Introduction
The research field of entrepreneurship is endless. The birth of research niches has provoked a debate. With regard to the issue of good pursuing, we can see that over time, new types of entrepreneurs have emerged. Background literature shows that entrepreneurs are progressively focusing their attention on issues different from making profits. Even the dualism “profit – values” that has attracted scholars’ interest for such a long time seems to be on its way to find a happy end. In this chapter, we will make a further step to understand who is a good entrepreneur. We will start from social entrepreneurs: they represent a relevant share of the population of good entrepreneurs, from an academic point of view. We aim to understand what are the traits of social entrepreneurship, why it is growing, and what motivates its growth.
Categories of Good Entrepreneurs
We have seen that entrepreneurs distinguish themselves from a set of characteristics; they behave in a certain way, by showing risk-taking proclivity or being able to seize opportunities.
We have also seen that the idea that limits the pursuit of good to profit achievement is limited.
Therefore, we have seen that the influence of personal characteristics and the need to answer to some specific requirements that emerge from the market or society leads entrepreneurs to follow new paths or to introduce new issues in their mindset.
A new type of entrepreneurs has emerged over time.
In this chapter, we will focus on some definitions of entrepreneurs that academicians widely use. All the different types of entrepreneurs share the care for issues that are valuable for stakeholders or communities. Under this perspective, we define them good entrepreneurs, since one of their aims—primary or secondary—is to pursue the common good.
A proliferation of categories and types of entrepreneurs emerge; we refer in our approach to what emerges from our study on research niches in entrepreneurship: each group of entrepreneurs in this chapter has a corresponding research niche. In other words, we are considering terms that show a relevant degree of academic consideration and that are recognised by scholars or associations. All the typologies of entrepreneurs we are considering have their definitions and have a defined research stream.
Research shows that a taxonomy of good entrepreneurs can be achieved by focusing on the main scope of their activities. Yet good entrepreneurs can be inspired by social, ethical or environmental motives. Therefore, when we talk about good entrepreneurs, we are talking about: social entrepreneurs; green entrepreneurs; sustainable entrepreneurs (or sustainopreneur); ecopreneurs; enviropreneurs.
Research is relatively new with referral to some specific categories that have found a recent development; in other cases, as we will see later in this book, research has a long history.
Social Entrepreneurship
Social entrepreneurship became one of the most vivid research fields in the area of entrepreneurship. The first to employ the term “social entrepreneur” was Joseph Banks in 1972; the author explained that society needed some managerial skills to solve some social problems (Ebrashi, 2013).
The roots of this “niche” date back to the 1980s, with the work of Bill Drayton, who founded Ashoka, an association that promotes social entrepreneurship.
Drayton had the merit to diffuse the term “social entrepreneur”. A marked focus on social mission characterises the social entrepreneur. Social value in social entrepreneurship is, as Ebrashi (2013) suggests, “the explicit and central driving force” (p. 189); social entrepreneurs show a strong commitment to producing social impact and social change.
The topic of social entrepreneurship has attracted fascinated universities and has shaped not only their research strategies but also their educational offerings.
Universities have developed educational and research programmes in social entrepreneurship: among the others, we cite the educational programmes run by the University of Pennsylvania, Oxford University, Duke, Yale, Stanford, University of California-Berkeley, Northwestern University, Harvard, University of Michigan, Cornell University, Babson College, the University of Colorado at Boulder, Boston College, New York University, Carnegie Mellon University, Indiana University Bloomington, Georgetown, Pepperdine and so forth.
This long list—still uncomplete and focusing on a limited geographical area—gives an idea of the relevance of social entrepreneurship from an educational point of view.
Scholars have investigated the motivations and the dynamics of education in social entrepreneurship; among the various articles, we think that the work by Mirabella and Young (2012) provides insights for understanding the motivations behind the academic interest in social entrepreneurship educational programmes. First, over the years, we register a progressive establishment of business management solutions to public problems; this fully motivates the importance given by business schools to social entrepreneurship. The authors suggest that educational programmes go in the direction of providing more comprehensive curricula that include a focus on non-profit skills also in business schools, not only in public administration and policy curricula.
We have a preliminary idea of the relevance of the “niche” of social entrepreneurship.
