the problematic nature of ‘going it alone.’ Unlike most of the existing literature, which makes little distinction between the ‘social entrepreneur’ and the ‘social enterprise,’ the responses from the community actors place more importance upon the differentiation between these two terms. The actors did not equate the quality of service offered to their users and the commitment to their organisations with being a social entrepreneur. The social entrepreneurial identity they saw as being a lone actor and not part of the team. Comments included that it would be ‘too stressful to go it alone’ and that there was a ‘minefield of issues to consider (insurance, training, employment rights).’ Several commented on the need to keep committed staff within the organisation, as they had experienced people leaving to set up as social entrepreneurs and felt that the organisation had suffered as well as the quality of services that those individuals were able to offer by going it alone. Theme 2: Organisational identity All of the community organisations studied were identified as social enterprises by support agencies. However, the organisations themselves do not necessarily self-identify as a social enterprise. One organisation said that support advisors describing their organisation as such reflects an important pattern, namely that government and social enterprise academics as

94

Social Enterprise Journal

March 2007

Making sense of social enterprise

well as practitioners may be defining the sector, but how do the groups identify themselves and give meaning to their actions? These groups were familiar with the label of social enterprise, yet nearly all continued to describe themselves as belonging to the voluntary community sector. They described the strength of their organisations as being ‘transparent and genuine,’ ‘designed to fit the needs of the neighbourhood,’ ‘caring for the human aspect of the work they do’ and ‘creating invincibility, being recognised as being needed to make a project work.’ The problem highlighted by Borzaga and Solari, namely that it is ‘harder to bring [social enterprise] into focus because of the hybrid and poorly defined nature of the social enterprise form’ (2001: 333), may account for these organisations not having a shared social enterprise identity. All of the groups have business plans, possibly hastened by funding criteria, which do not appear as the ‘dog-eared’ tools Dees (2001) anticipated but instead sit untouched on shelves and in cabinets. The community groups in the network described their struggle to secure grant funding and identified the need to move towards contracting with statutory service providers. However, they saw it as more important to their success to continue looking for grant funding and spending time looking for ongoing revenue funding and filling in applications. One support actor reflected: ‘I think people understand social enterprise and don’t need a promotional phase. They’re just torn between being used to grants that are no longer there and realising that they may need to look at charging or contracting to pay for services they deliver.’ A greater tension than that created by gearing up to change income streams may be underlying those organisations not choosing to embrace social enterprise. Several saw social enterprise as no more than a ‘fashionable’ move driven by government. These groups have experienced several government policies and programmes. One commented that the management committee and workers were ‘against moving towards social enterprise as they were in it for the long haul and did not want to become outcome focussed. They were concerned that social enterprise would compromise the quality of the work they deliver.’ There is an interesting paradox here. Somehow the strengths and qualities of these organisations and the social capital recognised as the strength of the sector as a whole were seen as something that would be compromised if they became social enterprises. Theme 3: Common language This pattern explores the use of a common language to frame how people discuss and give meaning to issues. Social enterprise may be the lifeline of economic sustainability being thrown to organisations. ‘Social enterprises are generally considered risk averse due to their management and governance arrangements’ (WYSEL 2005). This may well be a factor. Yet, groups may not want to risk jumping too soon. They may not be ‘contract ready’ without appropriate systems in place, as some support workers suggested. The community organisation actors all spoke of survival, identifying this as their main concern. One person described themselves and their colleagues as ‘working together for the past twenty years, in different partnerships with the board and manager; we have overseen change from an organisation working like a voluntary organisation with grants to the current state of grants and service level agreements.’ Risk aversion has been an accusation levelled at these groups. However, many described how they just need to ‘hold on by the skin of their teeth’ while new programmes and potential contracts come into effect. One commented ‘for organisations like ourselves, working with disadvantaged youth, the NSF money will come to an end a year before Children’s Fund money becomes available.’

