“The future belongs to social entrepreneurs” An exploratory study of Swedish social entrepreneurship.

Bachelor Thesis

Author: Sarah Wendel and Frans Lang Supervisor: Richard Owusu Examiner: Helén Andersson Term: VT 2020 Subject: International Business Level: Bachelor Course code: 2FE51E

i

Abstract During the past two decades social entrepreneurial activity has seen a remarkable acceleration and thus, the level of interest from researchers has increased. Social entrepreneurs are using innovative business approaches to respond to today’s challenges and future problems and are therefore recognized as a driver of societal health and wealth. In addition, international entrepreneurship and especially international opportunities have been recognized as key functions of entrepreneurship. The complexity for social entrepreneurs increases as they engage in international business, and internationalization and the potential of multiple stakeholders affect social enterprises and their entrepreneurial process. The purpose of this thesis is to combine these different aspects of entrepreneurship and international business, to examine how social entrepreneurial supporting institutions influence Swedish social entrepreneurs’ opportunities to internationalize. By investigating social entrepreneurship as a multilevel phenomenon, incorporating the individual, the organizational, and the institutional level into the research, this thesis strives to present a more accurate picture of the internationalization process of social entrepreneurship. To ensure a more profound understanding of the subject, a qualitative research method has been followed, combined with an abductive research approach. The literature review begins with a presentation of social entrepreneurship as an overarching concept. Thereafter, the concepts internationalization and international opportunities will be reviewed, as well as theories concerning entrepreneurial supporting institutions. A conceptual framework that aims to provide an understanding of how the concepts relate to each other will finalize the literature review. The conceptual framework has been used as themes for gathering and analyzing data. The empirical findings and theoretical concepts are analyzed in relation and contrast to each other, which is then concluded in the final chapter. The findings conclude that Swedish social entrepreneurs’ international opportunities are influenced by social entrepreneurial supporting institutions in the exploitation process rather than in the discovery process, and that the institutions can play an important role for potential international expansion and the discovery of further international opportunities. “The future belongs to social entrepreneurs.” *

Keywords Social entrepreneurship, International opportunities, SE supporting institutions, Discovery, Exploitation, Social enterprise

*Quote owed to Pontus, 2020.

ii

Acknowledgement First of all, we would like to express our appreciation towards all the people who have contributed to this thesis. A special thanks go to our supervisor Richard Owusu who has supported us in many ways whilst conducting this study. Besides valuable insights and helpful feedback, you have encouraged the quality of our work, and for that we are very grateful. In these special times, we would also like to express our greatest gratitude towards all of the respondents who were kind enough to offer their time and invaluable thoughts, which benefited the analysis and made the research possible. Last but not least, we would like to thank our examiner Helén Andersson and the opponents for your constructive and valuable feedback. Kalmar, Sweden, May 27th, 2020 Sarah Wendel Frans Lang

iii

Table of Contents 1. INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................................... 1

1.1 BACKGROUND ..................................................................................................................................... 1 1.2 PROBLEM DISCUSSION ........................................................................................................................ 4 1.3 RESEARCH QUESTION ......................................................................................................................... 7 1.4 PURPOSE .............................................................................................................................................. 7 1.5 DELIMITATIONS ................................................................................................................................... 7 1.6 OUTLINE ............................................................................................................................................. 8

2. LITERATURE REVIEW....................................................................................................................... 9 2.1 WHAT IS SOCIAL ENTREPRENEURSHIP ................................................................................................ 9

2.1.1 The Entrepreneurial Dimension ............................................................................................... 10 2.1.2 Characteristics and Motivations .............................................................................................. 11 2.1.3 Opportunities ............................................................................................................................ 12

2.1.3.1 Discovery and Exploitation ............................................................................................................... 13 2.2 INTERNATIONALIZATION ................................................................................................................... 14

2.2.1 International Entrepreneurship ................................................................................................ 14 2.2.2. Discovery and Exploitation of International Opportunities .................................................... 14

2.3 SUPPORTING INSTITUTIONS ............................................................................................................... 17 2.3.1 Resources .................................................................................................................................. 18 2.3.2 Networks ................................................................................................................................... 18

2.4 CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK............................................................................................................... 19 3. METHODOLOGY................................................................................................................................ 21

3.1 METHOD ........................................................................................................................................... 22 3.2 RESEARCH DESIGN ............................................................................................................................ 22

3.2.1 Purpose of Research ................................................................................................................. 22 3.2.2 Research Strategy ..................................................................................................................... 23

3.3 DATA COLLECTION TECHNIQUES ...................................................................................................... 23 3.3.1 Primary Data Collection .......................................................................................................... 24 3.3.2 Secondary Data Collection ....................................................................................................... 24

3.4 CASE-STUDY RESEARCH DESIGN ...................................................................................................... 24 3.4.1 Purposive sampling strategy .................................................................................................... 25 3.4.2 Cases ......................................................................................................................................... 26

3.4.2.1 European Sign Language Centre ....................................................................................................... 26 3.4.2.2 Karma Coffee ..................................................................................................................................... 26 3.4.2.3 Anonymous ........................................................................................................................................ 26 3.4.2.4 Elypta ................................................................................................................................................. 26 3.4.2.5 Solvatten ............................................................................................................................................ 26

3.5 INTERVIEWS ...................................................................................................................................... 26 3.5.1 Semi-structured interviews ....................................................................................................... 27 3.5.2 Operationalization .................................................................................................................... 28 3.5.3 Open-ended questions............................................................................................................... 29 3.5.4 Conducting Interviews .............................................................................................................. 29

3.6 METHOD OF DATA ANALYSIS ........................................................................................................... 29 3.7 QUALITY OF RESEARCH..................................................................................................................... 30

3.7.1 Credibility ................................................................................................................................. 31 3.7.2 Transferability .......................................................................................................................... 31 3.7.3 Dependability............................................................................................................................ 31 3.7.4 Confirmability ........................................................................................................................... 32

3.8 RESEARCH ETHICS............................................................................................................................. 32 3.9 AUTHORS CONTRIBUTIONS ............................................................................................................... 33

4. EMPIRICAL FINDINGS ..................................................................................................................... 34

iv

4.1 CASES ................................................................................................................................................ 34 4.1.1 Thomas Lydell - European Sign Language Centre .................................................................. 34

4.1.1.1 Social Entrepreneurship ..................................................................................................................... 34 4.1.1.2 International Opportunities ................................................................................................................ 35 4.1.1.3 Supporting Institutions ....................................................................................................................... 35

4.1.2 Pontus Rosberg - Karma Coffee ............................................................................................... 36 4.1.2.1 Social Entrepreneurship ..................................................................................................................... 37 4.1.2.2 International Opportunities ................................................................................................................ 38 4.1.2.3 Supporting Institutions ....................................................................................................................... 38

4.1.3 Respondent 3 - Anonymous....................................................................................................... 39 4.1.3.1 Social Entrepreneurship ..................................................................................................................... 39 4.1.3.2 International Opportunities ................................................................................................................ 40 4.1.3.3 Supporting Institutions ....................................................................................................................... 40

4.1.4 Karl Bergman - Elypta ............................................................................................................. 41 4.1.4.1 Social Entrepreneurship ..................................................................................................................... 41 4.1.4.2 International Opportunities ................................................................................................................ 41 4.1.4.3 Supporting Institutions ....................................................................................................................... 42

4.1.5 Oliwer Wadström - Solvatten ................................................................................................... 42 4.1.5.1 Social Entrepreneurship ..................................................................................................................... 43 4.1.5.2 International Opportunities ................................................................................................................ 43 4.1.5.3 Supporting Institutions ....................................................................................................................... 44

5. ANALYSIS ............................................................................................................................................. 45 5.1 SOCIAL ENTREPRENEURSHIP ............................................................................................................. 45 5.2 INTERNATIONAL OPPORTUNITIES ...................................................................................................... 48 5.3 SUPPORTING INSTITUTIONS ............................................................................................................... 51

6. CONCLUSION ...................................................................................................................................... 55 6.1 ANSWERING THE RESEARCH QUESTIONS ........................................................................................... 55 6.2 THEORETICAL IMPLICATIONS ............................................................................................................ 57 6.3 PRACTICAL IMPLICATIONS ................................................................................................................ 59 6.4 POLICY IMPLICATIONS ....................................................................................................................... 59 6.5 LIMITATIONS ..................................................................................................................................... 59 6.6 FUTURE RESEARCH ............................................................................................................................ 60

7. REFERENCES ...................................................................................................................................... 61 8. APPENDICES ....................................................................................................................................... 68

8.1 APPENDIX 1 - INTERVIEW GUIDE ....................................................................................................... 68

v

Figure and Table Index

Figure 1 Outline of the Study

Figure 2 Conceptual Framework

Figure 3 Revised Conceptual Framework

Table 1 Operationalization

List of Abbreviations

SE Social Entrepreneurship

IE International Entrepreneurship

NGO Non-Governmental Organization

CSR Corporate Social Responsibility

EU European Union

UN United Nations

1

1. INTRODUCTION The introduction chapter will present the chosen field of study, beginning with a background review of social entrepreneurship and its evolution in Sweden. This is followed by a problem discussion regarding social entrepreneurship and international opportunities, and the role of supporting institutions. Thereafter, the research question and the purpose of this thesis will be declared.

1.1 Background Nowadays, social entrepreneurs are recognized as drivers of societal health and wealth and social entrepreneurship is considered to be an engine of economic growth (European Commission, 2014). Social enterprises are businesses with primarily social objectives. Their importance for supporting the development of cohesive and sustainable societies is getting more recognition from both international, national and local organizations such as the European Union and The Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) (Hermelin and Rusten, 2018). The promise of social entrepreneurship and social enterprise is also incorporated in the European Union’s 2020 strategy and the United Nation’s 2030 agenda. Social enterprises can be referred to as creative ways to meet social or environmental needs, such as Ignitia, that offers accurate weather forecasts for rural farmers in West Africa, or Matsmart that reduces food waste by selling food online, that would otherwise have gone to waste (Norrsken Foundation, 2020a). The UN’s 2030 agenda for sustainable development is made up of 17 global goals for sustainable development (SDGs) and target the greatest global challenges of today. The goals were agreed upon by the 193 member states in September 2015 and are targeted to stimulate action in five different areas of critical importance until the year 2030; People, Planet, Prosperity, Peace, and Partnership (United Nations, 2015). However, as we enter a new decade it is clear that greater action is needed to reach these goals before the deadline. Many countries have not made the changes needed to keep the promise they have made, making it necessary to think of new ways to accelerate the SDGs action. At last year’s summit, the member states, therefore, called for a decade of action and announced more than 100 accelerated actions to speed up progress (UNDP, 2020). Promoting youth-led social entrepreneurship is part of the accelerated 2030 SDG action since young social entrepreneurs are believed to have a key role in contributing to the Sustainable Development Goals. This since social entrepreneurs are using innovative business approaches to respond to today’s challenges and future problems. Additionally, it offers a way to empower the life of others and create a path to transformation for young

2

adults (United Nations, 2020). However, the social entrepreneurial ecosystem requires collaboration of different stakeholders, specific interventions, and support programs to create a favorable and thriving entrepreneurial environment. Supporting young social entrepreneurs is at the heart of many of the existing supporting networks and many of them are collaborating with the Accelerate 2030 agenda to offer selected ventures expertise, advisory, and global visibility (ibid.). The myriad of social innovation and creativeness has led to a shift of paradigm towards a new more holistic approach to address the most pressing societal issues, and there is a great necessity of collaborative entrepreneurship like; Ashoka, Norrsken Foundation and SE Forum which shares the common goal of supporting world-leading social entrepreneurs (Hill et al., 2020). Social entrepreneurship is still a very young research field and could, therefore, be challenging to define. With societies continuously searching for enhanced ways to tackle social challenges, through more innovative, sustainable, and cost-effective methods, social entrepreneurship has gained increased attention (Light, 2008; Zahra et al., 2009; Ghalwash et al., 2017). In order to fully understand the driving forces behind it and to outline its characteristics, a definition could be decisive to be able to steer in an accurate direction. Many scholars have tried to address the phenomenon from different angles and through the usage of various methods (Light, 2008). Nicholls (2010) declared that there is no general consensus about what social entrepreneurship actually means and that the phenomenon is yet to be universally defined, which can only be accomplished through comprehensive research. However, the rather unclear perception makes social entrepreneurship a considerably more interesting and complex field to study. The fact that there is still not a comprehensive picture of the phenomenon further calls for an evidence-based theoretical framework. To substantiate this research the authors have decided to use the definition by Zahra et al. (2009:1), suggesting that; “...social entrepreneurship encompasses the activities and processes undertaken to discover, define, and exploit opportunities in order to enhance social wealth by creating new ventures or managing existing organizations in an innovative manner". Although Sweden is recognized for its universal and comprehensive welfare state and has a long tradition of social engagement and third sector involvement, common concepts such as “social entrepreneurship” and “social enterprise” are considered relatively new. They are often used alongside more traditional concepts such as “not-for-profit organizations”, “cooperatives” and “civil society organizations” (European Commission, 2014). When discussing social entrepreneurship in Sweden it is important to keep in mind that social problems have traditionally been the responsibility of institutions. Swedish citizens have had a great trust in the government’s ability to solve social challenges and the composition of societal positioning of the Swedish third sector has been shaped by

3

various institutional developments during the last couple of centuries (European Commission, 2014). The Swedish third sector has its origin in the social movement that emerged in the early to the mid- 1800s. Before then, the development of the Swedish welfare state and the third sector was mainly shaped by charitable societies and the parish councils. It was not until the late 1800s that major popular mass movements such as free churches, consumers cooperatives, labor movements, and associations were formed. They differed from the mutual social insurance arrangements and the charitable societies since they were defined and organized by their members who contributed through voluntary work. Subsequently, this influenced ideas of organizational models in Swedish society that originally had been characterized by open associations and democratic governance (ibid.). The provision of social and welfare services was gradually taken over by the states and municipalities from the 1930s. This helped the Swedish welfare state to mature and it eventually grew into the universal and comprehensive state it is today. Historically, the tasks of the Swedish welfare state have been clearly divided among three organized societal sectors: the public sector, the popular mass movement, and private enterprises. Production and accumulation were primarily the tasks of private enterprises, whilst the public sector provided welfare services and administered distribution (ibid.). The popular mass movement was then left with the articulation of interest and identified the social needs that had not yet been met by the state. In other words, the popular mass movement and third sector acted as a pathfinder and corrective tool for the public sector. However, there has been a significant divergence from the traditional third sector since then, and non-public service providers have gradually emerged within the current welfare system (ibid.). With the transformation of the traditional third sector, social issues are to a greater extent addressed by entrepreneurs. Meaning that social entrepreneurs are in the very front in the pursuit of social salvation, through new and innovative solutions to existing social issues. According to The Swedish Agency for Economic and Regional Growth, social enterprise plays a very important role for future sustainable societies, and by increasing the possibilities for social entrepreneurs and enterprises to realize and develop their enterprises, the possibilities for a sustainable society and enterprise are improved (Tillväxtverket, 2017). Furthermore, they suggest that the supporting system might have to be further adapted to meet the needs and challenges experienced by social entrepreneurs. The supporting actors and institutions must take clear responsibility for their role and facilitate social enterprises to access the information, advice, and support they need. Thus, their role and influence become an important aspect in terms of which social opportunities that are being recognized, both nationally and internationally.

4

1.2 Problem Discussion Even though the concept of social entrepreneurship emerged already in the 1950s (Saebi, Foss and Linder, 2018), social entrepreneurial activity has accelerated in the past 20 years. Much as a result of the rapidly increased globalization, where people have shown particularly high ability to apply innovative and cost-effective solutions to social and environmental issues (Zahra et al., 2009). Thus, there has been a spike in research within the field as well (Saebi et al., 2018). However, Nielsen et al. (2017) argue that there are still not many studies that show the extent of social entrepreneurship on a global scale and that clarifies how widespread social entrepreneurial activities actually are. The growing appreciation towards entrepreneurs’ intention to enhance social wealth comes as a result from cases where social entrepreneurship has been a powerful and effective mechanism to fight poverty, empower minorities, and catalyze systematic change and inclusive growth (Saebi, et al., 2018). This also underpins the fact that social entrepreneurship is a rather extensive and versatile phenomenon that requires further research. However, as mentioned earlier, the fact that social entrepreneurship is a relatively young research field has created a situation where it has become challenging to define. This is partly due to the existence of different aspects of the phenomenon (Nicholls, 2010). Light (2008) declared that scholars are still searching for a comprehensive picture that can determine the paramount aspects of successful social entrepreneurship. As a result, the academic inquiry to identify a general definition has dominated the social entrepreneurial research in recent years, leaving other areas within the field rather uncharted (Nicholls, 2010; Saebi et al., 2018) Notwithstanding, scholars have been able to acknowledge some basic agreements, especially regarding the goal of social entrepreneurship (Light, 2008). Already in the 1980s, Drayton (2002) suggested that social entrepreneurship involves large-scale systematic social change, that derives from individuals who are creative, innovative, problem-solving oriented, and with a strong ambition to achieve social impact. The focus on systematic social change has been prominent ever since. Traditionally, internationalization theory has been concentrated to large multinational firms, suggesting that international business derives from classical economic incentives. However, the importance of small entrepreneurial firms has gained increased attention, focusing on why and how internationalization takes place (Mtigwe, 2006). The internationalization of firms tends to be directed to the process as a whole, however, according to Sarasvathy, Kumar, York, and Bhagavatula (2013) the initiation to internationalize deserves more attention since it could further answer the question why. Due to globalization, international business and entrepreneurship has gained interest as a cross-disciplinary research field, showing that opportunities for international entrepreneurship are great (Oviatt and McDougall, 2005). International entrepreneurship

