Introduction
Educational institutions play a significant role in social and economic development. High school and other institutions of higher learning impart students with knowledge and skills that are crucial for employment. The schools like any other organization need resources for sustainability and effective routine operations. Consequently, many African schools are dependable on foreign aid to sustain themselves. However, an effective social entrepreneurship strategy would help alleviate the schools from the shackles of foreign donations. Social entrepreneurship involves developing and funding solutions that directly address social issues. This paper will explore the concept of social entrepreneurship, and discuss how African schools can develop plastic waste recycling startups (PWRS) to raise finances. Additionally, the paper will recommend mechanisms that the schools can adopt when implementing the PWRS.
Social Entrepreneurship
Social Entrepreneurship Concept
Organizations and businesses are formed with various aims that impact their promoters and society at large. While many businesses are formed for profitability, social enterprises are formed to cause a positive impact on society. The impact aimed includes protecting the environment or a specific group in the society from discrimination (Hockerts, 2015). Social entrepreneurship is the process by which individuals develop and fund solutions that directly impact society (Al-Qudah et al., 2022). Like any other business, social enterprises are for profit, but what distinguishes them is how they choose to make profits (Hertel et al., 2022). The enterprises operate in such a manner that they donate or reinvest their profits to cause a positive social change (Hockerts, 2015). Additionally, the nature of products by the enterprises may cause social change on their own (Westlund & Gawell, 2010). Therefore, social entrepreneurship plays a significant role in society since it aims for profitability and positive changes in society.
Hybrid Organizations and Antagonistic Assets
Organizations have various cultures that distinguish them from other businesses. While some organizational cultures are for competitive purposes, others help promote social development (Halisah et al., 2021). Hybrid organizations mix elements, value systems, and actions logics of various societal sectors (Esposito et al., 2021). The action logics are profit generation and social impact which are central objectives of many corporations. Consequently, hybrid organizations mix the public, private, and voluntary sectors. The organizations are believed to have four common features: shared ownership, goal congruence, diverse fiscal sources, and differentiated economic and social control (Hockerts, 2015). Meanwhile, the organizations create value through three mechanisms mixing, compromising, and legitimizing.
Compromising is a mixing form that involves bringing together various value categories to contribute to novel value variants. Meanwhile, legitimizing means that the hybrid organizations are attuned to meet the demands of various audiences such as the governments, citizens, clients, and the competitive market (Grossi et al., 2021). The hybrid organizations, therefore, combine diverse stakeholder groups and develop business strategies that are consistent with their needs (Defourny & Nyssens, 2010). Therefore, social entrepreneurship effectively takes place at the hybrid organizational levels (Searing et al., 2021). Antagonistic assets involve a combination of resources that jointly reduce the value of other resources’ implementation (Searing et al., 2021). Therefore, the antagonistic assets must be converted to complementary assets to achieve a valuable social impact (Hockerts, 2015). Hybrid organizations are crucial in the conversion of antagonistic assets into complementary ones to achieve positive social change.
Shared Value Theory
The relationship between social change and business success is clear. As organizations register more profits, they are expected to positively impact their surrounding societies. Therefore, business organizations are perceived as agents of social change (Avelino, 2021). Stimulation of social progress leads to the decline of pollution, poverty, and diseases, with a consequent increase in corporate profitability (He et al., 2022). Consequently, many organizations embark on initiatives that are valuable to society. According to the theory of shared value corporations are involved in activities and practices that contribute to competitive advantages while strengthening their neighboring communities (Avelino, 2021). For instance, apparel companies may manufacture clothes from the available sustainable materials that do not pollute the environment. The shared value theory is the backbone of social entrepreneurship.
Social Entrepreneurship in the Educational Institutions
Educational institutions play a significant role in societal development and economic growth. The institutions impart the students with skills and knowledge that are crucial in solving global problems. Like any other corporation, schools need financial resources to effectively operate. While the majority of the resources are gotten from the government and foreign donations, the schools embark on social enterprises that sustain them (Baporikar & Suati, 2022). Many schools have developed business activities that benefit the students, the school, and society. For instance, a technical institution may promote a research project that helps solve a societal problem. The students would benefit from such a project by exercising skills learned in class. Meanwhile, the institutions may use the developed project to fund their activities and build their reputation. society would benefit from the project by having its problem solved. Therefore, a social enterprise among educational institutions is beneficial through shared values.