March 2007

Social Enterprise Journal

95

Making sense of social enterprise

This gap, identified by many, also supports their hesitancy to take contract work, and helps explain why they continue seeking grants and working as they have done. A support actor commented that at the moment, ‘the move from local authority grants to contracts is all smoke and mirrors. They [the local authority] are saying you now have a contract, go away and deliver what you’ve always done.’ Motion or movement analogies were commonly used by support actors. They spoke of their work as ‘keeping social enterprises going’ and ‘moving them on.’ One saw herself as ‘the person with the oil-can…trying to make it run better. I hope people see I’ve got the oil-can and am hoping to go around making it easier for them.’ The kinetic metaphors (Morgan 1986) highlight the support agencies’ attempts at encouraging the social enterprises to go somewhere. Weick (1979:51) speaks of the use of metaphor ‘inventing richer ways to understand and conduct business’ but warns of the overuse of a metaphor in an organisation as it may lead to overlooking new opportunities and novel solutions to problems. For example, the metaphor described above seems mechanical, rather than organic, and that could reflect the way in which support workers believe themselves to be part of a mechanistic production line in which they fulfil output requirements and change and mould voluntary organisations into the shape they feel best resembles social enterprise. Theme 4: Growth Austin et al. (2006) points to organisations either choosing or being ‘pushed’ into growth. All but one in the case study was reducing in size or had chosen not to grow beyond their communities. One commented that they were ‘not intending to grow and designed their services to fit the needs of their neighbourhood.’ These organisations may better reflect Pearce’s (2003) notion of community enterprise. Only one commented that it had grown more quickly than projected. They were taking on new staff, moving offices as well as in need of managing organisational changes such as policies and human resource management. They were quickly trying to play catch up at the same time as delivering a quality service. One support actor commented their intent to ‘shift their clients to those groups who are selfidentifying leaders and to focus upon larger organisations already showing capacity and desire for growth.’ If others were to adopt this stance, support for the smaller, community-based social enterprises may be cut off. Market forces could begin to drive social enterprise development with the larger and more able to contract monopolising the sector. There may be a warning here; the social theory literature indicates that more does not necessarily mean better. One actor noted that they had run a very successful neighbourhood after-school care scheme until Sure Start began to offer the same provision. The actor commented that ‘this could have been avoided if there had been better planning and surveying of what was already available in the area so as not to set up in competition. Some of the SRB (ed: Single Regeneration Budget) money started up new projects that were in competition rather than complementing services provided.’ Minkoff (2001) has found that those taking an evolutionary organisational development approach in social movement studies found optimal numbers were counter intuitive to population studies. Higher numbers led to higher competition and were not necessarily conducive to a unified social movement. Understanding the effects of competition and co-operation may lie at the heart of how the sector develops. That includes questioning whether the traditional business model that is often advocated for social enterprises to

96

Social Enterprise Journal

March 2007

Making sense of social enterprise

compete in the market fits with those organisations looking to promote a social movement with complementary services. There appears little on the ground to support smaller groups to co-operate and work together and tender for larger contracts. Theme 5: Networking Despite the fact that all the actors are based in the Bradford area, there appeared to be little communication between the social enterprises. Borrowing ideas from the social movement literature enables exploration of processes and patterns of interaction in the Bradford study: the sense of identity within the movement as well as its unity or fragmentation (Massarsky 2006; Snow & Trom 2001). One participant commented that an assumption was made that everyone in the voluntary community sector knows one another, when in fact they may not. Only three of the community organisations mentioned other community organisations as regular contacts. Most work in isolation and only a couple are working together on a common goal. All of the community groups are in contact with at least one support agency. However, none were in contact with the Changeup or Changemakers programmes. All list the support agencies as key in their networks rather than delivery partnerships. The overall pattern is that of receiving fragmented support from different agencies, even within the local authority where links with different service departments that offer a different quality of support. Two of the eight groups have had specialist support from West Yorkshire Social Enterprise Link (WYSElink), the specialist arm of Business Link offering ‘tailored’ social enterprise support. A pattern emerged of community actors that were sceptical of the advice promoting the social enterprise model as reflected by one stating, ‘we want to do things in the right way but in the past we have been let down or received lots of conflicting advice from support agencies.’ Rather than accessing this free advice and support, four of the organisations chose to pay for independent specialist consultants. The fragmented pattern found in community organisations also exists between support agencies. All cited their key contacts as local authority colleagues, Business Link or Yorkshire Forward. They also discussed divisions and a lack of communication between support agencies. It was acknowledged the social enterprise support agencies did not wish to duplicate those services offered by Voluntary Action networks. One support agency identified that ‘the support infrastructure needs to respond to clients’ needs. Support needs to be linked to, but different from, voluntary support bodies and be clearly focussed on business development’ (SESC 2004: 41). However, not all of the actors were in frequent contact with these networks. Advisors chose who they work with to get things done, and as one stated, ‘There are too many support advisors just doing a job, maybe 10% believes in what they are doing.’ For most interviewees, their work is more than just a job. They all identified with being part of a social enterprise network. However, those that believed they were part of a social movement said that they did not use that term in describing their work to others. One person pointed out that they thought that would ‘scare off the people you need like Yorkshire Forward and Government Office.’ That type of fragmentation has the potential to adversely affect the development of social enterprise. IMPLICATIONS AND CONCLUSIONS Having won a successful LEGI bid and as a centre for specialist social enterprise support agencies, Bradford is experiencing social enterprise activity and growth. This paper has