5

theory has emerged as a compromise between the incremental theory, focusing on slow internationalization of multinationals, and the network theory, which concentrates on rapidly internationalized small firms (Mtigwe, 2006). Furthermore, Mtigwe suggests that entrepreneurs internationalize either by using formal networks, or without the support of formal networks. Additionally, international entrepreneurship is integrated into the primary theoretical milestones in international business (ibid.). Oviatt and McDougall (2005:540) suggest that “international entrepreneurship is the discovery, enactment, evaluation, and exploitation of opportunities - across national borders - to create future goods and services”, emphasizing “across national borders”. The attention of researchers towards understanding how social entrepreneurs create their ventures around international opportunities is not sufficient (Zahra et al, 2008). Social opportunities are global in their nature, but how do social entrepreneurs select among the global social causes, and why do some social entrepreneurs choose to tackle social issues in their own communities, whilst other chose to tackle social issues across their own country’s borders (ibid.). Might this be a result of the high concentration of resources in developed countries, as a contrast to the prevalent concentration of social problems in developing countries, or might this depend on the discovery, evaluation, and exploitation of international opportunities, or perhaps both? (ibid.). Nonetheless, that could be a reason why Swedish and other social entrepreneurs internationalize. The available research is limited and somewhat unilateral regarding the internationalization of social entrepreneurship in general, and regarding the relationship between the internationalization of social entrepreneurship and supporting institutions in particular (Zahra et al., 2008; Saebi et al., 2018). Earlier studies have been directed mainly towards the importance of entrepreneurship for increased economic growth through innovation and development of new technology, industries, and jobs, without really emphasizing the impact that entrepreneurship can generate on the creation of social wealth. However, Zahra et al. (2008) argues that social entrepreneurship can serve as an engine for economic and social development globally, since social enterprises develop institutions and infrastructures, and create jobs required for sustainable development. Due to globalization, the awareness of social problems has increased, as well as the importance of entrepreneurial action to meet those problems. The question is, what opportunities are being discovered and exploited, and by whom? Discovery, evaluation, and exploitation of opportunities has been recognized as key functions of entrepreneurship during the last decade (Eckhardt and Shane, 2003; Shane and Venkataraman, 2000; Short et al., 2010). When discussing entrepreneurial opportunities and the entrepreneurial process, discovery refers to the conceptual and cognitive side of business creation, whilst exploitation refers to the realization side of business development (Davidsson, 2006). Zahra et al. (2008) suggest that social issues are both widespread and easily observed, creating a great

6

prevalence of opportunities for social entrepreneurs. Furthermore, the prevalence of social opportunities might be a way to overcome psychic and cultural distance, thus, discovering and exploiting international opportunities. Additionally, relevance, urgency, accessibility, and radicalness are considered important attributes of social opportunities (ibid.), which might contribute to understanding why some social entrepreneurs seek international opportunities and internationalize their activities. Still, it is difficult to distinguish any clear evidence about how social entrepreneurs’ discovery and exploitation of international opportunities are influenced by other actors. Ghalwash et al. (2017) declared that one of the major challenges often experienced by social entrepreneurs is the weak institutional support that is received, both financially and bureaucratically. Also, that future research should examine to what extent the institutional support and its contextual and environmental traits influence the social entrepreneur’s ability to succeed or fail, and more importantly how it affects the social entrepreneurial process. This calls for evidence-based research that explores the relationship between institutional support and social entrepreneurship in particular contexts. Zahra et al. (2008) further state that the field of social entrepreneurship calls for research that goes beyond a characteristic basis and examines structural and contextual factors, why some social enterprises internationalize, and how the complexity for social entrepreneurs increases as they engage in international business. Moreover, how internationalization and the potential of multiple stakeholders affect social enterprises and their entrepreneurial process, as well as their opportunity recognition (ibid.). Although the individual does play an important role in entrepreneurial research, this study will focus on the main characteristics of the internationalization process of social entrepreneurship and the influence of supporting institutions rather than the traits and characteristics of individual entrepreneurs. However, since many social enterprises are micro or small-scaled (Darko and Koranteng, 2015), the role of individual entrepreneurs become highly important, which means that in order to fully understand the internationalization process of social entrepreneurship, it is necessary to start with the individual entrepreneurs. Zahra et al. (2009) argues that in order to further elaborate the field of social entrepreneurship, it calls for greater attention towards the ecosystem in which the entrepreneurs exist, and research that examines why some social ventures succeed while others fail. When a phenomenon like social entrepreneurship evolves and grows, so will the demand for applicable and relevant research (Light, 2008). The existing knowledge gap within social entrepreneurship research can be categorized into three different levels of analysis: individual, organizational, and institutional. The available literature is deficient in all dimensions and the research is generally conducted by only analyzing each level individually, not as a multilevel phenomenon, that social

7

entrepreneurship actually is (Saebi, et al., 2018). Additionally, this creates a risk of misinterpretation and neglecting opportunities for increased knowledge of the phenomenon social entrepreneurship. By integrating a multilevel dimension, this study strives to present a more accurate picture of the internationalization process of social entrepreneurship. Thus, this study aims to provide a greater understanding of how international opportunities for social entrepreneurs in Sweden look like, and how the discovery and exploitation of those opportunities are influenced by social entrepreneurial supporting institutions. This will incorporate the individual, the organizational, and the institutional level into the research.

1.3 Research Question RQ. How do SE supporting institutions influence Swedish social entrepreneurs’ opportunities to internationalize? To further understand and answer the research question, we have divided it into two different sub-questions that are relevant for the purpose of the study: SQ1. How do SE supporting institutions influence Swedish social entrepreneurs’ discovery of international opportunities? SQ2. How do SE supporting institutions influence Swedish social entrepreneurs’ exploitation of international opportunities?

1.4 Purpose This thesis aims to examine the internationalization of Swedish social entrepreneurs, with the purpose to acquire a more profound understanding of how social entrepreneurial supporting institutions influence their discovery of international opportunities, as well as their exploitation of the identified opportunities. The study will be conducted with qualitative methodology and will be done by examining the concept of Swedish social entrepreneurship carried out in an international context. We believe that the result of this study can provide useful implications for social entrepreneurs with the intention to internationalize.

1.5 Delimitations Given the fact that this research is conducted in a Swedish context, the data collection will be limited to Swedish social entrepreneurs. Therefore, the result may not be applicable to the perspective of other countries.

8

1.6 Outline

Figure 1: Outline of the Study. Source: Authors’ Own Summary.

9

2. LITERATURE REVIEW In this chapter, the theoretical framework, which this thesis is based upon, will be presented. The chapter begins with a presentation of social entrepreneurship as an overarching concept, where the research field and predominant concepts for this study will be further explained. Thereafter, theories on internationalization will be reviewed, as well as theories concerning entrepreneurial supporting institutions. The chapter will be finalized with a conceptual framework that aims to provide an understanding of how the theories relate to each other.

2.1 What is Social Entrepreneurship The range and the number of social actors behaving entrepreneurially have indeed increased during the past two decades and is today larger than ever before (Saebi et al., 2018; Nicholls, 2006). Still, there is an absence of clarity about what social entrepreneurship really means, and the momentous impact it can have on international social issues. Although many scholars have a somewhat different understanding of the aspects of social entrepreneurship, Light (2008) argues that there is a general consensus regarding the objective of social entrepreneurship. One of the very first contributions in the field made in the 1980s, Drayton (2002:123) declared that social entrepreneurship concerns “large-scale systematic social change”. Dees further elaborated on that and argued that those who engage in social entrepreneurship are individuals with “a mission to create and sustain social value, as change agents in the social sector” and “the relentless pursuit of new opportunities to serve that mission” (Dees, 1998:4). Scholars’ attention towards systematic social change is a prominent factor in earlier research on social entrepreneurship. Drayton (2002) and Dees (1998) proposes the idea of social entrepreneurs as “change agents” that identify, address, and solve problems in the social sector. Furthermore, that social entrepreneurship is an innovative and sustainable approach to meet social needs, create social value and stimulate systematic social change, that involves discovering, identifying, exploring and exploiting opportunities (Saïd Business School, 2005; Austin et al., 2006; Mair and Marti, 2006; Zahra et al., 2009; Nielsen et al., 2017; Saebi et al., 2018). Defining social entrepreneurship requires attention toward individuals, opportunities, and innovative organizations that create social wealth. As mentioned, the authors have decided to use the definition by Zahra et al. (2009:1), suggesting that; “...social entrepreneurship encompasses the activities and processes undertaken to discover, define, and exploit opportunities in order to enhance social wealth by creating new ventures or managing existing organizations in an innovative manner".

10

The difference between social entrepreneurship and business entrepreneurship is often used as a means to clarify what social entrepreneurship is. The ultimate goal for social entrepreneurs, although it might be considered unachievable, is to reach a reality where there is no longer a need for them, nor their actions. That is not the objective of business entrepreneurs (Nicholls, 2006). According to Bjerke and Karlsson (2013) social entrepreneurship is driven by other means of satisfaction and they suggest that social entrepreneurs initiate new activities to satisfy social values, while the more traditional business entrepreneur initiates new businesses to satisfy market values. Nielsen et al. (2017) further evaluate the difference between traditional business entrepreneurship and social entrepreneurship, claiming that the former simply aims to make profits while the latter aims to create better circumstances for people, both locally and globally. Profits in social entrepreneurship are considered as an instrument rather than a goal. It does create a balance between social and financial objectives that could be problematic, however, it is also what distinguishes social entrepreneurship from business entrepreneurship (Nielsen et al., 2017; Mair and Martí, 2006). Furthermore, it makes the driving force behind social entrepreneurship and its characteristics even more interesting. Still, it can be problematic to comprehend who is a social entrepreneur and who is a business entrepreneur. One of the great challenges in understanding what social entrepreneurship is, actually lies in setting up clear limitations of what classifies as social (Mair and Martí, 2006). Thus, Bjerke and Karlsson provide a clear distinction, arguing that all entrepreneurs “…who are not run by a profit motive but by a social idea or entrepreneurs who next to their profit motives have a clear objective to satisfy non-commercial citizen needs in a society” (2013:24) are social entrepreneurs. All other entrepreneurs should be considered as business entrepreneurs.

2.1.1 The Entrepreneurial Dimension The entrepreneurial dimension of social entrepreneurship tends to be recognized through the established theoretical framework of the business entrepreneur. Several theories and concepts have been put forward, trying to define and identify universal facts within the field of entrepreneurship. Two of the most important and debated conceptual contributors within the field of entrepreneurship are Shane and Venkataraman (2000). Shane (2003) based his definition of entrepreneurship on ideas presented by Venkataraman (1977) and defined entrepreneurship as “an activity that involves the discovery, evaluation and exploitation of opportunities to introduce new goods and services, ways of organizing, markets, processes, and raw materials through organizing efforts that previously had not existed” (Shane, 2003:4) From their definition it can be drawn that the aim of entrepreneurship research is to better understand the sources of opportunities; exploitation, discovery, and evaluation of opportunities. As well as studying the

11

entrepreneurial individual (Shane and Venkataraman, 2000; Nielsen et al., 2017). The individual analysis frequently portraits the entrepreneur as an innovator with unique leading skills and exceptional personal traits and is often regarded as a “business hero”. Similarly, earlier research on social entrepreneurship has been focused on the individual level where the term “hero” is used, together with outstanding leadership skills and innovative and creative personal traits (Nicholls, 2006). The elevated interest towards entrepreneurship has led to different theoretical orientations, with two different “views” on how entrepreneurship should be seen in society as a whole. The narrow view sees entrepreneurship primarily as an economic phenomenon that aims to satisfy demands in different markets, while the broad view observes entrepreneurship as something that is not limited to the economy and market demand, but belongs to the whole society, not just an elite (Bjerke and Karlsson, 2013). The broad view emphasizes the importance of the outcome of the entrepreneurial activities that take place and puts less weight on specifying personal traits and behavior of successful entrepreneurs (Bjerke and Karlsson, 2013; Nicholls, 2006).

2.1.2 Characteristics and Motivations In order to understand the driving force behind social entrepreneurship, it is important to outline the characteristics of the individual behind a social enterprise. How does their personality traits look like, how is their mindset shaped and what motivates them to engage in social entrepreneurial activities? A study by Ghalwash et al. (2017), shows that social entrepreneurs and business entrepreneurs have common characteristics. That the entrepreneurial process, risk-taking, and innovation is highly present for both, even if it might be canalized differently and utilized for different purposes. Social entrepreneurs use their skills and knowledge to address often complex and persistent social issues with innovative solutions. The processes and activities undertaken by the social entrepreneur are categorized by the exploration and exploitation of ideas and opportunities that create social value (Zahra et al., 2009). Ghalwash et al. (2017) further argue that the social entrepreneurial mindset is to a great extent shaped by personal experience, which in turn influences the type of opportunities being discovered and explored. This is in many ways one of the most distinct and fundamental differences of social entrepreneurship, the selection of what type of opportunities that are being realized, and which approach that is the most suitable to achieve the desired effect. Social entrepreneurs tend to identify and focus on tackling more prolonged and basic social needs and problems through innovative solutions (Austin et al., 2006).

12

Alongside a particular mindset, the social entrepreneur is often characterized by emotional factors and they tend to be personally connected to their social venture and its target (Ghalwash et al., 2017). The personal experience and inspiration are derived from earlier life events, both work-related and social-related, which influence their decision to pursue social work. The social entrepreneur often displays strong elements of compassion, empathy, and understanding, and emotional investment often leads to improved results and increased commitment (Zahra et al., 2009).

2.1.3 Opportunities Opportunities play an important role in the entrepreneurial process and can account for central patterns in entrepreneurial activity (Shane, 2003). However, entrepreneurial opportunities are not easily defined and might be the most confusing term within social entrepreneurship (Light, 2008; Shane, 2003). They exist in the ecosystem that encompasses entrepreneurial activity but are challenging to discover, and even more difficult to exploit (Light, 2008). To answer the question “what is an entrepreneurial opportunity?” Light answers that an opportunity is “a moment in time and place that allows entrepreneurs to challenge the prevailing equilibrium” (2008:121). He further argues that opportunities may not be visible to other people than entrepreneurs themselves since they are merely a figment of his or her imagination (Light, 2008). Shane (2003) defines entrepreneurial opportunity as a situation in which a person can create new means-ends framework for recombining resources that the entrepreneur believes will yield a profit. Notwithstanding, he does not mean that opportunities necessarily have to be profitable (ibid.). As mentioned earlier, social entrepreneurship can be distinguished from business entrepreneurship (Bjerke and Karlsson, 2013; Nielsen et al., 2017). Their objectives often diverge since social entrepreneurship is less oriented towards profit and more focused on social purposes. Since opportunities often go in line with the objectives, the opportunities within the two sectors can also be distinguished from each other (Light, 2008; Robinson, 2006; Dees, 2001). Furthermore, the background of social entrepreneurs may shape their opportunity recognition (Dorado, 2006; Mair & Noboa, 2006; Robinson, 2006). Even though social entrepreneurial opportunities are less oriented towards profit, social entrepreneurs still have to identify available opportunities for funding and understand the full range of potential commercial sources of revenue (Light, 2008). Whether the social enterprise is non-profit or profit-seeking, entrepreneurs have an important choice regarding the opportunities they choose to exploit (Dees 1988; Light, 2008). Social entrepreneurial opportunities are also distinct from other types of opportunities since they are often influenced by social and institutional structures, and often involve navigating social and institutional barriers within the targeted market or community (Robinson,

13

2006). According to Waddock and Post (1991) socially entrepreneurial opportunities often occur when a series of efforts by individual organizations or public agencies have failed. In other words, one could say that social opportunities, or social needs, often has its origin in market failures. That is when social entrepreneurs take action and increase awareness through his or her vision (Waddock and Post, 1991). In this study, the authors will conceptually distinguish between discovery and exploitation, as two sub-processes within the entrepreneurial process. 2.1.3.1 Discovery and Exploitation When discussing entrepreneurial opportunities and the entrepreneurial process, discovery refers to the conceptual and cognitive side of business creation, whilst exploitation refers to the realization side of business development (Davidsson, 2006). Hence, discovery could be described as the entrepreneurs’ process of coming up with ideas, as well as the elaboration, adaptation and refinement of those ideas. The exploitation refers to the entrepreneurial behavior and activities taken in order to realize the ideas. Hence the mobilization and combination of resources, as well as the process of convincing potential customers (ibib.). Discovery in this sense should not be mistaken for Kirznerian opportunity recognition, where opportunities are implied to exist objectively in the environment, ready to be discovered. Even though the discovery process generates revolutionary business ideas, entrepreneurs must attempt to realize the value creation and appropriation potential of their business ideas. As Davidsson puts it “no entrepreneurial process is complete without exploitation” (2006:136). This because no value can be created until the business idea is acted upon (Davidsson, 2006). The exploitation process involves several efforts by the entrepreneurs, such as: their effort to legitimize the startup, by obtaining permits, licenses or creating a legal entity, as well as developing relationships with stakeholders; efforts to acquire resources, such as financial capital, intellectual property, and core group expertise; efforts to combine and coordinate those resources; and efforts to generate demand through marketing and development of customer relations. All of these resources are essential for independent startups, but obtaining resources and resource combinations is the most critical aspect of the exploitation process. Even though the sub-processes, discovery, and exploitation, are often entwined, the two processes can be separable (ibid.). In fact, theorist proposes that ideas, or opportunities, are first discovered, and then exploited. In other words put, discovery is often considered as a precondition for exploitation (Bhave,1994; Shane, 2003; Shane and Eckhardt, 2003). Regardless of the separation or interrelation of the two concepts, it is essential that both receive adequate attention.

14

2.2 Internationalization When comparing the theoretical milestones in international business, one could see how the field has thrived since the simplistic and static nature of its early forms. Still, there is no universal theory and accepted model of international business, let alone one considering international entrepreneurship. Classical theories of international business, such as the theory of absolute advantage, the theory of comparative advantage, and the internationalization theory, are more oriented towards trade, cost advantage, and entry modes and have limited applicability to the field of international entrepreneurship (Mitgwe, 2006).

