Financing social enterprise: social bricolage or evolutionary entrepreneurialism?

Abstract

Purpose -This paper aims to examine the extent to which urban social enterprises (SEs) have diversified their funding sources and shifted towards loans and development finance in recent years. The paper seeks to consider the underlying reasons for a limited demand for loans by comparing two theoretical perspectives on SE development. The concept of "social bricolage" implies SEs do not seek conventional business loans or equity finance, because they survive in resource poor environments by improvising and re-using redundant capital. A second evolutionary approach implies that SE financing will be dominated by a reliance on habits and practices learnt from the contexts in which social entrepreneurs have operated. Design/methodology/approach -The paper is based on analysis of interviews with 40 SEs in four English cities. Findings -The paper finds a limited degree of change and scant evidence of local decentralisation in social enterprises' financial contexts. It argues that both conceptual approaches offer important insights into the causes of the low level of demand for development finance by emphasising the importance of practical and improvised financial management. This is an adaptive response to uncertainty but is also a manifestation of SEs' inherited capabilities in public and charitable finance.Research limitations/implications -The research is based on a relatively small sample of social enterprises in central and deprived urban areas. The financial practices of social enterprises in other types of environment also require examination. Practical implications -It is unrealistic to expect the majority of SEs to secure conventional loan finance, instead they require "softer" finance and intensive support from intermediaries. Originality/value -The paper makes a novel empirical contribution by revealing social enterprises' views and recent experiences with funding. Its approach allows an intensive examination of key financial issues. It makes an original theoretical contribution by seeking to apply, develop, and evaluate two theoretical perspectives on the form and practices of social enterprises.

Overcoming the Challenges of Impact Investing: Insights from Leading Investors

“…This paucity is despite the significant early momentum in impact investment, characterized by the rapid initial growth in activity, broad policy developments, and multiple academic studies highlighting access to finance as one of the greatest challenges for the social sector (Nicholls 2010b). Early academic literature on impact investment has focussed on investment structures (Brown 2006;Edery 2006;Scarlata and Alemany 2012;Sunley and Pinch 2012), catalysing private capital (Geobey, Westley, and Weber 2012;McWade 2012;Moore, Westley, and Brodhead 2012), and market formation from an organizational perspective Nicholls 2010c). There is a clear gap in understanding how more traditional investors include impact investment within their portfolios.…”

Selectivity and Transparency in Social Banking: Evidence from Europe

“…From a managerial standpoint, this process is a double-edged sword: It makes social enterprises more flexible and adaptable, but it also prevents them from long-term formal planning. Typically, social enterprise managers opt for adaptive financial management and a cautious growth strategy, since rapid growth can jeopardize their hybrid resource model (Sunley and Pinch 2012). In the same vein, Philipps (2006) argues that growth can represent a paradox for social enterprises, especially when it is fostered through an orthodox view of further marketization.…”

“…For example, the lack of business and financial skills among social enterprise managers may act as an impediment to formalizing credible business plans and gaining access to scarce financial resources. Field research attests that the majority of these managers are far more experienced in the public and voluntary sectors than in the private one (Sunley and Pinch 2012). Consequently, these managers could find it uncomfortable to deal with banks, even social ones.…”

Understanding mechanisms in the social investment market: what are venture philanthropy funds financing and how?

“…Within the research stream focusing on the financial instruments that are available in the social investment market, Sunley and Pinch (2012) study UK social enterprises' interest and experience with loans and find a general dislike for credit owing to financial and liability risk and lack of collateral. Edery (2006) observes increased credit options for UK social enterprises and argues that these increased credit options result from raised ethical awareness.…”