March 2007

Social Enterprise Journal

97

Making sense of social enterprise

given one perspective on how organisations make sense and respond to these changes. Using the perspectives of community organisations as well as intermediary support agencies, it examined the relationship between the development of social enterprise and organisational identity, processes and problems. Interviews with actors involved in social enterprise networks in Bradford uncovered five themes and patterns underlying this growth and activity. It is a crucial time to uncover how actors make sense of social enterprise. This paper has been one starting point from which to explore the problems faced by social enterprise organisations, which range from changes in funding to the construction of shared meanings and identities. Identity Two crucial points of view were uncovered in relation to identity. First, the majority of those leading organisations did not identify a heroic leader nor would they choose to become social entrepreneurs. They saw social entrepreneurs as those who ‘go it alone’ rather than being committed team members in their organisation. Second, the majority of these groups do not consider themselves as social enterprises. Many were extremely sceptical of the social enterprise model, especially as they reflected that previous advice and support received had been inappropriate for their projects. Most continued to consider themselves members of the voluntary community sector. However, they acknowledged the need to adopt some social enterprise practices. The wealth of definitions for social enterprise may offer these groups the flexibility to adopt practices that best fit their organisations and communities. In contrast the support agencies did identify these groups as social enterprises and focused on providing a business model that they felt delivers appropriate support ‘tailored’ to fit social enterprise development. Some of the support actors are beginning to target organisations with a self-identified, social entrepreneurial leader. One definition seems not to fit all social enterprises, and the imagery of the heroic leader appears at odds with the views of many community actors. An alternative is needed. Lack of a common metaphor Returning to the motion metaphor used by support actors and the intention of moving groups towards social enterprise and business efficiency, one question that arises is ‘Do voluntary community groups have any intention of going there?’ This is not to suggest that language and metaphors alone are important. There is much more to life and work than metaphor; actions show what is happening. Groups have a choice and are taking action. They describe surviving as the most important objective. Social enterprise is not necessarily a force with enough momentum to sweep them up. The question raised here is ‘Would richer metaphors offer richer ways for people to work together?’ Staying small Support actors are seeking to target larger organisations which are more able to make an impact, but many groups are not aiming for exponential growth and are instead focusing on staying small in order to deliver services that meet local needs. By considering growth differently and looking outside the boundaries of one organisation, the impact of numerous smaller organisations would amount to large scale, sweeping change. If this pattern of development is what is wanted, new models need to be created and brokerage agents put in place to support these networks. Fragmentation In responding and adapting to changes, there appears to be little network unity and integrity. Groups are in contact with different support agencies and few are working together to achieve a common aim. There appears to be no coherent approach. Community organisations, as well as support agencies, are still fragmented. In this respect, social enterprise processes are not reflecting social movement processes.