2.2.1 International Entrepreneurship As a cross-disciplinary field, international entrepreneurship share elements from both international business and entrepreneurship theory, and is recognized as the study of “innovative, proactive and risk-seeking behaviors across borders” (McDougall and Oviatt, 2000:903). Alongside the classical theories of internationalization, the concept of international opportunity has received increased attention alongside International entrepreneurship (Mainela, Puhakka and Servais, 2014). Research considering the internationalization of firms has moved from analyzing internal experience and gradual learning (Bilkey and Tesar, 1977; Cavusgil, 1980; Johanson and Vahlne, 1977), towards analyzing international opportunity development in relation networks (Johanson and Vahlne, 2006, 2009). During the last decade, discovery, evaluation, and exploitation of opportunities have been recognized as key functions of entrepreneurship (Eckhardt and Shane, 2003; Shane and Venkataraman, 2000; Short et al., 2010) which can be recognized in Oviatt and McDougall’s (2005) definition of international entrepreneurship. The two authors describe international entrepreneurship as ‘the discovery, enactment, evaluation, and exploitation of opportunities – across national borders – to create future goods and services’ (2005:540). Recent research in the field of international entrepreneurship (IE) shares a high interest in the concept of international opportunity, and it seems to hold a particular promise in developing the research field further (Mainela, Puhakka and Servais, 2014).

2.2.2. Discovery and Exploitation of International Opportunities The social entrepreneurial force, which helps address some of the world’s most serious problems, has caught a considerable interest and empowers entrepreneurs to explore opportunities across national borders. Social entrepreneurs are able to address pressing social needs by transforming their aspirations into worldwide movements that help improve social conditions and human development worldwide (Zahra et al., 2008; Mair

15

and Noboa, 2003; Martin and Osberg, 2007). The liberalization of national economies, institutional and governmental failures, as well as demographic shifts, have increased the necessity of social consciousness and created an incitement for social entrepreneurs, and the formation of social enterprises (Zahra et al, 2008). In the article Globalization of social entrepreneurship opportunities (Zahra et al, 2008) four key forces that help fuel the globalization of social opportunities are discussed; Global wealth disparity, the Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) movement, market- institutional- and state failures, as well as technology advancement and shared responsibility.

Despite the increase of social consciousness and growing attention towards CSR-action, companies tend to focus on issues that are related to the company’s performance, which creates a void of serious social issues for social entrepreneurs to tackle (Zahra et al., 2008). This void of persistent social problems is further aggravated by institutional and market failures where the will, power, or means is not sufficient enough to reduce it. The advancement in technology has helped social entrepreneurs fill this void by increasing access to information which provides them with knowledge that can be used to exploit social opportunities across their national borders. Additionally, it leads to increased exposure that may lead the founding of their social ventures (ibid.). Technological advancement makes social opportunities salient and provides social entrepreneurs with new ways to manage their operations and deal with international problems. The advances in communication also help social entrepreneurs to overcome barriers and seek connections that can help them exploit opportunities in distant locations (ibid.).

As a conclusion, these factors help increase awareness of social problems worldwide and provides social entrepreneurs with essential information about the void of international opportunities. It also helps entrepreneurs to spawn for connections with non-governmental organizations (NGOs) or stakeholders that can mobilize the talents and resources needed to exploit their opportunities (ibid.). Individuals from developed countries have a higher interest than ever in donating, investing in, and partnering with organizations or entrepreneurs who work for social goals in developing countries. These opportunities for collaboration help social entrepreneurs mobilize resources and reduce their apprehension of risk which ultimately facilitates the internationalization of social enterprises (ibid.).

The creation of opportunities can be seen as a process that is continuous and adaptable, that involves creating meaning, and making and giving sense in an unclear social environment (Mainela, Puhakka and Servais, 2014). Regarding international opportunities, that process appears across national borders. Observing the discovery of opportunities, resources are utilized more efficiently or applied to new solutions or needs when opportunities are discovered, and where entrepreneurs seek the most appropriate alternative (Eckhardt and Shane, 2003; Mainela, Puhakka and Servais, 2014). The level

16

of risk should be estimated when the opportunity is exploited in order to make a rational decision. McDougall, Shane and Oviatt (1994) suggest that alertness is an important aspect of international opportunities, and that the alertness to discover and exploit international opportunities is dependent on entrepreneurs’ previous experience and rare competences, including networks, knowledge and background. Acs, Morck and Yeung (2001) emphasize innovation opportunities as central in entrepreneurship and stress the significance of resources and capabilities to realize innovation opportunities internationally. According to Mahnke, Venzin and Zahra (2007), international opportunities tend to appear when interests are diverse and often conflicting and disputed. Earlier research has mainly observed the opportunity to internationalize and not really emphasized it as an entrepreneurial opportunity (Mainela, Puhakka and Servais, 2014). They further suggest that the entire international opportunity process is affected by the entrepreneurs’ relationships and interactions with others, and that entrepreneurs do not act alone. Moreover, international opportunities are approached differently depending on former experience and varying ecosystems (ibid.). Zahra et al. (2008) present five attributes that highlight the complexity of social opportunities and offer an explanation as to why some social opportunities also become international opportunities. The prevalence of a social opportunity concerns the extent of a certain social issue, for example poverty. The beliefs about which are the most prevalent issues spur the social entrepreneurial opportunity discovery, and also propose an idea of why some social entrepreneurs tackle social issues internationally and others locally (ibid.). The opportunity is also characterized by its relevance to the entrepreneurs’ background, resources, skills and talents. It offers a clue as to why social entrepreneurs decide to exploit a particular opportunity, which might be discovered across international borders. Social opportunities’ urgency, unpredicted events such as hurricanes or war, can impact the decision to engage in solving a social issue and thereby the discovery of an opportunity, as well as timing and scale of the international entry (ibid.). Accessibility refers to the difficulty to address a certain social issue, and often the most accessible opportunities are addressed by the traditional welfare systems. Accessibility can encourage different social enterprises to cooperate and thus accelerate internationalization. The radicalness of an opportunity concerns the innovation needed to tackle a social issue nationally or internationally, and how large-scale that innovation needs to be. Zahra et al. (2008) suggest that these five attributes make social international opportunities more comprehensible. Furthermore, that prevalence, relevance and accessibility of a social opportunity could lead to internationalization at inception, while relevance, urgency and accessibility determine the international geographical scope of the social enterprise.

17

2.3 Supporting Institutions Throughout the twentieth century, the developed markets have seen a huge increase in per capita income (700%), creating an extensive middle class. During the same period, life expectancy grew by 30 to 40 years globally. Nicholls (2006) suggest that the combination of these two aspects, together with increased knowledge and training, have created substantial new resources to tackle societal problems. The number of groups working to address social needs in the citizen sector has expanded radically and with the technology boom in the 1990s capital transferred from individuals to foundations (Bjerke and Karlsson, 2013; Nicholls, 2006). International foundations such as the Schwab Foundation, the Skoll Foundation, and Norrsken Foundation, as well as the Ashoka organization, provide institutional support to social entrepreneurs and social entrepreneurial solutions (Nicholls, 2006; Light, 2008; Norrsken Foundation, 2020a). SE supporting institutions do not necessarily qualify as social entrepreneurs themselves, nonetheless, their role as a bellwether in the strive for systematic social change is generating countless new social entrepreneurs. (Bjerke and Karlsson, 2013; Light, 2008; Nicholls, 2006). Still, a majority of the supporting institutions have a clear social entrepreneurial element. Charity should not be confused with social entrepreneurship, neither with SE supporting institutions, since it simply lacks the entrepreneurial dimension (Bjerke and Karlsson, 2013). Institutions like Ashoka, Norrsken Foundation and Vinnova offer practical support, powerful networks, and resources to encourage opportunities for social entrepreneurship internationally (Nicholls, 2006; Norrsken Foundation, 2020a; Vinnova, 2020). According to Light (2008), social entrepreneurship has a high focus on partnerships and the process is seen as cooperative instead of competitive, which is a common view in business entrepreneurship. Social entrepreneurship seeks, and requires, stronger collaborations and partnerships that go beyond individuals, and that can bring the impact of social solutions to scale (Bjerke and Karlsson, 2013; Nicholls, 2006). The role of supporting institutions becomes central in this aspect. Grant and Crutchfield (2007) further argue that these institutions serve as a vital network for sharing information, raise funding, cultivate leadership and talent, and that large-scale social change calls for collaborative and collective action. To be able to meet the need of social entrepreneurs it may demand supporting institutions that specialize in consulting business together with social impact (Light, 2008). Moreover, that social entrepreneurs clearly could avoid mistakes by interacting with others and that a too isolated process constrain potential social change, which can be attained through involvement in SE supporting institutions such as Ashoka, Norrsken Foundation and Vinnova (Light, 2008; Norrsken Foundation, 2020b; Vinnova 2020).

18

2.3.1 Resources Resources are often perceived as rather abstract and it can, therefore, be necessary to categorize them in order to make them more manageable. Nielsen et al. (2017) divide resources into financial resources, human resources, and social resources. Financial resources refer to capital supplied by the owners or any other external actors and is, simply put, the money the entrepreneur has at his or her disposal. Human resources concern intangible resources such as knowledge, education, training, experience, and engagement. Training, for instance, could improve the entrepreneurs’ ability to discover and exploit opportunities and positively contribute to the entrepreneurial process. Social resources are the ones that differentiate themselves the most since they consist foremost of personal contacts and networks, and belong to the relationship itself, not the individual (ibid.). All entrepreneurs need to create organizations that are sustainable and viable by maximizing their resources’ utility, and social entrepreneurs are no different (Bacq and Eddleston, 2016). However, many social enterprises experience substantial resource constraints, partially because they tend to operate in ecosystems in which it can be problematic to obtain resources at reasonable costs (Zahra, Newey and Li, 2014). Hence, social enterprises can experience difficulties to achieve organizational sustainability (Bacq and Eddleston, 2016). According to Bjerke and Karlsson (2013) social entrepreneurs, therefore, require more resources and abilities. Especially more support and stronger relationships than other entrepreneurs. As mentioned earlier, opportunities exist in the surrounding ecosystem of the entrepreneurial activity, and in order to exploit that ecosystem entrepreneurs need resources (Light, 2008). To gain access to resources, which entrepreneurs do not possess themselves, it is essential for the entrepreneur to develop social networks (ibid.).

2.3.2 Networks By emphasizing opportunities as a central aspect of entrepreneurship it becomes necessary to ask why and how some people discover and exploit these opportunities while others do not. According to Ellis (2011), the common answer is that opportunities that are being recognized are influenced by entrepreneurs’ involvement in networks. Nielsen et al. (2017) further argue that for an entrepreneur to be successful, the entrepreneurial process should involve other people, both closely connected and less closely connected, and that both types are equally important. Networks can be divided between social networks and business networks, where the former concerns relationships between people, and the latter concerns relationships between firms (Ellis, 2011). Continuously, Ellis (2011) suggests that in order to understand the discovery and exploitation of international opportunities, the analysis should focus on both types of networks.

19

An effective network is dependent on the current situation the entrepreneur is in, which also determines the resources that are needed and what type of network the entrepreneur should target (Nielsen et al., 2017). Hence, the entrepreneur tends to require a network that consists of many diverse people and weaker relationships in the early stage of the process when the opportunity is discovered. When the entrepreneur seeks to exploit the discovered opportunity, the demand for advice, support and capital, requires a network of strong relationships, including family members. Later, when the entrepreneurs seek to expand the international activities, the network shifts back to consisting of many diverse people and weaker relationships (Nielsen et al., 2017). According to Bjerke and Karlsson (2013), social entrepreneurs tend to exploit their networks to a greater extent compared to business entrepreneurs. Moreover, the network is particularly important to social entrepreneurs, since they need access to possibilities in order to make a difference.

2.4 Conceptual Framework The framework below (Figure 2) illustrates the interrelationships between the three main themes of this study; Social entrepreneurship, International opportunities, and supporting institutions. The question is how and to what extent these interrelationships contribute to the discovery and exploitation of international opportunities by social entrepreneurs. The theory review starts with presenting our first theme social entrepreneurship as a research field, with a focus on entrepreneurial opportunities and the entrepreneurial dimension. The chapter is written to make it easier for the reader to distinguish social entrepreneurs, from business entrepreneurs, and aims to distinguish their objectives and opportunity recognition. The concept international opportunities present the second theme of our conceptual framework. The concept has received increased attention alongside International entrepreneurship (Mainela, Puhakka, and Servais 2014) and seems to hold a particular promise in developing the research field further. Since social problems exist worldwide, there is a void of international opportunities for social entrepreneurs to tackle. The chapter introduces the concept but is focused on socially entrepreneurial opportunities and the reason for its upswing. It also highlights that opportunities for collaboration are important for social entrepreneurs since it helps them to mobilize resources and reduce their apprehension of risk which might ultimately facilitate the internationalization of their social enterprise (Zahra et al, 2008). The last theme in our conceptual framework is supporting institutions. Although supporting institutions do not necessarily qualify as social entrepreneurs themselves, they offer practical support, powerful networks, and resources that encourage opportunities for social entrepreneurship internationally (Bjerke and Karlsson, 2013; Light, 2008; Nicholls, 2006; Norrsken Foundation, 2020a). The three main themes are chosen by the authors since they are believed to provide a suitable conceptual framework for gathering

20

and analyzing empirical data, that will conclusively answer the research questions. The many arrows in the conceptual framework, represent the possible connections and links between the main concepts of the model. The number of arrows, and order of the different concepts in relation to each other might change when drawing conclusions from the research, and the model will most probably be revised as a part of the result of this thesis. Some arrows might be proven to only be directed one way, or be removed due to weaker links than expected. Some of the arrows may also change direction or be more apparent in contrast to others depending on the findings.

Figure 2: Summary Conceptual Framework of this Study. Source: Authors’ Summary based on the Literature Review

21

3. METHODOLOGY This chapter will account for the methodology of this case study. Hence, the different methods and approaches that have been used in order to answer the research questions and satisfy the purpose of this study. The chapter will begin with a presentation and explanation of the research approach and method, followed by an argument for the techniques used for data collection. As a conclusion, the method of data analysis will be presented, followed by a discussion of criticism and quality concerning this study. 3.1 Research Approach When conducting scientific research, there are generally two approaches to distinguish between; the inductive approach and the deductive approach. The inductive approach derives from empirical evidence, whilst the deductive approach derives from logic (Bell, Bryman and Harley, 2019). The inductive process seeks to draw conclusions from observations and findings that are generally valid and thus, the theory is the outcome of the research (Ghauri and Grønhaug, 2010). The deductive approach is more commonly used and considered less risky, where the research is built on hypotheses from existing theories (Alvesson and Sköldberg, 2018; Ghauri and Grønhaug, 2010). By following the inductive and deductive approach too rigorously, the risk of the research becoming restricted and narrow is palpable (Bell, Bryman and Harley, 2019; Alvesson and Sköldberg, 2018). However, there is a third way of conducting scientific research, the abductive approach. The abductive approach is possibly the most common method used in the research process of case studies and has been recommended as an innovative approach to theory-driven empirical research. The approach shares some characteristic with the more traditional inductive and deductive approaches, however, should not formally, nor informally be considered a mix of the two. This since it adds new, distinct elements (Alvesson and Sköldberg, 2018). The abductive approach has become increasingly popular in several research disciplines, especially in business research. The abductive process allows the researcher to adjust and redefine the study by moving between theory and empirical data, to be able to select the most suitable explanation from several competing explanations (Alvesson and Sköldberg, 2018; Bell, Bryman and Harley, 2019). This offers a level of understanding of which the two traditional approaches do not have. Given the fact that this thesis is based on both empirical observations among Swedish social entrepreneurs and supporting institutions, as well as theoretical frameworks evaluating internationalization and social entrepreneurship, the abductive approach research process is recognized as the most appropriate for this study. This case study will benefit from the abductive approach since it offers the possibility to alternate between previous theory and empirical data on the main concepts, in order to discover patterns and provide understanding, in the light of each other (Dubois and Gadde, 2002).

22

3.1 Method When conducting research, there are two different methods to choose from: quantitative or qualitative. The choice of which research method to use is very much dependent on the nature of the study, what the researcher seeks to examine, the particular research problem and research object. A quantitative study commonly emerges from the researcher’s own mindset about the central dimensions and categories in focus, whilst a qualitative study rather starts from the subject’s perspective and actions (Alvesson and Sköldberg, 2018). In business research, the quantitative method is foremost used to measure opinions, attitudes, and behavior in numbers, in terms of how often, how many, how much, when and who (Cooper and Schindler, 2011; Bell, Bryman and Harley, 2019). Using a qualitative research approach, however, tends to be more open-ended in comparison to most quantitative studies. The qualitative method strives to achieve an in-depth understanding and describe, decode, and translate the meaning of social world phenomena, as well as motivations, perceptions, and feelings (Cooper and Schindler, 2011). A qualitative method is applied for both data collection and analysis. Due to the fact that this study aims to investigate how the internationalization of Swedish social entrepreneurs are influenced by social entrepreneurial supporting institutions, a qualitative research method will be suitable to acquire a more profound understanding that is wanted. In addition, this thesis starts from the perspective of the subjects studied, for which a qualitative research approach is the most appropriate.

3.2 Research Design All types of empirical research have either an implicit or explicit research design that connects the empirical data to the study’s initial research questions and conclusions (Yin, 2014). It is a logical plan that calls for careful craftwork and can be thought of as a logical blueprint of the research study (Yin, 2016). The research design reveals the nature of the study and boosts the accuracy of the study. It also determines how the findings will address the intended research questions (ibid.).

3.2.1 Purpose of Research The fundamental difference between the various types of studies is manifested in their objectives. Descriptive research aims to answer who, what, when, and which questions, and seeks to describe a subject or explain an event, act or characteristic measured by research (Cooper and Schindler, 2011; Saunders, Lewis and Thornhill, 2016). Explanatory research is grounded in theory and establishes theory to answer why and how questions. In contrast to descriptive research, it goes beyond description, and instead of observing the phenomenon, it aims to explain the reasons behind it (Cooper and Schindler, 2011).

