Catholic Social Teaching and Social Entrepreneurship [1 ed.] 9783666500558, 9783525500552

Citation preview

Adam Zadroga

Catholic Social Teaching and Social Entrepreneurship

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41

Lublin Theological Studies in connection with The John Paul II Catholic University of Lublin edited by Adam Kubiś (The John Paul II Catholic University of Lublin) in cooperation with Nicholas Adams (University of Birmingham), Marek Jagodziński (The John Paul II Catholic University of Lublin), Paweł Mąkosa (The John Paul II Catholic University of Lublin) Advisory Board Klaus Baumann (University of Freiburg), David Fagerberg (University of Notre Dame), Zdzisław Kijas (Seraphicum, Rome), Juan Luis Lorda (University of Navarra), Dalia Marx (Hebrew Union College, Jerusalem), Łukasz Popko (École biblique et archéologique française de Jérusalem), Ilaria Ramelli (University of Cambridge; Durham University; Sacred Heart University, Milan), Carl-Maria Sultana (University of Malta)

Volume 10

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41

Adam Zadroga

Catholic Social Teaching and Social Entrepreneurship

VANDENHOECK & RUPRECHT

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41

This publication is the result of a research project financed by the National Science Centre, Poland – registration No. 2017/25/B/HS1/01522.

Publishing reviews: Janusz Podzielny (University of Opole) Antoni Jucewicz (University of Warmia and Mazury in Olsztyn) Bibliographic information published by the Deutsche Nationalbibliothek: The Deutsche Nationalbibliothek lists this publication in the Deutsche Nationalbibliografie; detailed bibliographic data available online: https://dnb.de. © 2024 by Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, Robert-Bosch-Breite 10, 37079 Göttingen, Germany, an imprint of the Brill-Group (Koninklijke Brill NV, Leiden, The Netherlands; Brill USA Inc., Boston MA, USA; Brill Asia Pte Ltd, Singapore; Brill Deutschland GmbH, Paderborn, Germany, Brill Österreich GmbH, Vienna, Austria) Koninklijke Brill NV incorporates the imprints Brill, Brill Nijhoff, Brill Schöningh, Brill Fink, Brill mentis, Brill Wageningen Academic, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, Böhlau and V&R unipress. All rights reserved. No part of this work may be reproduced or utilized in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording, or any information storage and retrieval system, without prior written permission from the publisher. Translation and proofreading: GROY Translations, Katowice Indexes: Dawid Mielnik, Lublin Typesetting: le-tex publishing services, Leipzig Cover design: SchwabScantechnik, Göttingen

Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht Verlage | www.vandenhoeck-ruprecht-verlage.com ISBN 978-3-666-50055-8

Table of Contents

Preface ................................................................................................

9

Introduction.......................................................................................... 1. General Relevance of Research....................................................... 2. Detailed Rationale for the Axionormative Analysis of Social Entrepreneurship ......................................................................... 3. Study Objectives .......................................................................... 4. Detailed Rationale for the Theological and Moral Analysis of Social Entrepreneurship ............................................................ 5. Research Methodology ................................................................. 6. Specific Study Objectives............................................................... 7. Description of the Monograph Content Layout ................................

13 13

I.

Social Entrepreneurship as a Phenomenon and Research Field – a Brief Overview ................................................................... 1. Definition of Social Entrepreneurship ............................................. 2. Social Entrepreneurship as a Field of Practice and Policy................... 2.1 The Practice of Social Entrepreneurship ................................... 2.2 Social Entrepreneurship Policy and Institutionalisation............... 3. Social Entrepreneurship as a Field of Research ................................. 4. Theoretical Contexts as Research Opportunities for Social Entrepreneurship ......................................................................... 5. Academic Schools of Thought on Social Entrepreneurship ................ 6. Conclusions ................................................................................

II. Catholic Social Teaching and its Axionormative Dimension ................ 1. The Nature and Tasks of Catholic Social Teaching ............................ 2. The Nature and Importance of Catholic Social Teaching Principles and Fundamental Values ................................................ 3. The Characteristics of Catholic Social Teaching Principles and Fundamental Values ............................................................... 3.1 The Dignity of the Human Person – the Personalist Norm........... 3.2 The Common Good ............................................................... 3.3 Subsidiarity ........................................................................... 3.4 Solidarity .............................................................................. 3.5 The Universal Destination of Goods .........................................