We have carried out a preliminary review of the main articles that have mapped or have analysed the significant contributions in the field. There is an article recently published by Ferreira, Fernandes, and Kraus (2019) that explores research in entrepreneurship; the authors outline the importance of developing a social entrepreneurship theory, since “Only by doing this can entrepreneurial processes occurring in non-governmental organizations be explained. Furthermore, these cases of entrepreneurship are driven by motivations different from profit-seeking companies” (p. 197).
From the literature (Persaud, Bayon, & Cartmell, 2018), in general, it emerges that even if the topic attracts many scholars and the number of publications boomed, especially after 2010, research still needs to be further developed. The majority of the studies are, according to some authors (Persaud et al., 2018), conceptual and descriptive and case-based. Research is, furthermore, geographically concentrated in North America and the UK. There is no doubt that this is an evolving and promising field of study. Yet, in the next paragraphs, we will provide insights for a better understanding of the dynamics that explain social entrepreneurship.
Growth and Drivers
Research on social entrepreneurship has registered an increase, since its early beginnings. We will see in the next chapters the evolution of this niche when observing the number of publications in the field. Several factors have contributed to the growth of this research niche.
The term social entrepreneurship has found a vast diffusion for identifying different concepts or situations. It was primarily used to identify a specific firm ownership structure (e.g. cooperatives), fundraising ventures in the non-profit context or business ventures with social purposes (Hockerts, 2006). The versatility of the term has boosted its diffusion and facilitated its employment for describing many different enterprises and entrepreneurs.
There is no doubt that when scholars find a consensus among institutions and supporters, it is easier to register a growth in terms of research outputs.
Foundations have risen to support social entrepreneurs and related academic research; the World Economic Forum itself has focused his attention on this issue. The activity of some foundations has nurtured a culture of social entrepreneurship: the story of the Schwab Foundation reveals the pivotal role that this organisation has in the development of a changing culture and the support of social entrepreneurs’ initiatives.1 Yet, the number of foundations that support social entrepreneurship is vast, and some of them operate at a global level and others have a local scope.
Organizations with a specific focus on social entrepreneurship, started to emerge in the early 1980s: Ashoka was founded in 1981, the Skoll Foundation in 1999, the Schwab Foundation in 1998 and later we find UnLtd (2002) and the Young Foundation (2006), just to cite few examples.
We can say that since the late 1970s-early 1980s a process of awareness started, involving organisations as well as institutions: governments were attracted by the possibility of bettering the management of social issues through welfare (Ebrashi, 2013).
Finally, in the process of global recognition of social entrepreneurship, the Nobel Prize given to Muhammad Yunus played a pivotal role (Kickul, Terjesen, Bacq, & Griffiths, 2012).
The issue of social entrepreneurship became popular; we can foresee the reasons behind this popularity from what we have previously described. Roger and Osberg (2007) provide a clear description of the motives that make social entrepreneurship a popular research niche destined to grow. The authors explain that some motivations are fundamental, and they are inherent to the appealing of these kinds of entrepreneurs and their stories. The idea of being responsible for the improvement of so many lives is extremely attracting: “Social entrepreneurship signals the imperative to drive social change, and it is that potential payoff, with its lasting, transformational benefit to society, that sets the field and its practitioners apart” (p. 30).
The authors underline a critical aspect of social entrepreneurship: “Although the potential benefits offered by social entrepreneurship are clear to many of those promoting and funding these activities, the actual definition of what social entrepreneurs do to produce this order of magnitude return is less clear. We would argue that the definition of social entrepreneurship today is anything but clear. As a result, social entrepreneurship has become so inclusive that it now has a large tent into which all manners of socially beneficial activities fit. In some respects, this inclusiveness could be a good thing. If plenty of resources are pouring into the social sector, and if many causes that otherwise would not get sufficient funding now get support because they are regarded as social entrepreneurship, then it may be fine to have a loose definition” (p. 30).
The “secret” of the appeal of social entrepreneurship is that it holds a promise: there is still much to do for understanding this phenomenon, but there is no doubt that it is intriguing.
Research in social entrepreneurship has followed the same dynamics that we have observed when dealing with the development of research in entrepreneurship. We refer to that phenomenon that correlates the academic interest to the industry interest. Mair, Robinson, and Hockerts (2006) write: “we observe that the rise of scholarly interest in social entrepreneurship goes hand in hand with an increasing interest in the phenomenon among elites. Over the last few years, many successful business entrepreneurs have dedicated substantial resources to supporting social entrepreneurship” (p. 1).