23

Exploratory research, which is the nature in which this study will be conducted, aims to seek further insights into a topic, issue or phenomena, by asking questions and assess it in a new demeanor (Saunders, Lewis and Thornhill, 2016). Exploratory research questions are likely, to begin with, ‘what’ or ‘how’ since the aim is to achieve an understanding of something (ibid.). As a contrast to descriptive research, where the problem is structured and well understood, the problem in Exploratory research might be poorly recognized (Ghauri and Grønhaug, 2010) However, this is not an issue since it is common that the study change direction as new results of data appears and the authors discover further insights (Saunders, Lewis and Thornhill, 2016). The choice to conduct this research in an exploratory nature is based on the fact that the problem this study address has not yet been thoroughly explored. An exploratory nature will be beneficial since it is adaptable to change and gives the advantage of flexibility (Saunders, Lewis and Thornhill, 2016). “Exploration is particularly useful when researchers lack a clear idea of the problems they will meet during the study” (Cooper and Schindler, 2011:143).

3.2.2 Research Strategy There is a wide variety of qualitative research strategies to choose from, but the most important thing is that the selected strategy goes in line with the chosen research method and approach (Merriam and Tisdell, 2016; Ghauri and Grønhaug, 2010). The chosen strategy for the research of this thesis is the case study strategy, since it is the most commonly used strategy in exploratory and explanatory research (Saunders, Lewis and Thornhill, 2016), The case study strategy will be explained in section 3.5 Case Study Research Design.

3.3 Data Collection Techniques Research cannot be done without data, and the collection of it is the foundation of most research projects (Corbin and Strauss, 2015). Qualitative research can derive from four different data collection methods; Interviewing, observing, collecting and examining material, and feeling (Yin, 2016). The selected method will to a great extent determine how to collect the data. However, most qualitative studies depend on observations or asking respondents questions (Silverman, 2013). Interviewing as a method of data collection includes both verbal and body language of the participant, and can include explanations of behavior, action or an expressed belief or viewpoint. Depending on the study though, the data will not automatically provide a full picture but will be limited to the participant’s understanding of the situation (Yin, 2016). However, it would still reveal important insights into understanding their reality. The data collection technique is dependent on its closeness to the phenomena and can be divided into primary data and secondary data (Cooper and Schindler, 2011).

24

3.3.1 Primary Data Collection Primary data collection is related to the relevant information gathered by the researchers for that specific research problem (Ghauri and Grønhaug, 2010). This leads to primary data often being more in line with the explicit research objectives and questions. Cooper and Schindler (2011) argue that primary data are important for its closeness to the truth and greater control over errors. For primary data collection, the researcher collecting the data generally is responsible for the analysis as well (Bell, Bryman and Harley, 2019). The sources used for data collection is dependent on the purpose of the study, however, when using a qualitative research method, the most common sources for collecting primary data is through interviews and observations (Corbin and Strauss, 2015). For this particular study, the primary data will be collected through a flexible, semi-structured approach using online interviews. This will maintain many of the advantages with face-to-face interviews and further allow a deeper understanding of behavior, decisions, and challenges concerning the subject.

3.3.2 Secondary Data Collection Unlike primary data, secondary data is not gathered by the researchers themselves and could, therefore, be collected for other purposes and aims that are not necessarily consistent with the specific research problem (Ghauri and Grønhaug, 2010). Secondary data contains at least one previous level of interpretation before being interpreted by the researcher in question (Cooper and Schindler, 2011). With the usage of secondary data, the researchers will be able to understand and explain the research problem in a better way. Furthermore, it will be a very useful instrument to understand and interpret the primary data (Ghauri and Grønhaug, 2010). For this study, the secondary data consists mainly of previously published information and documents received from the social enterprises’ and supporting institutions’ websites.

3.4 Case-Study Research Design In business and management research, the case study design is commonly used, and considered a very popular approach. As mentioned, the case study approach is often used when the research has an exploratory nature (Ghauri and Grønhaug, 2010). What makes the case study different compared to other research methods is that it strives to emphasize the unique and rare features of the case. Bell, Bryman and Harley (2019) refer to this as an idiographic approach. For the basic case study, it usually involves the analysis of a single case, with a detailed and concentrated examination of that case. However, single case studies could be vulnerable since the researcher is “betting all on a single horse”, and if it is possible to do a multiple case study instead, the chances of reaching a good result increase (Yin, 2018). A multiple case study will have analytical benefits and produce a more holistic view that will strengthen the findings and the effects, compared

25

to a single case study (Ghauri and Grønhaug, 2010; Yin, 2018). Merriam and Tisdell (2016) further argue that a multiple case study will heighten the generalizability and transferability of the empirical findings. By using a multiple case study design, the researchers of this study are allowed to compare cases between each other and possibly identify unique features as well as common features across cases. The multiple case research design will be suitable for this study to provide an extensive and holistic view since the rather complex phenomenon of social entrepreneurship would suffer from using the more limited single case study approach.

3.4.1 Purposive sampling strategy According to Saunders, Lewis and Thornhill (2016), the purpose of sampling is for the researchers to select appropriate cases to study and to follow theoretical lines of inquiry. The available sampling techniques can be divided into probability sampling and non-probability sampling, where the main difference is generally how the samples are selected. For a qualitative study, the primary aim is to explore diversity, therefore, the sample size is of less importance (Kumar, 2014). Thus, non-probability sampling with a purposive sampling strategy is the most suitable for this kind of qualitative case study research (Cooper and Schindler, 2011). The purposive sampling strategy will allow the researchers to use their judgment and select a diversity of respondents that will provide the data needed to answer the research question (Saunders, Lewis and Thornhill, 2016). Each case will be represented by one respondent from the Social Enterprise, which created a need for relevant criteria. The chosen criteria aim to reflect the purpose of this study and provide suitable answers for the given research questions. The cases/respondents in this study must;

1. Be Swedish (founded in Sweden by Swedish citizens) 2. Be engaged in social entrepreneurial activities 3. Be involved in international business activities 4. Have received support from a supporting institution 5. Have a key position in the company (founder, CEO, etc.)

To make sure that the respondents/social enterprises were engaged in social entrepreneurial activities and had received support from SE supporting institutions, the authors decided to search for respondents through the webpages of SE supporting institutions, and solely reach out to social entrepreneurs that are featured on their website. By doing so, the process of finding respondents that matched all the criteria became more effective and the authors could trust that the respondent would fit the purpose of this thesis. This, since the social entrepreneurs and social enterprises featured on their websites is carefully selected by the SE supporting institutions themselves. The

26

supporting institutions, Norrsken Foundation, Ashoka Nordics, and SE Forum were selected based on the authors’ research and judgement.

3.4.2 Cases

3.4.2.1 European Sign Language Centre European Sign Language Centre (ESLC) is a nonprofit organization with its headquarters in Örebro, Sweden. ESLC’s aim is to collect and document sign languages across the globe in order to make it available worldwide, through their web-based computer tool (ESLC, 2020).

3.4.2.2 Karma Coffee Karma Coffee is a coffee roastery that was created with the idea to use coffee as a tool to fund projects that makes the world a better place. The coffee is organically grown and roasted in Sweden, and the funding supports projects that target social issues in the developing world (Karma Coffee, 2020).

3.4.2.3 Anonymous The third social enterprise is founded in Sweden and help cities collect and organize relevant data considering climate change worldwide. The data is then shared and presented through a unique software tool and network, with the aim to create global awareness and good practice.

3.4.2.4 Elypta Elypta is a molecular diagnostic company founded at the Department of Biology and Biological Engineering at Chalmers University of Technology, Gothenburg, Sweden. The company is focused on preventing cancer mortality by developing a liquid biopsy platform for earlier detection and closer monitoring (Elypta, 2020).

3.4.2.5 Solvatten Solvatten is a Swedish social enterprise that offers water treatment and water heating systems to customers, charities, and distributors worldwide. Their system prevents people from falling sick and improves the quality of people's life. Their organizational structure consists of a Swedish corporation, as well as two charitable foundations (Solvatten, 2020).

3.5 Interviews Interviews in business research are frequently used in both qualitative as well as quantitative studies to collect empirical data. The interview as a research method involves a conversation with a structure and a purpose that is controlled and defined by the researcher. The structure of qualitative research interviews can be similar to an everyday

27

conversation, however, through a specific approach and questioning technique it generates a professional quality (Brinkman and Kvale, 2015). The purpose of using qualitative research interviews is to observe the phenomena from the perspective of the subject in question.

3.5.1 Semi-structured interviews When conducting interviews in qualitative research the interviews can take many forms, but generally, they fall into three types of techniques; unstructured or in-depth interviews, semi-structured interviews, and structured interviews (Corbin and Strauss, 2015). Structured interviews could be seen as a standardized type of interview, using questionnaires with fixed questions that are being asked and answered in a very controlled manner, to not indicate any bias (Saunders, Lewis and Thornhill, 2016). This type of interview aims to collect quantifiable data, and naturally, it is more common in quantitative research. Unstructured interviews are informal and do not follow a fixed list of questions and encourage the interviewee to talk about the topic without restrictions. A semi-structured interview method, however, still uses a general list of questions but leaves room for flexibility, which will allow the researcher to be more receptive. Hence, the emergence of theories and concepts is possible (Bell, Bryman and Harley, 2019). Brinkman and Kvale (2015:6) define the semi-structured interview as “an interview with the purpose of obtaining descriptions of the life world of the interviewee in order to interpret the meaning of the described phenomena”. Semi-structured interviews typically include a series of key questions that can be somewhat adjusted to suit a particular context (Saunders, Lewis and Thornhill, 2016). Depending on contextual varieties, e.g. organizational, a semi-structured nature of questions opens for modification. Some questions may be excluded, and the sequence might vary, but most importantly, it provides the interviewer with the possibility to ask supplementary questions where needed (Bell, Bryman and Harley, 2019; Saunders, Lewis and Thornhill, 2016). According to Saunders, Lewis and Thornhill (2016), when conducting an exploratory study, the preferred strategy is semi-structured or unstructured interviews. However, unstructured interviews require high-skilled and experienced interviewers to be effective (Kumar, 2014). Hence, semi-structured interviews are considered to be the most appropriate strategy for this study. Additionally, this multiple case study will benefit from a certain level of structure to ensure cross-case comparison. The operationalization (Table 1) and the conceptual framework (Figure 2) will provide themes for the interviews. Though, they are not strict themes since the interviews will be semi-structured. To acquire a favorable result, the intended plan was to conduct face-to-face interviews but due to societal effects and restrictions of the coronavirus, interviews had to be conducted online and over the phone. Nonetheless, online and phone interviews are not considered less

28

valuable for this study, and further add the possibility to include respondents from a wider geographical area, as well as conducting interviews in a shorter period of time (Saunders, Lewis and Thornhill, 2016)

3.5.2 Operationalization

Table 1: Operationalization Table. Source: Authors

Concepts

Interview Questions

Reasoning

General Information

1-3

The respondents are asked if they want to be anonymous and if it is ok to record the interview. Furthermore, the questions are asked to get a general perception of who the respondent is, their position as well as background in the company. Also, a brief description of the company and its mission.

Social Entrepreneurship

4-9

Questions are asked to obtain knowledge about social entrepreneurship and potential differences that might exist. Moreover, to get an understanding of what social entrepreneurship actually means to the interviewee and how they perceive opportunities.

International Opportunities

10-19

The following questions concentrate on why the respondent decided to internationalize and how that opportunity was discovered and exploited.

Discovery

11-13,18

This section refers to the interviewee’s network; the role the network has, how it has been created and utilized, and the importance of relationships when internationalizing.

Exploitation

14-17,19

The respondents are asked about barriers and how to overcome them, furthermore, what resources are needed and considered most important.

Supporting Institutions

20-23 (15-19)

To investigate the influence of supporting institutions we asked the respondent who have played a key role for their internationalization and who they turn to in need of support and advice.

Concluding Question

24

To conclude, the respondent is asked if they would like to add anything that has not been covered and might be interesting to know.

29

3.5.3 Open-ended questions When using a semi-structured interview strategy, Saunders, Lewis and Thornhill (2016) argue that open-ended questions are prevalent. For this study, the researchers believe that open-ended questions will offer a suitable frame of reference for the respondents and also allow them to provide answers in own words without limitations. The interviewers strive to encourage the respondents to define and outline their descriptions to provide extensive answers useful for the study. An open-ended structure allows for supplementary questions, as well as probing questions, to be asked if required (Saunders, Lewis and Thornhill, 2016).

3.5.4 Conducting Interviews The conceptual framework (Figure 2) and the operationalization (Table 1) provided the authors with themes for the interviews and a basis for the interview guide, which can be found in Appendix 1. The interview guide was sent out to the respondents prior to the interview, as a way to prepare the respondents on the type of questions the interviewee would ask, and also to certify the respondents ability to answer all of the questions during the interview. The authors did consider not to send out the interview guide beforehand. However, they came to the conclusion that it would be beneficial for the empirical result to send it out, but also to make the respondents more confident and willing to participate. After the first interview was conducted, the authors felt comfortable that is was an appropriate approach since it gave the interview a desired level of structure and enriched the empirical sampling. A majority of the interviews were conducted through the video and audio-conferencing tools Zoom and Skype, and one interview was conducted over the phone, due to technical issues. All interviews were recorded, and one interviewer asked the questions while the other interviewer took notes and asked supplementary and probing questions if needed. Even though one interview was conducted over the phone, the authors feel that the provided answers are equally valuable and reliable. In order to prevent any misunderstandings and misinterpretations, the authors sent a draft of the empirical findings to the respondents for approval.

3.6 Method of Data Analysis Qualitative data analysis is a recursive and dynamic process that involves consolidating, reducing, and interpreting the collected data. It is done in order to make meaning out of the material, and gain insights or understandings that constitute the findings. In other words, it is the process used to answers the research question (Merriam and Tisdell, 2016). With the main objective to answer the research question, the data analysis begins with identifying segments that are responsive to the research question. Merriam and Tisdell

30

(2016) call these segments units of data, which can potentially answer the research question or parts of it. It can be a small word presented by the respondent, or a whole page of notes from a particular event (ibid.). The next step in this process is to compare the units to one another and search for recurring regularities in the data. The units of data are then assigned to a theme or a category that eventually connects them again, preferably in a novel way that can lead to some kind of reasoning (ibid.). For this analysis, the themes and categories will be derived from 2.4 Conceptual Framework and 3.6.2 Operationalization. Although this process can apply to all types of qualitative analysis, there are some features that are affected when it comes to case study analysis. Attention to data management will be particularly important since it often includes a tremendous amount of data, and may be derived from a wide range of sources. This often results in an intensive phase of data analysis, where all the material needs to be brought together and organized in order to retrieve the data more easily (ibid.). Comparative or multiple case studies involve collecting data from a number of cases. Within a multiple case study analysis, there are two stages; the within-case analysis and the cross-case analysis (Merriam and Tisdell, 2016). Within case study analysis treats each case as a comprehensive case by itself, in order to learn as much as possible about its contextual variables. Once the within-case analysis is completed, the cross-case analysis which seeks to build abstractions across the multiple cases (ibid.). The goal is then to build generic explanations that apt all of the individual cases (Yin, 2014). Ultimately, the level of analysis should create a unified description across cases and might lead to themes, categories, or typologies that ideate uniform data from all cases (Merriam and Tisdell, 2016).

3.7 Quality of Research Although the importance of evaluation is agreed upon when conducting qualitative research, there is little consensus regarding appropriate evaluation criteria. Qualitative research has both scientific and creative components that researchers must contemplate in order to reflect the quality of the final product (Corbin and Strauss, 2015). Authors of qualitative research studies occasionally propose alternative ways of assessing qualitative research and suggest that their studies should be judged and evaluated in a different matter than quantitative research (Bell, Bryman and Harley, 2019). In contrast to validity and reliability, which is frequently used in quantitative research, qualitative researchers tend to ignore or play down these criteria and propose alternative criteria of evaluation in their qualitative studies (ibid.). Stake (1995) hardly mentions these criteria, which is common to writers of case study research based on a qualitative research strategy (Stake, 1995;

31

Bell, Bryman and Harley, 2019). Lincoln and Guba (1985) are two of the writers who argue that an alternative way of assessing the quality of their research study is desired. They introduce trustworthiness as an alternative criterion of evaluation, and propose four different aspects of the criteria; credibility, transferability, dependability, and confirmability (Lincoln and Guba, 1985; Bell, Bryman and Harley, 2019). The choice of evaluation criteria will be further presented and argued for below.

3.7.1 Credibility Credibility correlates to internal validity and examines how believable the findings are. (Bell, Bryman and Harley, 2019). The credibility of findings assures that the research is conducted with good practice and works as a confirmation that the authors have accurately understood the social world being studied (ibid.). In order to meet the requirements of credibility and make it possible for respondents to give their confirmation and approval, the research findings were sent to the respondents. This was also done in order to ensure that the findings reflect the respondents’ social world (ibid.).

3.7.2 Transferability Transferability correlates to external validity and examine if the findings can apply to alternative contexts. If the findings can bear in some other context, or even in the same context (Bell, Bryman and Harley, 2019). Transferability in qualitative research can be challenging due to the uniqueness and significance of the social world that is being studied. Since the cases studied in this research are quite diverse and the sample rather small, it is hard to make judgments about the possible transferability of the findings. This difficulty was acknowledged by the authors and encouraged them to produce so-called thick descriptions, which calls thorough descriptions and rich amounts of details (ibid.).

3.7.3 Dependability Dependability correlates to reliability and question how likely the findings can apply at other times (Bell, Bryman and Harley, 2019). It works as assurance that the records are kept of all phases of the research process in an accessible manner, and to what extent proper procedures have been followed. ‘The degree to which theoretical inferences can be justified’ (Bell, Bryman and Harley, 2019: p.365). To ensure high dependability the authors have adopted an auditing approach, and kept complete and accessible records through the research process, including; selection of respondents, interview transcripts, and audio recordings (ibid.).

32

3.7.4 Confirmability Confirmability entails the objectivity of the study and questions to what extent the researcher has allowed their values to influence the result (Bell, Bryman and Harley, 2019). As Bell, Bryman and Harley put it, ‘Confirmability is concerned with ensuring that, while the recognizing that complete objectivity is impossible in business research, the researcher has acted in good faith’ (2019: p.365). In order to strive for confirmability, the authors have made sure not to evidently or substantially let their personal values or beliefs affect the conduct of the research and thereof the empirical findings (ibid.).