Benefits of Social Entrepreneurship
Social enterprises present various advantages that are beneficial to them and society at large. First, organizations that foster social enterprises build stronger relationships between themselves and their clients (Kerlin et al., 2022). Many customers are attracted to companies that address social issues and that which are accountable for their core operations’ impact (Defourny & Nyssens, 2010). Additionally, stronger client relationships are exhibited when organizations promote a shared vision around social and environmental goals (Kerlin et al., 2022). Second, social enterprises promote employee motivation and retention through shared value (Battisti et al., 2022). Prospective employees actively seek to work with organizations that are like-minded when it comes to social development (Defourny & Nyssens, 2010). Social enterprises, therefore, promote proactivity since the employees are satisfied with their working environments.
Third, social enterprises increase creativity and innovation among their employees. The organizations adopt various mechanisms to address social problems, and unique solutions are exhibited (Kerlin et al., 2022). For instance, the enterprises may adopt innovative strategies to convert waste materials into useable items such as clothes among others. Fourth, there is increased productivity among social enterprises due to a motivated workforce (Battisti et al., 2022). The employees and stakeholders within social enterprises work for their benefit and with a common goal. Therefore, they feel being part of the organizational success, requires minimum supervision for excellent performance. Last, social entrepreneurship help promote excellent brand reputation and awareness (Defourny & Nyssens, 2010). Organizations that conserve the environment and positively impact society have adorable reputations (Battisti et al., 2022). Therefore, social entrepreneurship is beneficial to all organizational stakeholders since they promote shared values.
Demerits of Social Entrepreneurship
While social entrepreneurship presents various advantages, they are subject to setbacks that limit its operability. First, social enterprises may lack support and funding, leading to project failure (Farhoud et al., 2021). Although social enterprises offer solutions to problems facing society, their product development approach may be extensive, requiring huge finances. Consequently, few investors may be attracted to promote the enterprises. Additionally, the social enterprises may be too complex for society members to understand, leading to less community support (Zhao & Kim, 2021). Second, the enterprises may require much effort to achieve the intended success. For instance, intensive research and technical support are required for the recycling of plastic waste. Consequently, the stakeholders may be demotivated along the way, leading to the failure of the social enterprise.
Third, various social factors may negatively affect social enterprises’ operations. Many enterprises are involved in providing solutions to existing problems within society and may involve the usage of environmentally destructive resources (Jones & Wynn, 2021). However, some community members may develop a negative attitude toward some of the products that are made from waste. The members may associate the product with diseases, therefore, discouraging others from purchasing them. Last, the social enterprises may fail to get trust from other stakeholders who play a significant role in their success (Zhao & Kim, 2021). For instance, some corporations may view social enterprises as their competitors, denying them financial support. Therefore, it is significant for social enterprises to develop business plans that would address potential challenges.
Entrepreneurship Among African Schools
Education is at the center of economic and social developments in Africa. Since the continent is developing, many institutions depend on foreign donations for sustainability. Unlike the educational institutions in developed countries such as the U.S., many African schools fail to achieve their social responsibilities (Fafunwa & Aisiku, 2022). Moreover, African schools make a lesser creative impact among students than those in developed countries. While western schools are endowed with sufficient fiscal resources, African schools are marred with social problems such as corruption and consequent lack of funds (Abdulrasheed & Aminu, 2021). Consequently, African schools have embarked on various social enterprises for their sustainability. Social entrepreneurship is viewed as a panacea to the existing problems facing schools in Africa.