Generally speaking, we can say that research in social entrepreneurship grew because it finds a consensus among various stakeholders, and in particular, institutions, industry and society. The active role of institutions and foundations has created awareness towards this issue through some educational programmes or financial support.
From our research, another factor that has contributed to the growth of social entrepreneurship emerges: today the society is in search of a renewed sense of community. We are assisting to a social transformation, and society is becoming more fluid and individualised (Leadbeater, 1997). The ongoing globalisation and the problems arising with migrations suggest that communities built on hierarchical and conservative principles might not work; social entrepreneurs can be a cornerstone for establishing a “modern sense of community” (Leadbeater, 1997: 16). Therefore, society and the ongoing social transformation give space to social entrepreneurship.
The Characteristics
Much research has focused on providing cases and examples of social entrepreneurs, and this is the reason why Mair et al. (2006) talk about phenomenon-driven research.
The first point is to define social entrepreneurship. As it can be guessed, it is hard to find a unique and commonly employed definition, given the broad range of meanings that this concept gains among researchers.2 Swanson and Di Zhang (2010) underline that, despite the absence of a common agreement on a definition for social entrepreneurship among scholars, there is a consensus on its goals.
The approach adopted by Hockerts (2006) is intriguing because he classifies the attempts to define social entrepreneurs into two main categories according to the employed perspective. The first is the individual perspective, and the second is an organisational perspective. The individual view poses at the centre of the analysis the personal motivations and commitment that inspire social entrepreneurs. The organisational perspective classifies social enterprises (and social entrepreneurs’ behaviour) into three categories: the first one is the case of companies and entrepreneurs who commercialise non-profit organisations. In other words, social entrepreneurs who belong to this category create profits for non-profit companies. The second case is the so-called efficient non-profit management, that is, bringing marketing and business skills in the non-profit sector. The second approach focuses on social purpose business ventures; the competitive proposition of this kind of enterprises is the opportunity that arises from social innovation. Social entrepreneurs realise profits through social change and create a market space where they can compete.
What distinguishes social entrepreneurship from entrepreneurship is—as Roger and Osberg (2007) say—the primacy of social benefit: social entrepreneurs combine the typical traits of entrepreneurs, such as innovativeness or risk-taking attitude, to a focus on social benefit. The work by Roger and Osberg (2007) provides many examples of social entrepreneurs, and it highlights three components that help to identify social entrepreneurship.
“We define social entrepreneurship as having the following three components: (1) identifying a stable but inherently unjust equilibrium that causes the exclusion, marginalization, or suffering of a segment of humanity that lacks the financial means or political clout to achieve any transformative benefit on its own; (2) identifying an opportunity in this unjust equilibrium, developing a social value proposition, and bringing to bear inspiration, creativity, direct action, courage, and fortitude, thereby challenging the stable state’s hegemony; and (3) forging a new, stable equilibrium that releases trapped potential or alleviates the suffering of the targeted group, and through imitation and the creation of a stable ecosystem around the new equilibrium ensuring a better future for the targeted group and even society at large” (p. 35).
Social entrepreneurship represents a mean of creating initiatives and innovative solutions whose ultimate aim is to support a sustainable and social transformation (Alvord, Brown, & Letts, 2004). For other scholars, it is an approach that brings innovative and sustainable solutions to solve social market failure by seizing opportunities (Mair et al., 2006; Marti, 2004). Others highlight the multidimensional construct of social entrepreneurship that brings together a personal entrepreneurial vision, characteristics and behaviours addressed to the achievement of a social mission (Sullivan Mort, Weerawardena, & Carnegie, 2003).
From a review of the scholars’ contributions, we can see that the central concepts associated with social entrepreneurship are not only innovativeness, value creation, change and transformation but also problem-solving. The literature recognises social entrepreneurs the ability to solve problems more effectively than the government due to their capacity of tailoring their efforts to different communities and markets (Dees, 2007). Therefore, social entrepreneurs are problem solvers, not only because they contribute to solving some challenges that are affecting a community or a particular area, but also because they can assist the government.