14 15 16 19 20 22

23 24 27 28 30 32 35 37 38 39 39 47 50 52 55 57 58 59

6

Table of Contents

3.6 Participation.......................................................................... 59 3.7 Fundamental Values ............................................................... 60 4. Conclusion.................................................................................. 67 III. The Axionormative Foundation of Catholic Social Teaching and Social Entrepreneurship: The Key Mutual Implications ................ 1. The Dignity of the Human Person .................................................. 2. The Value of Human Work and Entrepreneurship ............................ 3. The Common Good ..................................................................... 4. The Universal Destination of Goods ............................................... 5. A Preferential Option for the Poor as an Expression of Social Love ..... 6. Solidarity .................................................................................... 7. Subsidiarity ................................................................................. 8. Participation................................................................................ 9. Conclusions ................................................................................ IV. Catholic Social Teaching and the Moral Dimension of Social Enterprise Management ........................................................ 1. The Phenomenon of Social Enterprises ........................................... 2. Characteristics of Social Enterprise Management ............................. 3. Catholic Social Teaching Principles and their Implications for Social Enterprise Management.................................................. 4. Conclusions ................................................................................ V. Catholic Social Teaching and the Professional Ethics of Social Entrepreneurs ....................................................................... 1. Mission and Tasks of Social Entrepreneurs ...................................... 2. Motivation and Vocation of Social Entrepreneurs............................. 3. Ethical Aspects of Leadership in Social Enterprises........................... 4. Ethical Principles and Moral Virtues of Social Entrepreneurs............. 5. Conclusions ................................................................................

69 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 78

81 81 83 86 91

95 95 96 100 102 106

Final Conclusions ................................................................................. 109 Bibliography ......................................................................................... 113 Web Sources ........................................................................................ 125 Code of Ethics in Social Entrepreneurship .............................................. 127

Table of Contents

Indexes ................................................................................................ Authors........................................................................................... Subjects........................................................................................... Sources ...........................................................................................

137 137 141 148

7

Preface

The year 1989 is permanently etched in the minds of Poles and other inhabitants of Central and Eastern Europe. It became an indication not only of a new stage in the life of a single nation and state but also the beginning of a new European Springtime of Nations, reshaping the continent. The sooner-than-expected collapse of the communist ideology and the economic system based on the principles of collectivism and central planning put the societies − hitherto enslaved by the ideology of communism − in a dilemma about which socio-political model should be applied in further development. Over forty years of ideological attempts and their deplorable outcomes discouraged further experimentation. Nevertheless, there was a common open attitude towards the reconstruction of the social system based on the one implemented in highly developed countries during the post-war period, which included a democratic form of political power, a free market economy and private property. Of course, this change was not immediate but took the shape of a long process with various meanders and threats throughout it. However, it led many nations into the path of democracy, a free market and building a civil society. The social market economy model, successfully implemented first in Germany and then in other Western countries, seemed particularly attractive. The name itself contained an important distinguishing feature: social model – not only in terms of semantics but, above all, axiology. This social outline concerns not only factors in the macro dimension, such as the role of the state in economic life or the shape of social policy but also those related to specific forms of economic entities. In addition, this model determines some specific structural solutions for the economic system, integrating the economy’s efficiency with justice, social peace and the subjectivity of free market participants. The foundation of the social market economy is the concept of ordo, i. e. social order, which must be based on certain core values embedded in the entire system. The social market economy synthesises freedom, social justice, subjectivity, personal responsibility and solidarity. As Aniela Dylus notes, the social component is not a state-enforced external adjustment of the economy but its purpose.1 It is also not some rigid doctrine set once and for all but rather a system open to changes, adjustments and amendments, requiring further research and study. In this context, it is necessary to appreciate the extremely important and successful attempt to present a particular aspect of economic and social life from

1 Cf. Aniela Dylus, Gospodarka. Moralność. Chrześcijaństwo (Warszawa: Kontrast, Wydawnictwo Fundacji ATK, 1994), 14.

10

Preface

the Christian or, to be more precise, from the theological and moral perspective that Adam Zadroga undertook in this monograph. It concerns the axio-normative conditions of social entrepreneurship because it is precisely social entrepreneurship that seems to be a unique form of organising civil society based on business activity, in which the social and normative components are evident. It is worth emphasising at this point that the key competences of a social entrepreneur – like many other professions – include not only professional knowledge and extensive practical skills but also certain moral and social attitudes. This issue will be the subject of detailed analysis by the author later on. They ensure a responsible way of fulfilling individual professional duties, building relationships with stakeholders of the organisation and strengthening the internal purposefulness of the social economy system. This publication is also an important voice in the discussion on the need for a dialogue between economics and ethics. Oswald von Nell-Breuning is certainly right to argue that morality is a scarce good and, like other scarce goods in nature, it should be used very sparingly and rarely.2 However, the lack of correlations between economic rationality and moral order is characteristic only of the adherents of extreme economism, supporting the absolutisation of economic values. The author of the publication – a professor of moral theology at the John Paul II Catholic University of Lublin and, at the same time, a graduate of doctoral studies in economics at one of the most prestigious universities of economics in Poland, the SGH Warsaw School of Economics – seems uniquely qualified to undertake the issue of axio-normative conditions of social entrepreneurship, additionally confronted with the assumptions and principles of Catholic social teaching. In the Department of Social Moral Theology, he researches various aspects of the morality of economic life. This is clear, especially when one takes into account that the area of economy – like any other area of human social activity – is subject not only to its own laws but also requires an ethical component. As homo ethicus, a person cannot act outside morality. On the other hand, it should be emphasised that the moral reflection on economic reality within the framework of the social teaching of the Church and Catholic moral theology must be based on a thorough knowledge of economics as such. Only that which is rational at the same time and therefore corresponds to the nature of things is beyond ethical reproach. Morality that becomes familiar with the laws of a given area of reality becomes moralism. This must be remembered by moralists, ethicists and social activists who, out of a sense of superiority, tend to set excessive ethical requirements in various areas of life too quickly or have fixed solutions for remedying them. The author is far from such an attitude. He presents himself not only as a competent