3.8 Research Ethics In qualitative research, where the line between the researcher and participant is often blurred, research ethics becomes a central issue (Corbin and Strauss, 2015). Since research ethics involve the research study’s trustworthiness, the researcher will adopt an ethical stance, and make sure not to jump to conclusions about their meanings. At every attempt, the researchers will, therefore, explore all possibilities and compare them with primary or secondary data (ibid.) Hence, to a large extent, the trustworthiness of this research study depends upon the research ethics of the authors. Merriam and Tisdell (2016) argue that the credibility of the research study depends upon the competence, experience, and intellectual rigor of the researcher and that these qualities are essential to the readers. This, since they have to be able to trust that the study was conducted with integrity, in an ethical manner. Research integrity carries significant importance in qualitative research and means that the authors and data can be trusted to represent truthful positions and statements (Yin, 2016). Its importance depends upon the potentially higher flexibility of qualitative research designs and procedures compared to other kinds of research (ibid.). The authors acknowledge that their actions, methods, and demeanor must strive for truthful research which includes clarifications of the point of view being represented (Merriam and Tisdell, 2016; Corbin and Strauss, 2015). When contacting potential companies and individuals to interview, the researchers made sure to inform the respondents about the purpose of this study and also how they would contribute by participating. This made it possible for the respondents to receive a brief understanding of the subject and determine whether they wanted to partake or not. The respondents were offered the possibility to be anonymous and one of the respondents chose to be so. The respondents were also asked if it was okay to record the interview, which they all agreed to. Furthermore, all personal data concerning the respondents will be handled according to the guidelines provided by Linnaeus University concerning GDPR for students (LNU, 2020).

33

3.9 Authors Contributions This research was conducted by two authors. From the beginning, it was decided that the authors were going to contribute to the thesis equally and share full responsibility for all parts of the thesis. Therefore, the workload has not been divided among them but shared evenly between the two authors. Hence, the authors of this thesis take full and equal responsibility for conducting this thesis.

34

4. EMPIRICAL FINDINGS This chapter aims to present the empirical findings and will begin with a presentation of the respondents, followed by case-specific empirical data. The empirical data will be presented in line with the main themes of our theoretical chapter; social entrepreneurship, International opportunities, and supporting institutions.

4.1 Cases The criteria presented in the purposive sampling strategy was taken into consideration when choosing the respondents. All cases studied are founded in Sweden, and they are all engaged in social entrepreneurial activities internationally. Four of the interviews were conducted through the video and audio-conferencing tools Zoom and Skype and the fifth interview were conducted over the phone. The interviews were conducted between the 28th of April to the 4th of May 2020.

4.1.1 Thomas Lydell - European Sign Language Centre Thomas Lydell is a co-founder of The European Sign Language Centre. He is also a project manager and cashier and describes himself as a volunteer since he does not charge for his responsibilities within the non-profit association/social enterprise. Besides his duties within the European Sign Language Centre, Thomas has been working as an upper-secondary teacher for the Swedish national agency Specialpedagogiska Skolmyndigheten (SPSM) where he has over ten years of experience of working with deaf kids. The project Thomas is working with on is a free international sign language dictionary called Spread the Sign. It is an ongoing process of gathering signs from different sign languages and aims to make all sign languages accessible worldwide. The project started as a school project in 2006 in the city of Örebro and was also considered an EU project that received international founding. “My main focus is to protect, take care and develop the dictionary Spreadthesign.com and make it better, bigger and more beautiful, all that”.

4.1.1.1 Social Entrepreneurship Thomas is familiar with the term social entrepreneurship. However, when asked if he considers himself a social entrepreneur, he says that he does not consider himself to be an entrepreneur “I am sacrificing something and I don’t get a penny so I am not an entrepreneur”. Thomas describes a social entrepreneur as someone who is getting rich out of perhaps pretending to help others but making it a business with profitable goals. It is clear that he does not like the term social entrepreneurship since he associates the term social entrepreneurship with greed and “bad stuff”. Continuously, he says;

35

“I mean as anything else you want salary, and if you are an entrepreneur you probably want more salary, get richer... I mean that’s why people thrive and have fabulous businesses with a lot of employees. But when you are in this business, sign language, it is impossible to get rich” As explained earlier, Thomas is not paid for his responsibilities within the non-profit association but work with the dictionary on his free time, and therefore calls himself and his colleagues volunteers. When presenting an alternative definition of social entrepreneurs, as people who work with social impact or socially beneficial work, not necessarily for profit, he says that he has met people who work with fantastic things “ I mean I have met those people too, and they are doing good stuff”.

4.1.1.2 International Opportunities As mentioned, the project Spread the Sign started at an internationally funded school project in collaboration with the European Union. So, the dictionary was already international when Thomas and the other co-founders decided to take over the project. Thomas explained that the reason why they could do so was that “the city of Örebro wanted to drop it because it became so big and international”. Although the non-governmental organization The European Sign Language Centre only has five employees and Thomas describes it as a family, the project Spread the Sign is collaborating with 150-200 partners in 35 countries. Today, the dictionary is translated into 15 different sign languages. Thomas said that the decision to further internationalize their activities from start was made since there already existed a Swedish sign language dictionary for the Swedish audience. Their internationalization involves finding people that can come to Sweden to record signs that can later be translated and added into the dictionary. Thomas says that there are very few projects working with sign language in Europe and that the ones that do exist can only be considered “embryos of dictionaries”. Additionally, he says that nothing found on google can be compared with ESLC’s sign language dictionary “we took it to another level, and already within two years from when we started from nothing we were the biggest in Europe... and after that, we also became quite quickly the biggest in the world” Although the dictionary is very costly to produce and maintain, it is free to use and can be accessed through their domain worldwide.

4.1.1.3 Supporting Institutions Thomas says that the European Sign Language Centre “does everything themselves” and that the main support they depend upon is the funding they receive from the European Union. Thomas explains that the funding covers the costs that involves creating their international network, and that it is used to pay their international partners “Yeah... I mean… I could say that nobody works for free so we need those EU money just to have

36

the other partners in the other countries paid”. He further explains their partners is getting paid by the EU standards depending on salary levels in their home country. “They don’t want much” he continues. He explains that if you ask someone to volunteer it does not become “important enough”, but that when they get paid it is a job, and they do it sincerely “ah they paid us it’s a task, we have to do it”. According to Thomas the EU funding also makes it possible for ECLC to arrange conferences and meetings with their partners each semester. Thomas says that the meetings make it possible to work on the dictionary and discuss the different projects, but that it also opposes an opportunity to create connections and bond with each other. The EU funds are distributed by the Swedish National Agency of Higher Education (UHR), who Thomas mention also provides advice if needed. “They are providing the EU funds and they always have meetings about how to do final reports, how to do good projects, and all that”. When being asked which resource was most crucial for ESLC when internationalizing Thomas answered, “Number one for me would be the social resources because if I don’t have any friends out there that wants to join the next project there is no project”. He further explains that without people onboard it might not matter that he receives funding, since he would then have to turn it back. When being asked what ESLC’s main challenge has been when internationalizing Thomas answered; “it is probably to get access to those philanthropic rich people who have funds, who could help out for a small NGO for us”. He says that ESLC had a former employee that was individually sponsored with a three-year scholarship from a supporting institution, but that he is no longer part of ESLC. Today ESLC does not collaborate with that specific supporting institutions, and as Thomas puts is “we don’t even have the time or the energy to look for them”. Even though Thomas considers social and human resources to be most essential, he says that financial resources are “always good”. He says that ESLC “would probably have more employees and more countries adding to the dictionary” if they had bigger funds.

4.1.2 Pontus Rosberg - Karma Coffee Pontus Rosberg (further referred to as Pontus) is the founder of Karma Coffee and started his social enterprise approximately six years ago, with the mission to create a better world, using the second most traded commodity as a tool. Before starting his social enterprise, Pontus studied business at Bond University in Australia, as well as leadership at the Defense College of Stockholm. Prior to that, he spent three years in the army, going abroad to both Kosovo and Afghanistan in peacekeeping missions. Pontus explains that this really provided him with an understanding of how international development can and should be done, and also how it should not be done, for us as a world to reach our global

37

goals. After finishing his studies and military service, Pontus traveled to Ethiopia in 2013-14 and this is where he came across and analyzed the issues associated with the coffee industry today. He found that almost everything with the coffee industry is very beautiful, from the actual trees where the berries grow and the people taking care of the berries, to the roasting process, and ultimately the brewing of the coffee. However, what is not beautiful is the way that it affects the people where the coffee originates from. “So, we decided to give the market and the people we love the possibility to buy better coffee for them and for the world around us”.

4.1.2.1 Social Entrepreneurship When discussing social entrepreneurship, Pontus emphasizes that he considers himself to be a social entrepreneur, and that the concept can be defined in a broader way that makes it more intriguing. He says that social entrepreneurship, just like entrepreneurship, has to do with solving problems and making things more efficient. By adding the social aspect as well, social entrepreneurs take into consideration “the idea of how people really are”. Pontus state that his idea of people is that everyone is fundamentally good and if there is a possibility to do something good, people will do it. However, it has to be simple, since people tend to follow the least resistant path. “That’s the idea with social entrepreneurs, that we are solving problems but a lot with it is consciousness in the background as well”. Still, he says that all social entrepreneurs, including himself, have to remind themselves over and over again that it is not easier to be a social entrepreneur than an entrepreneur, it’s the opposite. Pontus further accounts for some of the differences he has experienced between social entrepreneurs and other entrepreneurs, saying that social entrepreneurs tend to be very empathetic, that they build on each other’s development to a great extent, and try to help each other out as much as possible. While some entrepreneurs, that are not social, can have a more competitive attitude and consider other entrepreneurs a direct threat, resulting in less openness towards sharing ideas. From his experience, the “end game” for other entrepreneurs is money and wealth, or growth at least. “With a social entrepreneur, of course it’s going to be about growth, but it is also going to be about the end game; who do you help, how do you do it and how lasting is that help. So, for a social entrepreneur, the benefits are different, and I would say that what fuels your energy are other things.” However, Pontus stresses the fact that other entrepreneurs often have a more “hungrier” approach and are more set on reaching their goals no matter what. “Social entrepreneurs are a little bit more cautious, and for me that could lead to some difficulties for social entrepreneurs to make it, because it is a hard business out there and it has to be profitable regardless of what to reach your goals.” For social entrepreneurs, the business builds to

38

a great extent on the idea and the fire of that entrepreneur, and what he wants to change and the people he wants to help. Pontus says that this can result in a situation where it is hard to be critical and that you, therefore, run the risk of missing important parts in your business idea that needs to be improved in order for it to work.

4.1.2.2 International Opportunities When asked about what internationalization means to him and Karma Coffee, Pontus answered that they do not have anything not called international business and that today everyone is dependent on the international market through information sharing and innovation, and that borders of today are not really country or nation borders as before. He further says that for Karma Coffee, internationalization is understanding the actual market they are in and to be change adaptive, and that the main goal is of course “to create social development in countries where the coffee is from.” To be able to do that at the scale they want to, Pontus explains that they have to sell to more countries than only Sweden, that eventually they have to be able to sell to the whole world. He continues and says that it is important for Karma Coffee to show the customers the development they create: “… for example, the girls we get to school in Africa or the plastic we are taking away from the ocean in the Pacific. Or the HBTQ people in Uganda where we helped a community center. So, for us to be as successful as we want to be, we have to sell tons of coffee.” Pontus further describes that it is not sustainable for them to roast all the coffee in Sweden and then transport it to, for example, Australia and that they need to locate local roasteries around the world that are willing to roast the coffee in line with Karma Coffee’s standards and social development goals. “So, the internationalization for Karma Coffee is to think big but we also have to think small in local markets to understand these markets and to be able to function there.”

4.1.2.3 Supporting Institutions For Pontus and Karma Coffee the international activities were initiated from the starting point, he explains that the Swedish embassies around the world, UN databases, and different law firms have been very valuable for him to gain contact and knowledge when entering new markets. Moreover, Pontus explained that social media platforms were, and is, helpful to share the knowledge and understanding of what Karma Coffee is doing to people outside of Sweden. He also did research by going around and sampling coffee and talking to people in person. Pontus adds that his sisters have had an important role in terms of advice and support, as well as people in local businesses and NGOs, and coffee

39

specialists, depending on the type of issue he is facing. The greatest barrier he has experienced in his internationalization is to actually get people to understand why Karma Coffee’s product is double the price, “and then I have to get them to understand that the coffee industry today isn’t working well, neither the product for you as a consumer or for the people growing it.” When discussing the importance of networks, Pontus explains that the network is key for him and how valuable it was when entering new markets in the first place. However, he also stresses the importance of starting from scratch to really understand what you are doing and display your journey to others to eventually get support. According to Pontus, different SE supporting institutions have been very helpful in the last one and a half of the six years since Karma Coffee was founded. He says that they have polished Karma Coffee and provided information and connections to other valuable people and resources. “…obviously they’ve boosted the internationalization, they made it more visible, how to do it. But I must say I already had the internationalization idea or focus before them.” He explains that they have thought him to be more personal in his channels, about marketing and how to scale up, and that the three greatest benefits have been networks, advice, and events. “They have helped us a lot and they’ve done more than advice but it’s still not funding and not doing things for us.”

4.1.3 Respondent 3 - Anonymous The third respondent is a co-founder in a social enterprise with a focus on making sense of the climate transition. The respondent describes his/her position as a “catch-all” role, with the responsibility to run operations, recruit staff, and handle investments. The company is structured in a way so that people, cities, nations, and companies can use their service efficiently and reach the zero-emission goal as soon as possible. When asking the respondent what lead up to the decision to engage in their activities he/she answered: “I think I wanted to give meaning to what I do, most of the days, and I think to have some kind of societal gain is crucial to that”. The respondent continues “meaning is everything, and other stuff has stopped having meaning to me”. Before his/her engagement in the social enterprise, the respondent ran a communication agency and has co-founded several companies.

4.1.3.1 Social Entrepreneurship The third respondent says that he/she is familiar with the term social entrepreneurship, but that he/she have not really reflected on what it means. When being asked to elaborate his/her perception of the term, he/she answers, “I would say people that run businesses that are not solely focused on returns, monetary returns, and shareholders, but social gains”. The respondent says that he/she would consider himself/herself a social

40

entrepreneur but that he/she does not use the term and tries to rephrase from it, especially when talking to US investors, “if I imply that I am not driven by money they grow suspicious”. When discussing the reason why he/she decided to engage in social entrepreneurial activities the respondent answer “Because, I think I wanted to give meaning to what I do, most of the days... to have some kind of societal gain is crucial to that…” he/she continues “Meaning is everything, and other stuff has stopped having meaning to me”. When asking if the respondent would say that social entrepreneurs have a particular mindset compared to so-called traditional entrepreneurs, he/she answers; “Yes, they are of course more driven by the cause that they are taking on, that’s the positive aspect, the negative is that they are thinking more about the cause, often rather than how they should get people to use their product or service. So there are both sides of that coin” The respondent continues “I do not see social entrepreneurship as completely good since it is also a kind of protective shield from criticism”. He/she explains that a social entrepreneur can “get away with sucking at something” since they are still “doing it for a good cause”.

4.1.3.2 International Opportunities For the respondent, internationalization involves going global and presenting your products/services to the world. For the company he/she represents, the idea to become international was present from the start. He/she explains that the issue the company is “attacking” is global, so if they would not have a global mindset from start, they would not be able to target that issue. The respondent further explains that he/she is “completely shameless” when it comes to reaching out and asking people for support or advice since he/she is “trying to solve a problem that affects us all” he/she continues “people should thank me for asking them for help”.

4.1.3.3 Supporting Institutions In times when the company is in need of advice or support the respondent answers “If I have a problem, I ask myself, who has had this problem before, and then I figure that out and then I go ask that person”. When being asked what resources were needed in order to internationalize the respondent answers that it is a combination of financial, human and social resources, and that neither has been more important than the other. The respondent mention that Norrsken Foundation is their biggest investor, and when asking about their relationship the respondent answers, “They give us money and we build a business with that money” He/she continues “Then we say thank you, give us more money”. He/she mentions that the organization primarily involves funding, but that they have also been

41

able to use their facilities. When asking the respondent if they participate in any events or workshops that the organization offers, he/she answers, “very little”. However, he/she explains that the governance “offer great strategic advice, especially in terms of investing ...that has been helpful”. He/she explains that the events also help the company with visibility “we get visibility from that kind of event, yes”.

4.1.4 Karl Bergman - Elypta Karl Bergman (further referred to as Karl) is the CEO and co-founder of Elypta. Karl has an M.Sc. in biotechnology and graduated from Chalmers University of Technology in 2006. However, Karl explains that he has spent most of his professional career in business and has studied entrepreneurship and also has an MBA. Before starting Elypta, Karl worked as a strategic consultant, offering strategic development for companies in life science as well as healthcare organizations in both the public and private sectors. Additionally, he has been working with digitalization in healthcare by making the availability higher through the usage of apps and digital health, and it was during this time he met Francesco Gatto, the innovator, and co-founder of Elypta. Francesco had through research discovered a technology that can help diagnosticate cancer, and it was around this technology Karl, Francesco, and a few others founded Elypta in 2017.

4.1.4.1 Social Entrepreneurship Karl explains that he is familiar with the term social entrepreneurship, but he is very careful to point out that he does not want to call himself a social entrepreneur and does not want to lay that aura around the company, because of how it might be perceived. He continues and says that the reason he chose to work in biotechnology is because he wants to make a positive impact and cure diseases, like many of his colleagues, but it does not automatically make them social entrepreneurs. However, Karl further explains that for him personally, and the co-founder Francesco, they share the perception that if they manage to save lives and reduce cancer mortality with their new technology without making a single dime, they can retire and feel very satisfied. “Everything else becomes irrelevant if you manage to do that.” Personally, Karl says that he would never even consider working in an oil company or arms manufacturer. For him, and the company, the purpose is important and a central value in what they do. If you manage to succeed with that, you will probably succeed financially as well.