In general, we can say that a social entrepreneur gives particular emphasis to some selected issues during strategic planning. In other words, social entrepreneurs show sensitivity towards some elements that put decision-making under pressure. Pressures can be both bottom-up or top-down: we refer to bottom-up drivers if the pressure comes from stakeholders that are ideally located one or more steps under the entrepreneur in a hypothetical positioning scale. Institutions, for example, execute a top-down pressure, since they are on the upper level of a hierarchical pyramid. In any case, drivers foster entrepreneurs’ motivations and shape their decision.
Social entrepreneurs who adopt a bottom-up approach “assume the responsibility hitherto ignored or not adequately dealt with the public bodies in charge3” (p. 42 European Commission). Instead, if social entrepreneurs follow a top-down approach, this means that they motivated in their behaviour and orientation by the type of welfare system and public policies.
The presence of durable top-down drivers for the birth of social entrepreneurship has two sides. On the one hand, it represents a breeding ground for entrepreneurial activities addressed to societal issues; on the other, it can weaken an entrepreneurial culture and feed excessive expectation for the public sector. In northern Europe, as it emerges from a study carried by the European Commission, there is a strong relationship between social enterprises and the public sector that has fostered a “state dependency”.
The orientation towards others and the awareness of community issues make of social entrepreneurs do-gooders. They are part of human history, as Yunus (2017) outlines.
The concept of a social entrepreneur is not new: there are entrepreneurs that for decades have promoted strategies inspired to social issues (Welsh & Krueger, 2012). The importance covered by social entrepreneurship has grown thanks to the recognition of the relevance of this field by academicians and institutions, but also to the urgencies created by some catastrophic events: our mind goes to the hurricane Katrina in Louisiana, the tsunami in Asia in 2004, the HIV crisis in Africa, the earthquakes in Italy in 2009 and 2016, and the global COVID emergency in 2020. We should take a look at the social entrepreneurship and what happens during hard times.
Social Entrepreneurship in Hard Times
The role of social entrepreneurs is particularly helpful when communities are facing hard times. The advent of natural disasters or pandemic events has increased the importance of social entrepreneurs within local communities. In some cases, they become the only available support for local people, a mean for surviving.
In the case of the hurricane Katrina in Louisiana, Chamlee-Wright & Storr (2009) have depicted the role of social entrepreneurs before and in the months following the disaster. We will start from the emerging insights from this case to describe the impact that social entrepreneurs can have on communities that are facing hard times.
Social entrepreneurs can help reduce the impact of a disaster; through the work they undertake before the accident, they can help in arising community’s awareness towards the threats that might arise from natural settings. They can provide a means for making the living habitat safer. They can also inform communities on the importance of maintaining specific behaviours that can reduce the risk of being affected or damaged by a natural disaster.
Social entrepreneurs can provide support for managing the unexpected in various ways.
After a disaster, social entrepreneurs can create support for people in need.
In the months following the disaster, social entrepreneurs can “help to solve the collective action problem associated with deciding to return and rebuild, organise and engage in outreach, activism and advocacy on behalf of their communities, directly assist in rebuilding efforts and provide essential services” (Chamlee-Wright & Storr, 2009: 153).
The role played by social entrepreneurs is vital for the post-disaster phase; when people need to have a reason for coming back to the places where they lived, they need to find not only infrastructures and buildings but also a system of relationships. The role of entrepreneurs in this perspective is essential: social entrepreneurs help in keeping alive and reinforce social networks. Through their activity, they ensure people to find some relational elements of the community that people have left. Through social entrepreneurs, people can see their interests defended and represented in the dialogue with institutions, and this emerges in particular when entrepreneurs have notoriety among local communities.
The role of social entrepreneurship is pivotal in areas affected by earthquakes, such as the one that happened in Central Italy in 2016 (Pagliacci, Russo, & Sartori, 2017). That earthquake has required many efforts in rebuilding. Natural disasters represent a condition that requires the presence of people—such as social entrepreneurs—that can act as problem solvers or as facilitators: social entrepreneurs can reduce the distance between the organisational institution (local governmental bodies) and people. The work by Dutta (2017) represents an inspiration: it focuses on the dynamics connected to natural disasters happening in California between 1991 and 2010. With this paper, the author underlines the role of local community members and social entrepreneurs in helping people face emergencies and recovery. What is interesting in this work is that it appears that in some situations and places, it is easier to adopt a shared problem-solving approach. A key factor of success is the presence of a set of organising skills and frameworks that facilitate the contribution of community members to problem-solving. Some communities are more able to solve problems and have an active engagement in organising themselves to face difficulties because they have developed specific cultural competences and organisations that plan supporting activities over the long term.