Problems Facing Entrepreneurship in Africa
While social entrepreneurship can help schools in Africa overcome their challenges, the activity faces various problems. First, many African teachers lack sufficient creative skills to promote business and creative thinking among the students (Radebe & Vezi-Magigaba, 2021). Unlike the teachers in developed nations, teachers in Africa go through an education system that is insufficiently funded to promote creativity (Nyaboke et al., 2021). Consequently, the schools may depend on professional help to develop social enterprises. Second, many schools in Africa lack the resources to fund the social enterprises that require capital to start. For instance, a waste recycling plant may require technical equipment that is expensive to acquire (Westlund & Gawell, 2010). Therefore, the limited funding leads the institutions to invest in simple projects that are less profitable.
Third, the majority of curricula in Africa do not accommodate creative and entrepreneurial activities. Consequently, the students spend more time learning theories in class than practical. The limited practical time leads to less creativity, hindering social entrepreneurial skills (Seyoum et al., 2021). Fourth, many educational institutions in Africa are affected by social problems such as ethnicity, political intolerance, and civil wars. Therefore, many students are more worried about their personal and family security than environmental issues. Finally, the lack of corporate values and cultures among educational institutions hinders the need for social change (Seyoum et al., 2021). For example, although plastics are detrimental to the environment, some schools in Africa permit their usage and wastage within their environments. Consequently, the students fail to see plastic waste as an environmental problem. The overall impact of the challenges faced by the social enterprises within schools in Africa is overdependence on foreign donations to conduct their activities.
Available Forms for Social Entrepreneurship
Various forms are available for social entrepreneurship among educational institutions in Africa. Crowdfunding is a common social enterprise that institutions may adopt to raise resources for their activities. The form may involve the use of mainstream media to call upon various stakeholders to venture into their activities (Chandna, 2022). Online courses for social change are another form of social enterprise that is available for educational institutions to raise money (Kerlin et al., 2021). The form involves the selling of specific course materials over the internet. Moreover, the schools may venture into entertainment activities to fund their routine operations. For instance, the students may be involved in singing, dancing, and drama activities that people pay to watch. Furthermore, waste and plastic recycling activities can be a social enterprise idea for schools. Therefore, educational institutions can adopt various business ideas for their sustainability.
Environmental Sustainability
Although various activities are available for schools in Africa to venture in, environmental conservation is the most appropriate social entrepreneurial idea. The activity would be beneficial to the students, schools, society, and the physical environment. The idea would help the students to develop creative ideas for converting environmental waste into useable items. Moreover, the students would develop a responsible culture that is crucial for their future endeavors. Meanwhile, the school would benefit from a clean environment, attracting more students and well-wishers. Additionally, learning would be effectively enhanced since a conducive environment would be created. Society would benefit from the cleaned environment and recycled materials that would be cheaper alternatives. An environmental conservation social entrepreneurial idea is the most appropriate for educational institutions in Africa.
PWRS
Project Overview
Environmental degradation is one of the common social problems facing Africa. The use of plastic materials has led to the proliferation of waste that pollutes the environment. Although some African countries have formulated policies that limit the use of plastics, plastic wastes are common. PWRS is a social entrepreneurial idea that intends to reduce plastic waste in the environment while profiting schools. The project would involve the use of collected plastic materials to develop creative items that are useable in African homes. Unlike, a large-scale plastic recycling plant, the PWRS would allow the schools to use the plastic waste for simple creative ideas. The end products of the PWRS include flower pots, mobile phone cases, dustbins, and brooms, among others. Consequently, PWRS would involve a simple process to develop simple but highly demanded home-use items.
Group Thinking and Project Design
PWRS will involve educational stakeholders who would take part in developing the creative items. Each of the stakeholders will play a significant role in the implementation of the project. The school management will be involved in designing the school curriculum in such a manner that it caters to the PWRS activities. The teachers will act as the project supervisors and marketers of the designed products. Meanwhile, the students will play the role of designing and developing the products. Professional assistance can be sorted to ensure that the products developed are sustainable and attractive in the market. The community will be a targeted market and could include other organizations and homes. Various stakeholders would work towards the project’s success while the profits could be used to run various schools’ activities.
