Introduction

The purpose of this chapter is to examine how social entrepreneurs fit into the current tourism discourse. While the term social entrepreneur has been used to explain social change as far back as the 1970s, as Doherty (editor of Social Enterprise Journal) observes “academia is beginning to catch up and there are an increasing number of academics researching social enterprise” (Adolphus, 2005, p. 1).

Z. Mottiar (*)

School of Hospitality Management and Tourism, Cathal Brugha street, Dublin 1, Republic of Ireland

e-mail: This email address is being protected from spam bots, you need Javascript enabled to view it K. Boluk

Department of Recreation and Leisure Studies, University of Waterloo, 200 University Avenue West, Waterloo, ON N2L 3G1, Canada e-mail: This email address is being protected from spam bots, you need Javascript enabled to view it

P.J. Sheldon, R. Daniele (eds.), Social Entrepreneurship and Tourism, Tourism on the Verge, DOI 10.1007/978-3-319-46518-0_7

There is much debate about how to define social entrepreneurs and as Peredo and McLean (2006, p. 56) state “commentators, both scholarly and popular, and advocates of every kind, understand it in a variety of ways”. Thompson (2000) notes the breadth of inclusivity of this concept which usually incorporates profit seeking businesses wishing to help society, social enterprises with a social purpose but are established as a business, and the volunteer sector. However efforts have been made to distinguish between these types of social entrepreneurs [for example Zahra, Gedajilovioc, Neubaum, and Shulman (2009), Neck, Brush, and Allen (2009) and Fowler (2000)] and their relationship between commercial and social objectives. Thompson (2002, p. 414) divides social entrepreneurs into two groups, those who:

.. .are clearly seasoned and successful business entrepreneurs and executives who wish to “put something back” into society [...] [while] many others [...] are either much less experienced in business or less aware of what they are taking on at the outset or both. They are people on a voyage of self discovery and often start with limited self-confidence [...] they are driven by a cause.

Peattie and Morley (2008) conclude that some commercially-driven enterprises who cross-subsidize from one part of their activities to another, or who have a mix of business and social objectives are “hybrid social enterprises”.

Just as there are different types of social entrepreneurs there are different motivations. Traditionally entrepreneurs have been motivated by profits while social entrepreneurs are motivated by making a difference to society, or by what Dees (1998, p. 3) refers to as “mission-related impact”. Miller, Grimes, McMullen, and Vogus (2012) identify compassion as a key motivator for social entrepreneurs while Germak & Robinson (2014, p. 18) conclude “social entrepreneurial motivation emerges from personal fulfillment, helping society, nonmonetary focus, achievement orientation and closeness to a social problem”. This distinction is not clear cut, as motivations can change over time and personal motivations can also play a part (Boluk & Mottiar, 2014). A key issue for entrepreneurs is their problem domain, despite there being little research on how this is identified; notwithstanding Zahra et al. (2009) and Levie and Hart (2011) who note that many entrepreneurs identify the problem from their own local area or situation. Mottiar (2016) also shows that sometimes the problem identification occurs at the government level, and individual social entrepreneurs then develop their response to address the issue at a local level.

Demarco (2005, p. 48) makes the point that “social entrepreneur” is ‘just a new term for those generous individuals who have always existed and who are motivated to make the world better’. This is an important consideration because from a tourism perspective there are many destination stakeholders demonstrating socially entrepreneurial characteristics. Such stakeholders may not have not been classified as social entrepreneurs, and in fact, may not wish to classify themselves in this way. They may identify themselves as being primarily socially motivated and may not like the term entrepreneur which implies a more business focused approach.

In reviewing the literature on social entrepreneurs to date, Short, Moss, & Lumpkin (2009, p. 161) argue that “social entrepreneurship research remains in an embryonic state”, calling for a broader range of researchers to contribute to discussions to deepen our understanding. Tourism scholars are beginning to do just that; but it is vital that our contribution is not only through case studies exemplifying social entrepreneurs in tourism destinations or hospitality businesses, but also conceptual. A good starting point to move into more conceptual discussions is to think about how social entrepreneurs fit into the tourism discourse, the goal of this chapter. The chapter addresses questions such as: Is this a new vein of research where a small group of academics will focus their research? How relevant is an understanding of social entrepreneurs for the tourism industry, tourism stakeholders and destinations? How does an identification and understanding of social entrepreneurs affect our thinking on other research issues in tourism? Such questions are important as we develop a more coherent and structured literature on social entrepreneurs in tourism.