98

Social Enterprise Journal

March 2007

Making sense of social enterprise

In conclusion, one respondent claimed that their participation in the research had ‘been useful as no one else in the network is asking these questions’ and ‘I would love to know what the others are saying.’ This relates to our final research question of whether a local network creates a foundation for sustainable and flexible social enterprise development. We found that this has yet to be debated on the ground. Until that happens, it is hard for organisations to make sense of what is happening either internally or within their social enterprise networks. REFERENCES Anheier, H. (2000) Managing non-profit organisations: Towards a new approach, Civil Society Working Paper 1 available at www.lse.ac.uk. Austin, J., Stevenson, H. and Wei-Skillern, J. (2006) ‘Social and Commercial Entrepreneurship: same, different or both?,’ Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 30 (1): pp.1–22. Bornstein, D. (2004) How to Change the World: Social Entrepreneurs and the Power of New Ideas, Oxford, Oxford University Press. Borzaga, C. and Solari, L. (2001) ‘Management challenges for social enterprises’ in Borzaga, C. and Defourny, J. (eds) The Emergence of Social Enterprise, London, Routledge. Boschee, J. (2002) Entrepreneurial strategic planning and the organized abandonment process, available at www.socialent.org/resources. Dart, R. (2005) Unintended consequences of social entrepreneurship: the complex structure and effects of radical service delivery in a Canadian human services organization. Paper presented at International Social Entrepreneurship Research Conference, IESE, Barcelona. Dees, J., Emerson, J. and Economy, P. (2001) Enterprising Nonprofits: A Toolkit for Social Entrepreneurs, New York, John Wiley and Sons Inc. Defourny, J. (2001) ‘Introduction: from third sector to social enterprise’ in Borzaga, C. and Defourny, J. (eds) The Emergence of Social Enterprise, London, Routledge. Drayton, B. (2005) ‘Where the real power lies,’ Alliance 10 (1): pp. 29–30. Department of Trade and Industry (DTI). (2005) www.dti.gov.uk (September). Dym, B. and Hutson, H. (2005) Leadership in Nonprofit Organizations, London, Sage. Evers, A. (2001) ‘The significance of social capital in multiple goal and resource structure of social enterprises’ in Borzaga, C. and Defourny, J. (eds) The Emergence of Social Enterprise, London, Routledge. Foster, W. and Bradach, J. (2005) ‘Should Nonprofits Seek Profits,’ Harvard Business Review, 83 (2): pp. 2–100. Home Office. (1998) Compact Relations between Government and the Voluntary and Community Sector in England, London. Hosking, D.M. and Morley, I.E. (1991) Social Psychology of Organizing: people, processes and contexts, London, Harvester Wheatsheaf.

March 2007

Social Enterprise Journal

99

Making sense of social enterprise Law, J. (2004) After Method: Mess in Social Science Research, London, Routledge. Leadbeater, C. (1997) The rise of the social entrepreneur, London, Demos. Massarsky, C. (2006) ‘Coming of Age: Social Enterprise Reaches Its Tipping point’ in MosherWilliams, R .(ed), Research on Social Entrepreneurship: understanding and contributing to an emerging field, 67–87, 1 (3) Indianapolis, ARNOVA. Michael, A. (2006) Securing social enterprise’s place in the economy, presentation given at VOICE 06 Conference for Social Enterprise. Minkoff, D. (2001) ‘Macro-Organizational Analysis’ in Klandermans, B. and Staggenborg, S. (eds) Methods of Social Movement Research, Minneapolis, University of Minnesota Press. Morgan, G. (1986) Images of Organisation, London, Sage. Pearce, J. (2003) Social Enterprise in Anytown, London, Calouste Gulbenkian Foundation. Small Business Service (SBS). (2005) Annual Small Business Survey 2005. www.sbs.gov.uk SESC. (2004) Onwards and outwards; Investment plan for social enterprise in Yorkshire and the Humber, Social Enterprise Support Centre West Yorkshire, available at www.pennine.org.uk. Snow, D. and Trom, D. (2001) ‘The Case Study and the Study of Social Movements’ in Klandermans, B. and Staggenborg, S. (eds), Methods of Social Movement Research, Minneapolis, University of Minnesota Press. Spear, R. (2001) ‘United Kingdom: A wide range of social enterprises’ in Borzaga, C. and Defourny, J. (eds), The Emergence of Social Enterprise, London, Routledge. Weick, K.E. (1979) Social Psychology of Organizing, Reading, Massachusetts, Addison-Wesley Publishing Company. Weick, K. E. (1995) Sensemaking in Organizations, London, Sage. WYSEL. (2005) Winning new business for social enterprise. Paper presented at Bradford Talking Social Enterprise Conference. *Contact details: Pam Seanor, Centre for Enterprise Ethics and the Environment, Huddersfield University Business School, United Kingdom. Email: [email protected]

100 Social Enterprise Journal

March 2007