Social entrepreneurship is vital to reviving our economies and providing support during the pandemic. The interest stems from the ability to develop innovative solutions to existing social problems[1]. But the problem that we solve is not always the one we see, it is the one we define, social problems are social constructions[2]. The debates in the United States over gun control illustrate this well: at an event involving guns there are those who perceive the problem as a lack of gun control, and there are the others who perceive the problem as being the protection of their right to carry firearms. The event is the same, the perceived problem is different, and therefore the solution to the problem will also be different. If social problems are in fact social constructs, and if the solutions relate not to the current problem, but rather to the one we are defining, then it is important to understand the sources of the definitions of our problems. How do social entrepreneurs carry inclusive definitions of social problems and how can the skills of these entrepreneurs help us navigate change?

 

Therefore, in the context of a pandemic, and after a pandemic, can social entrepreneurship, as a social movement that carries a vision of the company, and of individuals as having the capacity to bring about change[3], help to manage these multiple conceptions of the problem? While the pandemic will have changed our world, entrepreneurs capable of seeing through this change and can recognize the opportunities to redesign the world are certainly important. Social entrepreneurs are among them, but they are not the only ones. Admittedly, social entrepreneurship has demonstrated its potential in the past, but the current crisis is not without consequences for this sector. The actions of for-profit companies whose primary motivations are not pro-social, have nevertheless demonstrated that faced with a crisis, many organizations can respond to it. Their motivation in the face of the pandemic is pro-social and one can wonder about the difference that social entrepreneurship makes in the face of these situations which are motivated by a need of society and not by profit[4]. Isn't that part of what defines social entrepreneurship?

 

Thus, the crisis raises questions about the place of pro-social intentions in the actions of social entrepreneurs. Are these different from the pro-social motivations of companies responding to the needs created by the pandemic? The context of the health crisis will certainly not have changed the primary motivations of commercial enterprises, but this crisis will have made it possible to confirm that our entrepreneurs are not only motivated by the maximization of profitability. Faced with these many pro-social entrepreneurs, should social entrepreneurship redefine itself to better differentiate its actions?

 

Social entrepreneurship, long conceived as the activities of individuals[5], is also a way of conceiving the place of business in our societies. Faced with this crisis and the need to rebuild our economies, wouldn't the role of social entrepreneurship also be to help build the framework in which the economy will rebuild?

​

[1] Ruiz-Rosa, I., Gutiérrez-Taño, D., & García-Rodríguez, F. J. (2020). Social entrepreneurial intention and the impact of COVID-19 pandemic: A structural model. Sustainability, 12(17), 6970.

[2] Schneider, J. W. (1985). Social problems theory: The constructionist view. Annual Review of Sociology, 11, 209–229.

[3] Hervieux, C., Voltan, A. Framing Social Problems in Social Entrepreneurship. J Bus Ethics 151, 279–293 (2018)

[4] Bacq, S., & Lumpkin, G. T. (2020). Social Entrepreneurship and COVID‐19. Journal of Management Studies.

[5] Bacq, S., & Lumpkin, G. T. (2020). Social Entrepreneurship and COVID‐19. Journal of Management Studies.