Measuring the Project’s Social Impact
Impact Assessment Framework
An impact assessment framework is a crucial tool that is used to measure a project’s effect on the clients, community, and the environment. The framework could be adopted by the schools conducting the PWRS activities. The institutions could develop a feedback mechanism that seeks to understand how society benefits from the project. Additionally, the plastic waste volumes could be measured within a specific area. While the customers’ feedback would help understand the project’s impact on the community, the plastic waste volume helps measure environmental impact. Furthermore, the schools could compare the amount of money they spend before and after the initiation of the project. Therefore, a definitive impact assessment framework would measure PWRS’s influence on the society and environment.
Social Return on Investment
Social return on investment involves measuring values that are not traditionally reflected on financial statements. Since PWRS involves both profitability and social change, the social return on investment would suffice. The framework would offer seven principles of measuring social impact: stakeholders’ involvement, understanding what changes, valuing the things that matter, only including what is material, uncovering over-claim, transparency, and verifying results (Edwards & Lawrence, 2021). The stakeholders may be involved through interviews that would take place after a specific duration. Additionally, a logic model can be intergraded to identify the inputs, activities, and output that would lead to desired outcomes (Davies et al., 2019). A social return on investment framework with an integrated logic model is crucial for measuring the project’s input and output for social impact.
Recommendations
Adopting PWRS is socially and economically significant among schools in Africa. However, various mechanisms can be adopted to ensure that the project is effectively executed for positive social change. First, the schools may invite professionals who would take the students through the creative product development process. The professionals will help the stakeholders to identify gaps in the existing market, and how to develop quality products with competitive advantages. Second, thorough market research may be conducted to recognize the highly demanded products among those made by the schools. Consequently, the stakeholders will focus on profitable products, making the project more sustainable.
Third, the schools should develop an effective business model that includes marketing activities. The use of social media platforms, parents’ days, and exhibitions, among other platforms, present great opportunities to market the products (Kumar & Nanda, 2019). Additionally, the platforms could be used to attract more investors who are interested in the project. Increased investments would augment the project leading to the development of sophisticated products that are in demand in the market. Finally, the project’s profit may be channeled towards further project development including the purchase of machines that help in recycling plastics. PWRS is profitable and sustainable, only if the institutions would adopt an effective business model.
Conclusion
Social entrepreneurship plays a significant role in social and economic development. Social enterprises help solve problems that society faces, and may include environmental conservation activities. Although the enterprises are beneficial, they are subject to challenges such as limited resources, and lack of support, among others. The shared value theory propounds that organizations should conduct business activities that are profitable while strengthening their neighboring communities. Since schools in Africa are facing financial and resource allocation challenges, investing in PWRS may remain sustainable. Therefore, social entrepreneurship is significant since it promotes economic and social development through shared values.
References
Abdulrasheed, A., & Aminu, B. I. (2021). An appraisal of developmental crises in Africa: lessons from the Asian Tigers. Zanfara Journal of Politics and Development, 1(1).
Al-Qudah, A. A., Al-Okaily, M., & Alqudah, H. (2022). The relationship between social entrepreneurship and sustainable development from economic growth perspective: 15 ‘RCEP’countries.Journal of Sustainable Finance & Investment, 12(1), 44-61.
Avelino, F. (2021). Theories of power and social change. Power contestations and their implications for research on social change and innovation.Journal of Political Power, 14(3), 425-448.
Baporikar, N., & Sauti, L. (2022). Social enterprise financing case study. International Journal of Information Systems and Social Change (IJISSC), 13(1), 1-18.
Battisti, S., Agarwal, N., & Brem, A. (2022). Creating new tech entrepreneurs with digital platforms: Meta-organizations for shared value in data-driven retail ecosystems.Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 175, 121392.
Chandna, V. (2022). Social entrepreneurship and digital platforms: crowdfunding in the sharing-economy era. Business Horizons, 65(1), 21-31.
Davies, L. E., Taylor, P., Ramchandani, G., & Christy, E. (2019). Social return on investment (SROI) in sport: a model for measuring the value of participation in England.International Journal of Sport Policy and Politics, 11(4), 585-605.