4.1.4.2 International Opportunities For Karl and Elypta, internationalization has been present from start and he explains that their mindset is undoubtedly international. At this point, they have production in the US and when the product is ready the company will target the American and the European

42

markets. Karl says that human biology is almost identical around the world, so hopefully, the product will work everywhere. He adds that the seven employees have different nationalities and that all communication is done in English. Further, that even though most of the investors are from Sweden they still have several international investors, and that they actively seek international investors since it will be needed for them to succeed. “So, our mindset is truly international, there is no doubt about that.”

4.1.4.3 Supporting Institutions When asked about which actors that have, or will have, a key role in the internationalization process Karl says that the founding team very much affects the course the company takes, and that, of course, the CEO and the board ultimately control the direction and the ambitions of Elypta. In terms of support and advice when internationalizing, Karl explains that it is hard to share a “perfect formula” as an answer, that they have used their network a lot and built on that to get the advice needed. Also, the fact that the team has different backgrounds has broadened their network. Sometimes they pay for advice and services, in terms of consultants. However, he emphasizes that you can accomplish a lot just by asking for support and advice, especially if you are a smaller company. Karl says that for Elypta, two of the main challenges to overcome is finding the right competence and acquiring capital. It is expensive to expand in several different markets and difficult to recruit the right knowledge to do so. He further stresses that unsuccessful recruitment could be devastating for a small company like Elypta. One of Elypta’s latest investors is Norrsken Foundation, and the investment goes in line with the positive impact that Elypta is aiming for. Even though the relationship is quite new, they have been very helpful in many ways. Karl explains that they provide many different types of resources, not only financial. They are a cohesive network for everyone they have invested in even though it is companies and entrepreneurs in different industries, many experience the same type of problems. “They work actively to help us solve problems and things together and benefit from each other’s knowledge and so on.” During the crisis, for example, they have shared useful information and resources. They also provide facilities to use, Norrsken House, located in Stockholm. Karl thinks that this network will be useful for their continued internationalization. “They have a certain international presence, which is great to hopefully be able to benefit from.”

4.1.5 Oliwer Wadström - Solvatten Oliwer Wadström presents Solvatten as a family social enterprise and says that they seldom use titles since Solvatten is a very small and flat organization. However, he presents himself as the deputy CEO “next in line after Petra”. Petra Wadström is his mother but also the “innovator, CEO, and brainchild behind the product”. Oliwer has a business economic background and says that he could not resist the opportunity to be on

43

board on a more active basis. He “grew up with Solvatten” and remember that the idea was discussed around the kitchen table. Today the social enterprise is active in over 20 countries and their product has been used in approximately 40 markets worldwide, on a smaller or larger scale. Their main target is the developing world and their mission is “to bring a high quality environmentally friendly product to people that don’t have access to safe water”. He also adds that part of their mission is how to “get the fantastic technology out there”.

4.1.5.1 Social Entrepreneurship Social entrepreneurship is a term that Oliwer Wadström familiar with. For him, social entrepreneurship is “a mission to improve, to make the world a better place”. He continues “it sounds cliché but to really live by that, not only use it as a marketing word”. Oliwer explains that social entrepreneurs’ mission is not primarily to make money, but to improve lives. When being asked why he decided to engage in social entrepreneurial activities Oliwer says that he “did not have a choice”. Afterward, he laughs a bit and explains that that’s not true, but that he finds it fascinating in several different aspects. He says that is hard to give a clear answer to the questions but adds that he has a hard time seeing himself working with something that generates profit, but that does not have a purpose. “I have a harder and harder time thinking, or seeing myself working with, I don’t know... razor or Bubba Gump factories, like… you got to sell more of this and then we make money...but it doesn’t have a purpose”. He further explains that the work of social entrepreneurs is very challenging, but that they receive a lot of feedback, positive feedback, and that “that is what drives you, more than money aspects”. In general, he says that all entrepreneurs are good businesspeople and that they see opportunities that might be overlooked, but what distinguishes social entrepreneurs from “normal entrepreneurs” is that they have a “vision and a mission that goes a bit deeper”. Additionally, he says that normal entrepreneurs, in contrast to social entrepreneurs, “does not need to have any positive impact on social or environmental aspects”.

4.1.5.2 International Opportunities For Solvatten, internationalization means establishing more networks and reaching out to more countries, markets, and places, where their products can be used. He says that internationalization can, of course, be other things, like “getting a market portion of a specific market, competing with other brands and businesses”. However, he stresses that the competition is not what is important for Solvatten. He says that since the problem they are facing is that three billion people are still lacking safe water, the center of importance is “...how many of them you can change that situation for”. When being asked what sparked the internationalization process for Solvatten, Oliwer mentions innovation, but says that “it is very rare that you have a Eureka moment and that it’s kind of just cruising

44

from there”. Further, he explains that a lot of media wants to portray or push a story of a specific moment like “...that was the moment” or that the opportunity somehow “appeared”. He thinks that it is hard to choose one specific moment and rank them by their importance. He rather thinks that the opportunity has its origin in several crucial steps. “It is maybe hard to pinpoint one specific moment, but of course it was… without Petra’s travel through Indonesia she might not have met that family, she wouldn’t have had the contact to the UN Habitat if she hadn’t made that phone call”.

4.1.5.3 Supporting Institutions Oliwer said that the United Nations played a key role in the beginning of Solvatten’s internationalization process. This because it is a credited organization with a lot of knowledge and belief in new technology. It was therefore beneficial to have the opportunity to test their ideas with them. “So beaming high was very smart of Petra, foremost to be able to get a credited organization behind it early on…” He also mentions that their patens played an important role for financial support “patens helped out with financing, getting angel investors in to promote... so that was very crucial as well”. Oliwer says that there were a lot of different stakeholders involved throughout their journey, and that some were more important early on, and that some were more important at a later stage in their journey. He says that their network, family and friends, the board members and their investors, have been helpful when they need advice. When discussing the most essential resources during Solvatten’s internationalization process Oliwer said that investment has been crucial “I mean it costs a lot of money to develop a product, so you can’t just have a good idea, you need the investors behind it”. He further explains that, for social entrepreneurs, it is very important to have investors that have a business mindset, but that they also need to have “a big heart and a big, big big portion of faith”. “That kind of capital is not growing on trees so to say” he continues. He says that some investors are easier to work with, but that what you need is investors that believe in your idea, even at an early stage, “they have to be able to take the leap and test it”. Oliwer says that working with innovative approaches and getting investors on board has probably been their greatest challenge “So working with innovative approaches can be very challenging because big organizations and companies are stuck in old habits of turning to what they know, and what they’ve worked within the past”. Oliwer explains that since the investors have to take a risk and try something new, Solvatten has to work quite hard to make it happen.

45

5. ANALYSIS This chapter will present the links between the empirical finding and the literature review, with the aim to create a thematic analysis that highlights the central concepts of the conceptual framework of this thesis.

5.1 Social Entrepreneurship As emphasized by Saebi et al. (2018) and Nicholls (2006), the social entrepreneurial activity has indeed increased during the 21st century and thus gained increased interest as well. All of the respondents are familiar with the concept of social entrepreneurship, however, they have a different perception of what it actually means and whether or not they consider, and call, themselves a social entrepreneur. According to Light (2008), scholars have a diverse understanding of the aspects of social entrepreneurship, nevertheless, they agree that there is a general consensus about the objective of social entrepreneurship. Moreover, Zahra et al. (2009), Drayton (2002), and Dees (1998) suggest that social entrepreneurship involves the pursuit of new opportunities with a mission to create and sustain social wealth, and that social entrepreneurs solve social problems with an innovative and sustainable approach. Pontus, Oliwer and Respondent 3 all consider themselves social entrepreneurs and agreed that social entrepreneurial objectives concern a mission to improve, a focus on social gains, solving problems and making things more efficient, and that the primary focus is not on monetary returns. As argued by Nicholls (2006), that is not the objective of business entrepreneurs. However, Respondent 3 stresses that he/she rephrase from using the term social entrepreneur when talking to some investors, since they “grow suspicious” if he/she is not driven by monetary returns. Hence, it can be argued that the social aspect in social entrepreneurship may present some difficulties in terms of funding. Nielsen et al. (2017) claim that business entrepreneurship simply aims to make profits while social entrepreneurship aims to create better circumstances for people. Profit in social entrepreneurship is considered an instrument rather than a goal. It creates a balance between social and financial objectives that could be problematic. However, Karl and Thomas do not want to call themselves social entrepreneurs. Although, both Karl and Thomas express that the social aspect is important for them and their enterprise, and the authors can observe that their primary focus is purpose rather than profit. Bjerke and Karlsson (2013:24) argue for a clear distinction of what classifies as social entrepreneurship, saying that all entrepreneurs “…who are not run by a profit motive but by a social idea or entrepreneurs who next to their profit motives have a clear objective to satisfy non-commercial citizen needs in a society” are social entrepreneurs. Even though the respondents are active in different industries and have different purposes, they

46

are all driven by social ideas or objectives to satisfy non-commercial needs in society. Therefore, the authors argue that all cases should be considered social entrepreneurs. Even though social entrepreneurs and business entrepreneurs differentiate in a lot of aspects (Ghalwash et al., 2017; Zahra et al, 2009; Austin et al.) and the two concepts are often separated, one cannot overlook the characteristics and traits that are shared among them (Ghalwash et al. 2017). The entrepreneurial dimension is present in social entrepreneurship, and the entrepreneurial process of both social and business entrepreneurs involves innovation and risk-taking, even though it might be canalized differently and utilized for different purposes (ibid.). This can be recognized in how the respondents mention perceived similarities between social entrepreneurs and business entrepreneurs. Pontus mentions that social entrepreneurship, just like entrepreneurship, has to do with solving problems and making things more efficient. Similarly, Oliwer says that all entrepreneurs are good businesspeople, and that they see opportunities that might be overlooked. Both respondents mention that they have acknowledged similarities between social entrepreneurs and business entrepreneurs and that what primarily distinguishes social entrepreneurs from business entrepreneurs is the purpose or cause behind their actions. Both theory and findings prove that the entrepreneurial dimension is present within social entrepreneurship. However, the empirical findings suggest that the entrepreneurial dimension is, in some aspects, not strong enough within social entrepreneurship. That social entrepreneurs focus too much on their purpose and not enough on the business aspects. Pontus says that the business of social entrepreneurs builds on the drive of the individual social entrepreneur, and the purpose behind their business. He explains that social entrepreneurs, therefore, run the risk of missing important parts of the business idea, which is essential for the business to work. He mentions that social entrepreneurs are a little bit more cautious, which can create difficulties for social entrepreneurs to make it. Likewise, Respondent 3 says that social entrepreneurs are more driven by the cause that they are taking on, rather than how they should get people to use their product or service. The respondent called this a negative aspect of social entrepreneurship and further explains that social entrepreneurs can get away with being bad at something, since they are doing it for a good cause. Ghalwash et al. (2017) argue that social entrepreneurs often display strong elements of compassion, empathy and understanding, and tend to be personally connected to their social enterprise due to earlier life events. Furthermore, they argue that the social entrepreneurial mindset is to a great extent shaped by personal experience, which in turn influences the type of opportunities being discovered and explored (Zahra et al., 2009). This can be recognized in all of the respondents, although differently expressed. Pontus

47

explains how his military service provided him with an understanding of how international development can and should be done, and how it should not be done. When traveling to Ethiopia, he realized the issues associated with the coffee industry, which made him initiate his social enterprise. For Oliwer, he expresses how Solvatten is a family business, that he basically grew up with the company and how that shaped his decision to engage in social entrepreneurial activities. He literally explains that he cannot picture himself working with something that does not have a social purpose. Furthermore, Thomas emphasizes that he learned sign language and became involved in that industry since his sister is deaf. Respondent 3 explain that the reason he/she founded an enterprise with a social focus is that earlier events and employment stopped having meaning to him/her. That made him/her realize that meaning is everything and to engage in something with a societal gain is crucial. Regarding Karl, the personal factor is not as obvious, still, he emphasizes that the reason he engaged in this industry from the very beginning is that he wants to make a positive impact and cure diseases. The empirical findings show that personal experience and earlier life events, as argued by Ghalwash et al. (2017) and Zahra et al. (2009), do influence the decision to pursue social work. The authors can distinguish a variety of how palpable the personal factor is and to what extent it has influenced the social entrepreneurial initiative. Additionally, the authors found that the personal factor can be less prominent depending on the specific social issue that is addressed. As in Light’s (2008) definition of entrepreneurial opportunity, “a moment in time and place that allows entrepreneurs to challenge the prevailing equilibrium” (2008:121) the findings prove that all cases had its origin in an opportunity to change something, and challenge the existing way of doing things. Light (2008) further argues that opportunities can be described as a figment of someone’s imagination, and that they might therefore not be visible to other people. This might have to do with the fact that the background of social entrepreneurs may influence their opportunity recognition (Dorado, 2006; Mair & Noboa, 2006; Robinson 2006). As mentioned earlier, the personal background of all respondents has shaped their motivation to engage in social entrepreneurial activities. The authors argue that the respondents’ personal background does therefore also affect the respondents’ opportunity recognition. Hence, the opportunities they discovered and the opportunities they choose to exploit. Since the objectives of social entrepreneurs and business entrepreneurs diverge, the opportunities between them can be distinguished (Light 2008, Robinson, 2006; Dees, 2001). Their objectives mainly diverge due to the fact that social entrepreneurs are less focused on profit and more oriented towards social change (Light 2008, Robinson, 2006; Dees, 2001; Bjerke and Karlsson, 2013, Nielsen et al, 2017). From the findings, the opportunities diverge in the same manner; socially entrepreneurial opportunities are more

48

oriented toward social impact and social issues, and therefore often less profitable in nature. The authors could also acknowledge that, as Shane (2003) pointed out, social enterprises can still be profitable, and they still have to identify available opportunities for funding (Shane 2003; Light, 2008). As Pontus said, it is a hard business out there, and that social entrepreneurs have to be profitable regardless of what, to reach their goals. Further, Karl mentioned that acquiring capital has been one of Elypta’s main challenges. Likewise, Oliwer described that working with innovation and getting investors on board was probably Solvatten’s greatest challenge. He explains that it costs a lot of money to develop a product, and that a good idea is not enough. In order to make it, you need investors that support the idea. This proves that whether or not the social enterprise is non-profit or profit-seeking, entrepreneurs, as Dees (1988) and Light (2008) stated, have an important choice regarding the opportunities they choose to exploit.

5.2 International Opportunities As discussed in the literature review, international entrepreneurship in general, and international opportunities in particular, has received increased attention in internationalization theory (Mainela, Puhakka and Servais, 2014). Opportunities has been recognized as a key function of entrepreneurship, and for international entrepreneurship, it involves the discovery and exploitation of opportunities across national borders (Oviatt and McDougall, 2005). In line with theory, the authors have found that the opportunities that are being discovered and exploited are not restricted by national borders, that it rather goes in line with the objectives, purpose, and personal experience of the social entrepreneur. As emphasized by Pontus, the borders of today are not country or nation borders. For Karma Coffee to be able to pursue its objective and purpose and achieve the desired impact at the desired scale, they had to internationalize their social enterprise from start. Hence, the opportunity becomes international. For Oliwer and Solvatten, the authors found that the international opportunity can to a great extent be derived from personal experience, which influenced the exploration of opportunities across national borders. On a firm level, the innovation made by Solvatten did not have a market in Sweden, instead, the opportunity was discovered in developing countries where three billion people lack access to safe water. Oliwer also mentions innovation as something that really sparked internationalization for Solvatten, which can be recognized from Acs, Morck and Yeung (2001), arguing that innovation opportunities is central in entrepreneurship, and to realize innovation opportunities internationally, resources and capabilities are of great significance. The possibility to test their ideas and innovations with the supporting institution in the early stage of the internationalization process is emphasized by Oliwer as something that was crucial.