Another interesting aspect emerges from the analysis of disaster management pursued by Chandra and Paras (2020). During disasters, different teams that bring together diverse expertise and interests have to cooperate. Technically, we refer to Emergency Recovery Groups (ERG) who put together people from different organisation bodies whose interest, sometimes, diverge. Yet, social entrepreneurs can act as facilitators and can ease the dialogue between different people and entities whose interests can conflict.
Challenges can happen even globally: epidemics or pandemic diseases can represent a threat to humanity. The recent experiences of Zika and Ebola have provided tools for assessing the devastating impact of the pandemic of COVID-19.
Pandemics are incredibly complex to manage: the forecasts about effects and impact can be vague, given the evolving scenario. Sometimes, as in the experience of COVID-19, the forcefulness of adopted measures was initially mitigated by partial knowledge of the characteristics of the virus. A similar condition has affected the effectiveness of the proposed solutions in the long range. In the cases of pandemics or aggressive epidemics, social entrepreneurs with their activities represent a lifeline. Social entrepreneurs can provide innovative solutions to societal problems, and they can be particularly helpful in the prevention of diseases and in supporting local communities in needs.
The work by Page et al. (2017) shows that the understanding of communities’ emerging needs is crucial for organising adequate support to local stakeholders.
The ability to understand which are the emerging threats and compelling needs in local communities is a crucial issue for implementing practical actions promoted by social entrepreneurs. Therefore, social entrepreneurs need to be able to collect information from various sources and to analyse them critically, so as to have a deep understanding of the scenario that communities are living. It is essential, under this perspective, the type of linkage that social entrepreneurs have with communities is essential. For those coming from the voluntary sector (Leadbeater, 1997), it can be easier to gain direct information from people who are affected by the situation; therefore, social entrepreneurs must have a reliable set of information sources for performing a critical analysis of the inputs. The ability of social entrepreneurs to build a stable relationship with people based on mutual trust and a gained consensus facilitates entrepreneurs’ access to information and knowledge. Then, they need to organise inputs into action.
Another essential role recognised to social entrepreneurs in the occasion of pandemic events and virus infections is prevention.
With the advent of Ebola, the organisations promoted by social entrepreneurs have actively contributed to the containment of the epidemy through their activities.
Madichie (2016) describes the role covered by social entrepreneurs during the Ebola epidemy in sub-Saharan Africa. What is interesting is that through their organisations, social entrepreneurs promote a new approach to life that includes some preventive measures that have had a decisive role in protecting people from Ebola. The work by Madichie (2016) focuses on the Global Soap Project (GSP), an organisation that was born from the idea of two social entrepreneurs, Derreck and Sarah Kayongo, in 2009. The couple decided to collect all little soap bars discarded at hotels and to use them for realising new soap bars. Through this project, people in refugee camps or other communities in need could have access to a supply that is basic for most of the people, but for them would be hardly accessible. With its activity, GSP has contributed to help reduce the impact of Ebola.
Social entrepreneurship can also become a mean for facing social and public health challenges. It is the case of obesity, one of the plagues that are affecting wealthy nations’ health systems. Some scholars (Smith, Calancie, & Ammerman, 2015) have investigated how social entrepreneurs can help reduce the incidence of obesity in the USA with their organisations. Although obesity prevention represents a core activity for a minimal number of social enterprises, many companies in the USA are committed to promoting healthy food consumption among local communities, by fostering a consumption model that can be defined as “local and healthy”.
Some companies have tried to promote products or services that combine both healthy eating and physical activity. The problem with the relationship with food is multifaceted, and it covers several aspects: from the access to food, to the education about food consumption. There are social enterprises that operate to make food accessible to those categories of people that are in need: food banks are an example, and they work at a global level with different types of organisations (Waddock & Post, 1991).
The case explored by Santini and Cavicchi (2014) illustrates the activity of the food banks in Italy, and it describes how embedded social enterprises are in the Italian welfare system, and second the challenges that entrepreneurs of this reality have to face. In particular, the authors outline the link between some diseases such as obesity or diabetes and the poorest segments of the population. Therefore, the approach that social entrepreneurs who run this kind of organisations should have is not only to provide an answer to some basic needs (food access) but also to think about problems that could arise in the next future. In other words, the motto that often inspires some charity organisations is “give something is better than nothing”. The aim is to provide a solution in the short run, but it is not foresight. This recalls the insights from Yunus (2017), who suggests that a charitable answer may not be the proper solution. Therefore, the vision of social entrepreneurs is a critical issue: the ability to design a sustainable strategy, oriented to the long run, is vital not only for the surviving but also for the effectiveness of the undertaken organisations.