Defourny, J., & Nyssens, M. (2010). Conceptions of social enterprise and social entrepreneurship in Europe and the United States: convergences and divergences.Journal of Social Entrepreneurship, 1(1), 32–53.
Edwards, R. T., & Lawrence, C. L. (2021). ‘What You See is All There is’: the importance of heuristics in cost-benefit analysis (CBA) and social return on investment (SROI) in the evaluation of public health interventions.Applied Health Economics and Health Policy, 19(5), 653-664.
Esposito, P., Brescia, V., Fantauzzi, C., & Frondizi, R. (2021). Understanding social impact and value creation in hybrid organizations: the case of Italian civil service.Sustainability, 13(7), 4058.
Fafunwa, A. B., & Aisiku, J. U. (Eds.). (2022). Education in Africa: A comparative survey. Taylor & Francis.
Farhoud, M., Shah, S., Stenholm, P., Kibler, E., Renko, M., & Terjesen, S. (2021). Social enterprise crowdfunding in an acute crisis.Journal of Business Venturing Insights, 15, e00211.
Grossi, G., Vakkuri, J., & Sargiacomo, M. (2021). Accounting, performance and accountability challenges in hybrid organisations: a value creation perspective.Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal.
Halisah, A., Jayasingam, S., Ramayah, T., & Popa, S. (2021). Social dilemmas in knowledge sharing: an examination of the interplay between knowledge sharing culture and performance climate. Journal of Knowledge Management.
He, Y., Che, Y., Lyu, Y., Lu, Y., & Zhang, Y. (2022). Social benefit evaluation of China’s photovoltaic poverty alleviation project. Renewable Energy, 187, 1065-1081.
Hertel, C., Bacq, S., Lumpkin, G.T. (2022). A holistic perspective on social performance in social enterprises: disentangling social impact from operational sustainability. In: Vaccaro, A., Ramus, T. (eds) Social innovation and social enterprises. Issues in Business Ethics, vol 62. Springer, Cham.
Hockerts, K. (2015). Determinants of social entrepreneurial intentions.Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 41(1), 105–130.
Hockerts, K. (2015). How hybrid organizations turn antagonistic assets into complementarities. California Management Review, 57(3), 83-106.
Jones, P., & Wynn, M. (2021). The leading digital technology companies and their approach to sustainable development.Sustainability, 13(12), 6612.
Kerlin, J. A., Lall, S. A., Peng, S., & Cui, T. S. (2021). Institutional intermediaries as legitimizing agents for social enterprise in China and India.Public Management Review, 23(5), 731-753.
Kerlin, J. A., Peng, S., & Cui, T. S. (2021). Strategic responses of social enterprises to institutional pressures in China. Journal of Asian Public Policy, 14(2), 200-224.
Kumar, V., & Nanda, P. (2019). Social media in higher education: A framework for continuous engagement. International Journal of Information and Communication Technology Education (IJICTE), 15(1), 97-108.
Nyaboke, R., Kereri, D., & Nyabwari, L. (2021). Competence-based curriculum (CBC) in Kenya and the challenge of vision 2030.International Journal of Education, Technology and Science, 1(4), 155-169.
Radebe, T. N., & Vezi-Magigaba, M. F. (2021). Challenges in developing and supporting entrepreneurship education: A case study of the University of Zululand.Journal of Entrepreneurial Innovations, 2(1).
Searing, E. A., Poledrini, S., Young, D. R., & Nyssens, M. (2021). The hybrid nature of social enterprises how does it affect their revenue sources?Social Enterprise Journal.
Seyoum, B., Chinta, R., & Mujtaba, B. G. (2021). Social support as a driver of social entrepreneurial intentions: the moderating roles of entrepreneurial education and proximity to the US small business administration.Journal of Small Business and Enterprise Development.
Westlund, H., & Gawell, M. (2010). Building social capital for societal entrepreneurship. Www.econstor.eu; Louvain-la-Neuve: European Regional Science Association (ERSA).
Zhao, L., & Kim, K. (2021). Responding to the COVID-19 Pandemic: Practices and strategies of the global clothing and textile value chain.Clothing and Textiles Research Journal, 39(2), 157-172.