49

In the cases of Karl and Respondent 3 the authors can observe different components as to why the international opportunities were discovered. Both respondents emphasize the fact that the social issue they are addressing is not nationally restricted but global in nature. For them to succeed, they need to have an international mindset. They observe the global issue as an international opportunity. It can also be found that some social issues need to be tackled by worldwide movements due to the fact that they are global in nature, which provides international opportunities for social entrepreneurs and social enterprises. And as argued by Zahra et al. (2008), the globalization and awareness of social problems worldwide have increased and provided social entrepreneurs with essential information about international opportunities. Furthermore, as suggested by McDougall, Shane and Oviatt (1994), the alertness to discover and exploit a certain international opportunity is dependent on entrepreneurs’ previous experience and rare competences, which the authors found to be an important aspect for social entrepreneurs as well. Although it is more or less prevalent among the respondents, the authors can distinguish presence of that alertness for all of them. Another aspect that distinguishes social opportunities from other opportunities, is that they often involve navigating social and institutional barriers within the targeted market or community (Robinson, 2006) and that they often occur when a series of efforts by individual organizations or public agencies have failed (Waddock and Post, 1991). According to Zahra et al. (2008) market- and institutional failures is one of the four main key factors that encourage the globalization of social opportunities. These key factors can be observed in the findings of this thesis. According to Thomas, the reason why ESLC took over the school project in 2006, and the reason why the local government had to disengage from the project, was because it became so big and international. In other words, the opportunity to take over the international project had its origin in the failure of the local government. As recognized in Zahra et al.’s (2008) article there was a lack of will, power, or mean, or at least it was not sufficient enough to further exploit that international opportunity (ibid.) The factor can also be linked to the opportunity recognition of Case 3, which has identified a global gap of will, power, or means to reduce CO2 emissions, and therefore offers a service that makes it easier for people, cities, nations, and companies to tackle that issue. Similarly, Solvatten’s innovational system tackles an issue that can be linked to market- or institutional failures in developing countries, where institutions and organizations do not have the means to tackle the issue of limited access to safe water. This does of course also go in line with global wealth disparity, which is another key factor to the globalization of social opportunities according to Zahra et al. (2008). Individuals from developing countries are, as mentioned, more interested than ever in the opportunity to donate, invest, or partner up with organizations or entrepreneurs who work for social goals in developing

50

countries (Zahra et al., 2008). This can be recognized in two of the cases, who primarily target social issues in developing countries. Another key factor brought up by Zahra et al. (2008) is technological advancement and shared responsibility. Technological advancement has helped social entrepreneurs discover international opportunities due to the increasing access to information, which provides them with the knowledge that can be used to exploit social opportunities across their national borders (Zahra et al., 2008) As for Respondent 3 and ESLC, technological advancement has helped their social enterprises to come up with new ways to manage their operations and deal with international problems. Case 3 has developed a unique software tool and network that makes it possible to share their data digitally, and create awareness and good practice across their national borders. ESLC has developed a digital sign language dictionary that can be accessed on their webpage globally. Additionally, all respondents have had help from the advances in communication, since it has made them more visible to stakeholders or investors that may lead to financial resources. It may also help them broaden their international networks, which can help them exploit international opportunities. As Pontus said, everyone is dependent on the international market through information sharing and innovation. When analyzing the findings, the authors can see that social entrepreneurs do not discover and exploit the social opportunities that generate the most profit, but the social opportunities that enable them to maximize their social impact, and target areas where the social issues are the most prominent. This would explain why Swedish social entrepreneurs seek international opportunities and are international from start. As presented by Zahra et al. (2008), social international opportunities can be quite complex and can advantageously be assigned with five attributes to explain how and why some internationalize while others do not. When a social enterprise is international from inception, the opportunity is often prevalent, relevant and not accessible by the traditional welfare systems. This can be recognized from several of the empirical cases, where the connection is more evident in some cases. For instance, the unsustainable coffee industry has caught Pontus’ attention to be a prevalent social issue internationally, while for Thomas the prevalent social issue is making sign language available internationally. The relevance of an opportunity refers to the entrepreneurs’ background, skills and talents. As discussed previously the connection between opportunities that are being discovered, and personal experience and earlier life events is visible for all respondents. In the case of Oliwer and Respondent 3, their social enterprises have been able to address and access a global social issue which many traditional welfare systems have been unable to do. Furthermore, when observing the empirical findings, the authors are not able to distinguish any obvious connections between the urgency and internationalization of a

51

social opportunity as suggested by Zahra et al. (2008). However, for Oliwer and Solvatten, urgency is probably an influencing factor regarding timing and scale for their international entry. Although the attributes presented by Zahra et al. (2008) make social international opportunities somewhat more comprehensible, the findings do not indicate that this is applicable to the internationalization of all social enterprises. Still, the authors find it as a useful approach when observing different social opportunities, to form an opinion whether it is also an international opportunity.

5.3 Supporting Institutions Bjerke and Karlsson (2013) and Nicholls (2006) argue that the number of groups working to address social needs has expanded rapidly during the last two decades, which provides institutional support for social entrepreneurs. These supporting institutions offer practical support, powerful networks and resources to encourage opportunities for social entrepreneurship internationally (Light, 2008; Nicholls, 2006). All of the respondents are or have been connected to and collaborated with this kind of institutions. Nielsen et al. (2017) divide resources into financial, human and social resources. The three types of resources are all of great importance for social entrepreneurs, which is supported by the empirical findings. However, the findings also stress that although the three different types of resources are necessary, their level of significance varies among the respondents. The authors found that some resources were more important than others when internationalizing, but it is still difficult to distinguish any clear pattern among the respondents, arguably because they operate in varying industries. Thomas explains that the financial resources are important for them when internationalizing, however, he highlights that the most crucial resource is social resources. This because financial resources do not matter if they are unable to get people on board their project, because then there is no project. Pontus also emphasizes social resources as key when entering new markets, and the importance of meeting people in person. As argued by Light (2008), the authors found that social entrepreneurs seek and require stronger relationships and networks to bring their social impact to scale. When Karl discuss their internationalization, he expresses that it is hard to share a perfect formula of a successful internationalization, and that they used their network to a great extent. Further, that for a small company like Elypta, they can accomplish much just by asking for support and advice, which is also agreed upon by Respondent 3. Still, Karl underlines that financial and human resources, in terms of acquiring capital and right competence, is the most important for Elypta, and also the most challenging. Oliwer points out financial and social resources as central, while Respondent 3 sees all three as equally important.

52

The authors also want to highlight the experienced barriers that the respondents faced when internationalizing. In line with what is proposed by Zahra, Newey and Li (2014), the findings show that social entrepreneurs experience substantial resource constraints because of the ecosystem they operate in. As explained by Oliwer, it is not enough to only have a good idea, you need investors behind it. The challenge is to find investors that have a business mindset and at the same time believe in the idea and the social impact they try to achieve. Argued by Light (2008), social entrepreneurs demand supporting institutions that specialize in consulting business together with social impact. Furthermore, the findings show that experienced barriers can be linked to the type of resources that were acknowledged as crucial. Although it is difficult to discern any clear links between the experienced barriers, it can be seen that the network played an essential part to overcome them. As mentioned, supporting institutions provide powerful networks that encourage international opportunities (Nicholls, 2006; Norrsken Foundation, 2020a). This can be particularly important for social entrepreneurs since they seek and require stronger collaborations and partnerships, that go beyond individuals, to bring their social impact to scale (Bjerke and Karlsson, 2013; Nicholls, 2006). Several of the respondents mentioned that their network has played an important role when internationalizing, and that it has been helpful when they need advice or access to information or knowledge of different kinds. Light (2008) argue that the social entrepreneurial process, with its high focus on partnerships, is more cooperative than competitive, compared to business entrepreneurs. Similarly, Grant and Crutchfield (2007) argue that large-scale social change calls for collaborative and collective action. Pontus mentions this when discussing his experienced differences between social entrepreneurs and other entrepreneurs. He says that social entrepreneurs tend to be very empathic and that they build on each other’s development to a great extent, and tries to help each other out as much as possible. He says that some entrepreneurs, that are not social, tend to be more competitive. He explains that they consider other entrepreneurs a direct threat, and therefore tend to be more restrictive towards sharing ideas. Moreover, Light (2008) argue that social entrepreneurs can avoid mistakes by interacting with each other and that a too isolated process constrain potential social change. According to Respondent 3 and Karl they often use their networks when wanting to solve a problem, and benefit from information sharing. Hence, other social entrepreneurs experienced challenges. Respondent 3 says that whenever he has a problem, he asks himself/herself who has had this problem before, and then reach out to that person. Karl additionally says that even though entrepreneurs and companies work in different industries, many experience the same type of problems. He says that one of the benefits

53

of being part of a supportive institution is that it offers a cohesive network that work actively to help entrepreneurs solve problems together and benefit from each other’s knowledge. Two of the respondents, Pontus and Karl, recently became part of a supporting network and explains that although they were not part from the beginning, and the discovery process of their international opportunities, supporting institutions have helped them in several ways. Pontus said that SE supporting institutions have been very helpful for Karma Coffee during the latest one and a half year, and that they have helped Karma Coffee by providing information and connections to valuable people and resources. He says that supporting institutions obviously boosted their internationalization, and explains that they have helped the company become more visible. Similarly, Karl says that although their relationship to supporting institutions is quite new, it has been helpful to Elypta in many ways. Besides funding, the supporting institution has provided Elypta with other types of resources and offers a cohesive network that will be useful for their continued internationalization. Respondent 3 says that a supporting institution is their biggest investor and that their relationship with that supporting institutions mainly concern funding. However, he/she says that their business has had use of their facilities and that the governance of that specific supporting institution has offered helpful advice when it comes to investments. Additionally, he/she says that events, arranged by the supporting institution, has helped the company with visibility. The remaining respondents, Oliwer and Thomas, explain that their social enterprises have reached a later stage in their internationalization process, and that they have mainly received strong support by other institutions like The European Union and The United Nations, and their social projects. According to Ellis (2011), the discovery and exploitation of opportunities are influenced by the entrepreneurs’ involvement in networks. However, our findings suggest that the exploitation process is considerably more influenced by the involvement in “formal” networks in relation to the discovery process. Ellis (2011) further argues that networks can be divided between social networks and business networks. The findings indicate that the discovery of (international) opportunities is more influenced by the social network, while the exploitation of (international) opportunities is more influenced by the business network. It can be argued that this is why the discovery is more difficult to distinguish in the relation between social entrepreneurs and supporting institutions, since the discovery of social opportunities is influenced by personal experience and the social network of the social entrepreneur. Since the findings show that the internationalization was present already from start, the international opportunity was initially discovered prior to the respondents’ involvement in supporting institutions. While the exploitation has a stronger

54

relation between social entrepreneurs and supporting institutions, since the resources they provide are foremost utilized when the opportunity is exploited, thus, it can be characterized primarily as a business network. Still, the social network is expanded through involvement in the supporting institutions. The authors argue that social entrepreneurs’ involvement in supporting institutions have boosted the internationalization and, in contrast to what is suggested by Nielsen et al. (2017), facilitated the discovery of international opportunities in additional markets and countries. The findings indicate that the exploitation of international opportunities is to a higher degree affected by the respondents’ involvement in supporting institutions, where the powerful (business) network and access to resources have been used to realize their ideas.

55

6. CONCLUSION The following chapter will outline the conclusions that could be drawn from the analysis of this study. At the beginning of this chapter, the authors will answer the research questions and present the theoretical implications and contributions of this thesis. Conclusively, the practical implications and limitations of this study will be presented, followed by suggestions for future research.

6.1 Answering the research questions The social entrepreneurial activity has seen a tremendous acceleration during the past two decades and is today larger than ever before (Saebi et al., 2018; Nicholls, 2006). As a result, the level of interest from researchers has increased, since social entrepreneurship has been recognized as a driver of societal health and wealth, and an engine of economic growth (Saebi et al., 2018; European Commission, 2014). Still, previous research is rather focused towards the social entrepreneurial individual and less towards the ecosystem they operate in. Additionally, the attention towards understanding how social entrepreneurs create their ventures around international opportunities is not sufficient (Zahra et al., 2008). Moreover, how internationalization and the potential of multiple stakeholders affect social enterprises and their entrepreneurial process, as well as their opportunity recognition. The purpose of this study was to combine these different aspects of entrepreneurship and international business, to examine (RQ) How do SE supporting institutions influence Swedish social entrepreneurs’ opportunities to internationalize? To further understand and answer the research question, it was divided into two different sub-questions (SQ1) How do SE supporting institutions influence Swedish social entrepreneurs’ discovery of international opportunities? (SQ2) How do SE supporting institutions influence Swedish social entrepreneurs’ exploitation of international opportunities? Sub-question (1) addresses the discovery process of international opportunities for Swedish social entrepreneurs and in what way that process is influenced by the entrepreneurs’ involvement in a supporting institution. Previous literature suggests that supporting institutions can offer practical support, powerful networks and resources to encourage social international opportunities (Nicholls, 2006). Furthermore, social entrepreneurship seeks and requires stronger collaborations and partnerships and that these institutions serve as a vital network (Grant and Crutchfield, 2007; Light, 2008). According to Ellis (2011), opportunities that are being recognized are influenced by entrepreneurs’ involvement in networks. The empirical findings in this study suggest that Swedish social entrepreneurs’ discovery of international opportunities occur prior to their involvement in supporting institutions and outside its network and is therefore not evidently influenced by the supporting institutions. The empirical findings also emphasize that the social enterprises where international from start, thus the initial

56

opportunity that was discovered was international in nature, and was not incrementally discovered through their involvement in a supporting institution. This study shows that, as literature implies, the discovery of international opportunities for Swedish social entrepreneurs can to a great extent be derived from the entrepreneurs’ personal experience and earlier life events. The empirical findings indicate that the discovery process is influenced by informal social networks, rather than the formal business networks of supporting institutions. Although the initial discovery of international opportunities occurred prior to the entrepreneurs’ engagement in a supporting institution, the authors found that their participation facilitated and enabled the discovery of further international opportunities. Sub-question (2) considers the exploitation process of international opportunities for Swedish social entrepreneurs and aims at exploring how it is influenced by the entrepreneurs’ engagement in a supporting institution. Earlier research argues that many social enterprises experience substantial resource constraints, partially because they tend to operate in ecosystems in which it can be problematic to obtain resources at reasonable costs (Zahra, Newey and Li, 2014; Bacq and Eddleston, 2016). Furthermore, supporting institutions can function as a fundamental network for sharing information, raise funding, and cultivate leadership and talent (Grant and Crutchfield, 2007). The empirical findings state that Swedish social entrepreneurs’ engagement in supporting institutions has influenced the exploitation of their international opportunities. The supporting institutions proved to be valuable for internationalization and created an influential platform for social entrepreneurs to utilize when exploiting their international opportunities. From the analysis it can be derived that the resources provided by the supporting institutions are diversified and somewhat adapted to meet specific needs for a particular social entrepreneur or enterprise. The empirical findings prove that social entrepreneurs have acquired international networks and knowledge, funding, advice, education and training through their involvement in supporting institutions, which is also stressed by previous research. However, the authors also want to highlight that supporting institutions have proven to be useful and beneficial for social entrepreneurs’ and enterprises’ visibility and other marketing advantages. It can also be shown that the supporting institutions, and the resources they provide, have served as a means to overcome barriers to internationalization as experienced by the social entrepreneurs. Moreover, the authors argue that the empirical findings indicate that social entrepreneurs’ involvement in a supporting institution has enhanced their entrepreneurial dimension, which has shown to be a deficient factor in some cases, and which is an important aspect for social enterprises in order to be successful. The main research question (RQ) aimed at exploring how SE supporting institutions influence Swedish social entrepreneurs’ opportunities to internationalize. The empirical

57

findings show that their influence is diversified and has various impact throughout the internationalization process. This study has identified relatively similar traits in how Swedish social entrepreneurs recognize international opportunities. The authors can conclude that the initial discovery process of an international opportunity is largely affected by the social entrepreneurs’ earlier life events, personal experience and social network, and that the influence from supporting institutions is weak or non-existing. It can also be concluded that the exploitation process of international opportunities is highly influenced by the social entrepreneurs’ involvement in supporting institutions and the platform of (business) networks and resources they provide. Furthermore, this study implies that supporting institutions can play an important role for potential international expansion and the discovery of further international opportunities.

6.2 Theoretical Implications After assessing existing research concerning the field of social entrepreneurship in an international context, a theoretical research gap was identified regarding the entrepreneurial process of social entrepreneurs and how it is affected by social entrepreneurs’ relation to supporting networks. It is an under-exploited area of research, not only when it comes to evidence-based research, but also in theory, which is why the authors chose to study how Swedish social entrepreneurs’ discovery and exploitation of international opportunities are influenced by their involvement in SE supporting institutions. Previous literature on social entrepreneurship has been more focused on the individual entrepreneur. Hence, the motivation, characteristics, and traits of individuals. Although research has touched upon the concept of international opportunities for social entrepreneurs, it is still scarce and unilateral, which calls for further evidence-based research that can contribute to theory. More attention should be drawn towards understanding how social entrepreneurs create their ventures around international opportunities and how the entrepreneurial process of international social entrepreneurs is influenced by other actors. Earlier research has generally been conducted by analyzing each level of social entrepreneurship individually. By incorporating the individual, the organizational and the institutional level, this thesis have contributed to the multilevel phenomenon of social entrepreneurship and international opportunities in the field of international business. The outcome of this study suggests that supporting institutions can be an essential tool for social entrepreneurs who want to utilize their networks and find effective resources that enable them to further internationalize their activities. It suggests a distance to supporting institutions’ influence on the discovery of international opportunities by social entrepreneurs, and agrees with previous research, that argues that that the social entrepreneurial mindset is to a great extent shaped by personal experience, which in turn influences the type of opportunities being discovered.

58

The outcome of this research does however suggest that supporting institutions influence social entrepreneurs’ exploitation of international opportunities. This since supporting institutions can help social entrepreneurs acquire the necessary resources needed to realize their idea. Supporting institutions can also help social entrepreneurs with exposure, which makes them more visible to investors and helps with the marketing of their social venture. Additionally, the supporting institutions offer a wide network of international entrepreneurs that can help spur the development of social entrepreneurs’ international network and further international expansion. Literature has previously stated that the entrepreneurs’ network shift back to consisting of many diverse people and weaker relationships, as in the discovery face, when they seek to expand their international activities. However, the findings from this study suggest that social entrepreneurs often retain their strong relationships, as well as their social and business network, to a greater extent even when they seek to expand their international activities. In order to present the possible links and connections among the main concepts of this study, the authors decided to update the conceptual framework. The revised framework is believed to better represent the correlations between the different concepts, which will provide important insight for further research in this topic. Figure 3 Revised conceptual framework, more accurately displays social entrepreneurs’ relation to supporting institutions, which is found to occur after their discovery process. The bent arrow represents the relation between the two actors, and goes both ways, since both actors are influenced by each other. The oval concepts represent the entrepreneurial process, and begins with the discovery of international opportunities, which are then exploited and potentially followed by further discovery. The remaining arrows represents the correlation and influence between the main concepts.

Figure 3: Revised Conceptual Framework. Source: Authors

59

6.3 Practical Implications The findings of this thesis show that social entrepreneurs, in many ways, can benefit from the support offered by supporting institutions. Social entrepreneurs should therefore take advantage of their involvement with SE supporting institutions and utilize their network and resources to avoid making unnecessary mistakes concerning their business and organizational sustainability. If utilized, the support offered by supporting institutions is proven to be beneficial for further internationalization and expansion, as well as for visibility. Furthermore, the authors argue that besides understanding the cause and supporting the ideas of social entrepreneurs, SE supporting institutions should focus their support offerings around strategic business advice. This since social entrepreneurs tend to be concentrated on the social matter they are pursuing, rather than advancing their business activities and meeting their expenditure or making profit that will eventually enable them to increase their social impact. Hence, the authors suggest that business advice and training could enhance the entrepreneurial dimension that might be lacking for social enterprises. Although supporting institution should help social entrepreneurs create a business mindset that can be used to advance their business activities, it is still important that they are socially conscious, and that the business advice offered is centered around social impact.