Becoming Social Entrepreneurs
The future of social entrepreneurship seems particularly bright. There is a need for social entrepreneurship and social enterprises. Social entrepreneurs come from three main sectors (Leadbeater, 1997): public, private or voluntary.
In other words, someone who becomes a social entrepreneur can find a place in the public sector, or he can run a private company, or he/she can have roots in the voluntary sector. People from different fields, under this perspective, can have diverse backgrounds: they can have an in-depth knowledge of public companies, or they can have a vast experience of running a private company, or they can have relevant experience as volunteers in some local organisations and, in light of this, have an in-depth knowledge of the main problems affecting local communities.
Yunus (2017) clearly outlines the mechanisms that will foster the growth of social business enterprises and social entrepreneurs. The paths that social enterprises—and social entrepreneurs—can follow are different.
In some cases, existing companies will launch their social business enterprises, and they will become part of their social responsibility initiatives. In these circumstances, entrepreneurs can manage their social business enterprises by themselves or in partnership with others: the choice depends on several factors. They could have the need to outsource competencies, and so they decide to establish a collaboration with others, or they can manage everything on their own, internally.
The relationship with the existing company also defines the funding strategy of the social enterprise: it can happen to address a part of the annual profit of the leading company to the creation of social business enterprises. Another option is that companies create a social business enterprise investment fund.
Some investors can represent an opportunity for social entrepreneurs: the availability of funds can stimulate social entrepreneurs to run their social business.
Another reason that motivates entrepreneurs to operate in the social field affects the sphere of personal motivations: entrepreneurs might “feel and urge to try their creativity talent and management skill in establishing and running their own SBEs” (Yunus, 2017). The activity of a social entrepreneur is characterised by an extraordinary degree of creativity: through their creativity, social entrepreneurs can overcome problems and find innovative solutions. The challenges that social entrepreneurs must face are multifaceted, and they encourage the ability of people to remove barriers, to reduce the bureaucratic hurdles and, in general, to experiment.4
The presence of social start-ups varies across countries: a useful source of information is, to our knowledge, the Global Entrepreneurship Monitor (GEM) that depicts the global diffusion of entrepreneurship. The report shows that entrepreneurial activities and motivations change according to the location and to the type of economy that characterises the country. The visibility of social entrepreneurs has increased over time, given the growing recognition of companies: this aspect that emerges from the GEM report is not secondary. We have explored several issues of the report that is released on a yearly base. In the 2016 issue, we have noted an interesting aspect that is useful to understand the growth mechanisms of social entrepreneurship. Social enterprises and social entrepreneurs are becoming more and more visible, and people recognise that there is a considerable amount of individuals that are promoting business and organisations that have a positive impact on communities, and whose scope—that can be primary or not—is social. The ongoing recognition process undertaken by people reveals some interesting issues: in some countries, such as Luxemburg, visibility is low but social entrepreneurship is high; in others, such as the Philippines, the perceived profile is exceptionally high, but the “real” activity is not so high if compared to the rate of visibility. The emerging picture suggests that the perception of visibility is subjective. Still, entrepreneurs must work on promoting themselves and their activities to become much visible to communities and to be able not only to “market themselves”, but also to make people aware about what they are doing.
Some Considerations
The theme of social entrepreneurs is intriguing and at the centre of a vivid academic debate.
We have seen that the definition of the scopes of the company is one of the pillars of academic research. The combined presence of personal drivers and economics drivers was one of the objects of the investigation by researchers. It is from the “real world” that the optimal combination emerges: the stories of entrepreneurs who promote social enterprises gave a new perspective to research in the field.
Therefore, the theme of social entrepreneurship has never been so relevant as in these times. The emergency of global health challenges, the occurring of natural disasters, as well as the dramatic problem of accessibility of resources cry for innovative solutions that can be pursued by social entrepreneurs. Yet, some questions emerge and deal with the adoption of successful models from the local scale to the global one. The debate is open, and it is immersed in a fluid and dynamic environment.