6.4 Policy Implications The authors of this study hope raise awareness of social entrepreneurship and the social issues it addresses, and how it can contribute to a sustainable development on a global scale. Social entrepreneurship would benefit from promoting the awareness of it and positive attitudes towards it, by incorporating social entrepreneurship within entrepreneurship training and education, as well as in economic development strategies locally, regionally and nationally. In addition, regulators should emphasize both the social and economic aspects of social entrepreneurship and imply regulatory measures thereafter. Furthermore, social entrepreneurs require strong support to realize their ideas. The given support should take into account the entrepreneurial as well as the social dimension to meet the needs of social enterprises. The support should be adapted to fit the diversified industries and objectives of social entrepreneurship.

6.5 Limitations Throughout the research process, the authors have identified potential impediments to the quality of this thesis. All the respondents interviewed for this thesis, represents the perspective of social entrepreneurs. Hence, how the entrepreneur behind the social enterprise has experienced how supporting institutions influence their international opportunities. This opposes a limitation since the perspective of the supporting

60

institutions is left out. However, although the authors’ original thought was to include both the perspective of social entrepreneurs, and the perspective of supporting institutions, they found that the answers provided by the social entrepreneurs were adequate enough to answer the research questions. The cases, hence, the social enterprises, presented in the findings of this thesis are in many ways diverged. The social enterprises are active in different industries, and vary both in terms of size and main objectives. Their relationships to supporting institutions, also diverge since they are more or less involved in their activities. This could be a potential impediment to the quality of this thesis since it is difficult to generalize the results. If the social enterprises had been involved in their activities to the same extent, and been active within the same industry, a more generalizable study could be generated. However, the authors find that the results represent a broader view of social enterprises’ relation with supporting institutions and how it affects their discovery and exploitation of international opportunities. A third limitation of this study is its transferability. This since the research is conducted in Sweden, making the data collection limited to Swedish social entrepreneurs. Even though the findings could possibly be applied to alternative contexts and bear in the context of other Nordic countries, its transferability is limited, which might restrict the quality of this study.

6.6 Future research Since social entrepreneurship is considered a young researched field, especially in relation to international opportunities, there are many aspects that call for future research. Based on the limitations of this study, the authors have identified a number of relevant topics, and suggest the following topics for future research:

1. To further examine to what extent institutional support, influence the social Entrepreneurs’ ability to succeed or fail, and more importantly how it affects the social entrepreneurial process in an international context, researchers should take into account both the perspective of social entrepreneurs and the perspective of supporting institutions. It would add a dimension to the analysis, and it would be interesting to see how supporting institutions work to support social entrepreneurs during their internationalization.

2. To investigate how supporting institutions can more efficiently influence the social entrepreneurial process in an international context, researchers should examine how they could more accurately measure social impact. By measuring social impact, supporting institutions could maximize their support and find out where their support is most efficient.

61

7. REFERENCES Acs, Z., Morck, R. and Yeung, B. 2001. Entrepreneurship, globalization, and public policy. Journal of International Management, 7, pp. 235–251. Alvesson, M. and Sköldberg, K. 2018. Reflexive Methodology. 3rd ed. London: SAGE Publishing. Bacq, S. and Eddleston, K. 2016. A Resource-Based View of Social Entrepreneurship: How Stewardship Culture Benefits Scale of Social Impact. Journal of Business Ethics, 152(3), pp.589-611. Begley, T.M. and Boyd, D.P. 1987. ‘Psychological characteristics associated with performance in entrepreneurial firms and smaller businesses’, Journal of Business Venturing, 2, pp.79–93. Bell, E., Bryman, A. and Harley, B. 2019. Business Research Methods. 5th ed. New York: Oxford University Press. Bhave, M. P. 1994. “A Process Model of Entrepreneurial Venture Creation” Journal of Business Venturing: 9: 223-42. Bilkey, W. and Tesar, G. 1977. The export behavior of smaller-sized Wisconsin manufacturing firms. Journal of International Business Studies, 8, pp. 93–98. Bjerke, B. and Karlsson, M. 2013. Social entrepreneurship. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar. Brinkmann, S. and Kvale, S. 2015. Interviews. 3rd ed. London: Sage Publishing. Cavusgil, S.T. 1980. On the internationalization process of firms. European Research, 8, pp. 273–281. Cooper, D. and Schindler, P. 2011. Business Research Methods. 11th ed. New York: McGraw-Hill Irwin. Corbin, J. and Strauss, A. 2015. Basics Of Qualitative Research. 4th ed. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publishing.

Darko, E. and Koranteng, K. 2015. Social Enterprise Landscape in Ghana. [online] British Council. Available at: https://www.britishcouncil.org/sites/default/files/social_enterprise_landscape_in_ghana_report_final.pdf [Accessed 29 Feb. 2020]. Davidsson, P. 2006. “The Entrepreneurial Process”, in S. Carter and D. Jones-Evans (eds) (2nd ed.), Enterprise and Small Business. Principles, Practice and Policy. Harlow, Essex: Pearson Education.

62

Dees, J.G. 1998. Enterprising Nonprofits. Harvard Business Review 76 (January-February): pp.55-67. Dees, J. Gregory. 2001. The meaning of “social entrepreneurship”. Available at http://www.fuqua.duke.edu/ centers/case/documents/dees_SE.pdf, accessed 18 April 2020. Dorado, S. 2006. Social entrepreneurial ventures: Different values so different processes of creation. Journal of Developmental Entrepreneurship, 11(4), 319–343. Drayton, W. 2002. The Citizen Sector: Becoming as Entrepreneurial and Competitive as Business. California Management Review 44: pp.120-132. Dubois, A. and Gadde, L. 2002. Systematic combining: an abductive approach to case research. Journal of Business Research, 55(7), pp.553-560. Eckhardt, J. and Shane, S. 2003. Opportunities and entrepreneurship. Journal of Management, 29, pp. 333–349. Ellis P. D. 2011. Social ties and international entrepreneurship: opportunities and constraints affecting firm internationalization. Journal of International Business Studies 42: 99-127. Elypta. 2020. About Elypta — Elypta. [online] Available at: <https://elypta.com/about-elypta> [Accessed 16 April 2020]. ESLC. 2020. About ESLC – Europeiskt Teckenspråkcenter. [online] Available at: <https://www.signlanguage.eu/sv/about-us/> [Accessed 18 April 2020]. European Commission. 2014. A Map Of Social Enterprises And Their Eco-Systems In Europe. Gartner, W.B. 1988. ‘Who is the entrepreneur?’ Is the wrong question, American Journal of Small Business, 12(4), pp.11–32. Ghalwash, S., Tolba, A. and Ismail, A. 2017. What motivates social entrepreneurs to start social ventures?. Social Enterprise Journal, 13(3), pp.268-298.

Ghauri, P. and Grønhaug, K. 2010. Research Methods In Business Studies. 4th ed. Harlow: Financial Times Prentice Hall. Grant, H.M. and Crutchfield, L.R. 2007. Creating High-Impact Nonprofits. Stanford Social Innovation Review 4: 32-41.

63

Hill, S., Bosma, N., Ionescu-Somers, A., Kelley, D., Levie, J. and Tarnawa, A. 2020. Global Entrepreneurship Monitor - 2019/2020 Global Report. Global Entrepreneurship Research Association. Hebert, R.F. and Link, A.N. 1988. The Entrepreneur – Mainstream Views and Radical Critiques, New York: Praeger Publishers. Hermelin, B. and Rusten, G. 2018. A place-based approach to social entrepreneurship for social integration – Cases from Norway and Sweden. Local Economy: The Journal of the Local Economy Policy Unit, 33(4), pp.367-383. Hornaday, J.A. and Aboud, J. 1971. ‘Characteristics of successful entrepreneurs’, Personnel Psychology, 24, pp.141–153. Hull, D., Bosley, J. and Udell, G. 1980. ‘Reviewing the heffalump: Identifying potential entrepreneurs by personality characteristics’, Journal of Small Business Management, 18(1), pp.11–18. Johanson, J. and Vahlne, J.-E. 1977. The internationalization process of the firm – a model of knowledge development and increasing foreign market commitments. Journal of International Business Studies, 8, pp. 23–32. Johanson, J. and Vahlne, J.-E. 2006. Commitment and opportunity development in the internationalization process: a note on the Uppsala internationalization process model. Management International Review, 46, pp. 165–178. Johanson, J. and Vahlne, J.-E. 2009. The Uppsala internationalization model revisited – from liability of foreignness to liability of outsidership. Journal of International Business Studies, 40, pp. 1411–1431. Karma Coffee. 2020. Karma Coffee - A Taste For Good People. [online] Available at: <http://karmacoffee.se/> [Accessed 16 April 2020]. Light, P. 2008. The search for social entrepreneurship. Washington, D.C.: Brookings Institution Press. Lincoln, Y.S., and Guba, E. 1985. Naturalistic Inquiry. Beverly Hills, CA:Sage. LNU. 2020. GDPR For Students - Linnaeus University. [online] Available at: <https://lnu.se/en/library/Writing-and-referencing/academic-writing/gdpr-for-students/> [Accessed 12 May 2020]. Mahnke, V., Venzin, M. and Zahra, S. 2007. Governing entrepreneurial opportunity recognition in MNEs: align- ing interest and cognition under uncertainty. Journal of Management Studies, 44, pp. 1278–1298.

64

Mainela, T., Puhakka, V. and Servais, P. 2014. The Concept of International Opportunity in International Entrepreneurship: A Review and a Research Agenda. International Journal of Management Reviews, 16(1), pp.105-129. Mair, J. and Martí, I. 2006. Social entrepreneurship research: A source of explanation, prediction, and delight. Journal of World Business, 41(1), pp.36-44. Mair, J. and Noboa, E. 2006. Social entrepreneurship: How intentions to create a social venture are formed. In J. Mair, J. Robinson, & K. Hockerts (Eds.), Social entrepreneurship (pp. 121–135). London: Palgrave. Martin, Roger L., and Sally Osberg. 2007. “Social Entrepreneurship: The Case for Definition.” Stanford Social Innovation Review 5 (spring): 29-39. McDougall, P. and Oviatt, B. 2000. International entrepreneurship: The intersection of two paths. Guest Editor’s Introduction. Academy of Management Journal 43(5):902–908. McDougall, P., Shane, S. and Oviatt, B. 1994. Explaining the formation of international new ventures: the limits of theories from international business research. Journal of Business Venturing, 9, pp. 469–487. Merriam, S. and Tisdell, E. 2016. Qualitative Research. 4th ed. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Mtigwe, B. 2006. Theoretical milestones in international business: The journey to international entrepreneurship theory. Journal of International Entrepreneurship, 4(1), pp.5-25. Nicholls, A. 2010. The legitimacy of social entrepreneurship: Reflexive isomorphism in a pre-paradigmatic field. Entrepreneurship: Theory & Practice, 34: 611-633. Nicholls, A. 2006. “Social entrepreneurship”, in S. Carter and D. Jones-Evans (eds) (2nd ed.), Enterprise and Small Business. Principles, Practice and Policy. Harlow, Essex: Pearson Education. Nielsen, S., Klyver, K., Rostgaard Evald, M. and Bager, T. 2017. Entrepreneurship in theory and practice. 2nd ed. Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar Publishing. Norrsken Foundation. 2020a. Norrsken VC. [online] Available at: <https://www.norrsken.org/norrskenvc> [Accessed 22 April 2020]. Norrsken Foundation. 2020b. Our Mission. [online] Available at: <https://www.norrsken.org/ourmission> [Accessed 22 April 2020].

65

Oviatt, B. and McDougall, P. 2005. Defining International Entrepreneurship and Modeling the Speed of Internationalization. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 29(5), pp.537-554. Plummer, Lawrence A., J. Michael Haynie, and Joy Godesiabois. 2007. “An Essay on the Origins of Entrepreneurial Opportunity.” Small Business Economics 28: 363-79. Robinson, J. 2006. Navigating social and institutional barriers to markets: How social entrepreneurs identify and evaluate opportunities. In J. Mair, J. Robinson, & K. Hockerts (Eds.), Social entrepreneurship (pp. 95–120). New York: Palgrave Macmillan. Saebi, T., Foss, N. and Linder, S. 2018. Social Entrepreneurship Research: Past Achievements and Future Promises. Journal of Management, 45(1), pp.70-95. Saïd Business School. 2005. Skoll Centre For Social Entrepreneurship | Saïd Business School. [online] Available at: <http://www.sbs.ox.ac.uk/skoll/> [Accessed 22 April 2020]. Sarasvathy, S., Kumar, K., York, J. and Bhagavatula, S. 2013. An Effectual Approach to International Entrepreneurship: Overlaps, Challenges, and Provocative Possibilities. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 38(1), pp.71-93. Saunders, M., Lewis, P. and Thornhill, A. 2016. Research Methods For Business Students. 7th ed. Harlow: Pearson Education. Shane, S. 2003. A general theory of entrepreneurship: The Individual – Opportunity Nexus, Cheltenham, UK and Northampton, MA, USA: Edward Elgar Publishing. Shane, S. and Venkataraman, S. 2000. ‘The Promise of Entrepreneurship as a Field of Research’, Academy of Management Review 25(1): pp.217–26. Shane, S. and Eckhardt, J. 2003. “The Individual Opportunity Nexus” in Handbook of Entrepreneurial Research, pp.161-194. Solvatten. 2020. About Us » Solvatten — Climate Solver. [online] Available at: <https://solvatten.org/about-us/> [Accessed 16 April 2020]. Stake, R.E. 1955. The Art of Case Study Research. Thousand Oaks, CA:Sage. Tillväxtverket. 2017. Vilse I Stöddjungeln? – Sociala Entreprenörers Behov Av Rådgivning Och Finansiering. [online] Stockholm. Available at: <https://tillvaxtverket.se/download/18.1d824da81683831d130386b1/1547478035120/Vilseistoddjungeln_Rapport_0236.pdf> [Accessed 20 May 2020].

66

UNDP. 2020. Deadline 2030 - The SDG Decade of Action. [online] Available at: https://www.undp.org/content/undp/en/home/stories/decade-of-action.html [Accessed 2 Mar. 2020]. United Nations. 2015. Transforming our World: The 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development. United Nations. United Nations. 2020. Accelerate 2030- Promoting Youth-Led Social Entrepreneurship - United Nations Partnerships For Sdgs Platform. [online] Available at: <https://sustainabledevelopment.un.org/partnership/?p=33475> [Accessed 27 March 2020]. Venkataraman, S. 1997. ‘The Distinctive Domain of Entrepreneurship Research: An Editor’s Perspective’, in J. Katz and J. Brockhaus (eds) Advances in Entrepreneurship, Vecchio, R.P. 2003. ‘Entrepreneurship and leadership: Common trends and common threads’, Human Resource and Management Review, 13(2), pp. 307–309. Vinnova. 2020. Our Activities | Vinnova. [online] Available at: <https://www.vinnova.se/en/about-us/> [Accessed 21 May 2020]. Waddock, Sandra A., and James E. Post. 1991. “Social Entrepreneurs and Catalytic Change.” Public Administration Review 51:393-401. Yin, R. 2018. Case Study Research And Applications. 6th ed. Los Angeles: SAGE Publishing. Yin, R. 2016. Qualitative Research From Start To Finish. 2nd ed. New York: Guilford Press. Yin, R. 2014. Case Study Research: Design And Methods. 5th ed. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publishing. Yin, R. 2012. Applications Of Case Study Research. 3rd ed. Los Angeles: SAGE Publishing. Zahra, S., Gedajlovic, E., Neubaum, D. and Shulman, J. 2009. A typology of social entrepreneurs: Motives, search processes and ethical challenges. Journal of Business Venturing, 24(5), pp.519-532. Zahra, S., Newey, L. and Li, Y. 2014. On the Frontiers: The Implications of Social Entrepreneurship for International Entrepreneurship. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 38(1), pp.137-158.

67

Zahra, S., Rawhouser, H., Bhawe, N., Neubaum, D. and Hayton, J. 2008. Globalization of social entrepreneurship opportunities. Strategic Entrepreneurship Journal, 2(2), pp.117-131.

68

8. APPENDICES

8.1 Appendix 1 - Interview Guide

General Information

1. Do you wish to be anonymous? Is it okay if we record this interview? 2. Could you please start by presenting yourself?

We would like to know who you are, your position, and your background in the company.

3. Can you please do a brief description of your company and its mission? Which industry does your social enterprise operating in, and in which markets is it active in today? How many employees does your social enterprise have?

Social Entrepreneurship

4. Are you familiar with the term social entrepreneurship? 5. What is Social entrepreneurship for you?

Do you consider yourself a social entrepreneur? 6. What made you engage in social entrepreneurial activities? 7. Would you say that social entrepreneurs have a particular mindset compared to

other entrepreneurs? 8. How have your personal experiences influenced your choice to engage in social

entrepreneurial activities? 9. Opportunities are a central concept within entrepreneurship, how would you

describe opportunities within social entrepreneurship?

69

Internationalization

10. What does internationalization mean to you? 11. Why did your social enterprise decide to internationalize their activities? 12. How did your social enterprise internationalize?

Incrementally or from start? 13. Would you say that the internationalization initiation had its origin in a certain

opportunity? 14. What would you say have been the biggest barrier to your social enterprise’s

internationalization? How did you tackle this barrier?

15. What kind of support has your social enterprise received during your internationalization?

16. Did your social enterprise look over different alternatives for support when deciding to internationalize?

17. Which resources were needed in order to internationalize? Financial resources, human resources, and social resources? Which resource was the most important?

18. Did your social enterprise’s network play an important role when internationalizing?

19. How did your social enterprise create its international network?

Support Institutions

20. What individuals, companies, organizations or institutions would you say has had a key role when entering new markets?

21. Who does your social enterprise turn to at times when you need advice? 22. During our research, we noticed that your social enterprise is a part of a

supporting institution? Is that correct? 23. Have your social enterprise received any support from them?

70

Conclusion

24. Lastly, is there anything you would like to add that might be interesting for us to know?