2 As cited in: Aniela Dylus, “Polityka a moralność: typologia stanowisk,” Studia Theologica Varsaviensia 29, no. 1 (1991): 63.

Preface

theologian, moralist, social ethicist and expert in Catholic social teaching in relation to social entrepreneurship but also as an insightful researcher of other aspects of this scientific discipline. At the same time, he considers entering the world of economy and business with an axio-normative component as both a necessity and a serious challenge (not devoid of methodological problems). All of this makes the research results presented in the monograph far from cheap moralising, which is common among ethicists and theologians who, without indepth knowledge of economic reality, make excessive and unrealistic demands regarding the practice of economic life. They believe that even economic laws must give way to the absoluteness of moral standards. The subordination of economic values to moral ones is usually demanded by people not involved in the economy. It is also worth noting the topicality of the discussed subject, especially concerning the ongoing changes taking place in Poland and the world. In this case, emphasis is placed not only on the modernisation of the economy but also on the ethical dimension of economic changes; unfortunately, the latter is still not stressed enough. Prof. Zadroga’s publication becomes an important contribution to the contemporary discussion about the necessary reforms from the point of view of the social teaching of the Church and the entire Christian morality. At the same time, it can be an excellent foundation for the formation of lay Catholics who would like to become more involved in economic activity. At the centre of economic life stands the human being – realised not only in their fundamental personal dignity, exceptionality and uniqueness but also in the community dimension. The scientific reflections on the axio-normative conditions of social entrepreneurship presented in this publication serve to confirm that to understand the morality of economic and social life, a proper and integral concept of a human being is necessary, which means a reference to Christian anthropology. It is human beings who are the meeting point between economics and ethics. At the same time, all economic activity is focused on human beings because its intention is not only to increase wealth and create social well-being but, above all, to address the needs of human beings in such a way as to enable their integral development: both in the spiritual and bodily dimension, individually and socially, naturally and supernaturally. Christian morality, with its integral concept of human beings, upholds this understanding of development. Jerzy Gocko SDB Head of the Department of Social Moral Theology The John Paul II Catholic University of Lublin

11

Introduction

1.

General Relevance of Research

Social entrepreneurship is a relatively young academic discipline. Research in that field addresses innovative solutions in relation to social issues, such as social exclusion, development of local communities or care for the natural environment. The practical dimension of social entrepreneurship is the skilful combination of economic and social goals, with the achievement of specific social effects being of primary importance. Social enterprises are a particular manifestation of this type of approach. These organisations are hybrid in nature – they have features of both non-governmental organisations (NGOs) and commercial enterprises. The individuals who establish and manage them are called social entrepreneurs. In his encyclical Centesimus annus, John Paul II writes with appreciation about the good practices of social entrepreneurship, when he recalls the social reforms introduced in the hundred years since the publication of Rerum novarum by Leon XIII: These same reforms were also partly the result of an open process by which society organized itself  through the establishment of effective instruments of solidarity, which were capable of sustaining an economic growth more respectful of the values of the person. Here we should remember the numerous efforts to which Christians made a notable contribution in establishing producers’, consumers’ and credit cooperatives, in promoting general education and professional training, in experimenting with various forms of participation in the life of the work-place and in the life of society in general.1

While appreciating the practical advantages of that form of activity, one should remember that every practice, even the best one, always requires a theoretical analysis.2 Hence, the development of social entrepreneurship as a mechanism for solving social issues depends not only on formal and legal, financial or sociopolitical conditions but also on the appropriate theoretical foundations, including considering that reality in axionormative terms.3 Therefore, the studies addressing 1 John Paul II, Encyclical Letter Centesimus annus (1 May 1991), no. 16. 2 Elizabeth Chell, “Social Enterprise and Entrepreneurship,” International Small Business Journal: Researching Entrepreneurship 25, no. 1 (February 2007): 5–26, https://doi.org/10.1177/ 0266242607071779. 3 Piotr Frączak and Jan Jakub Wygnański, eds., Polski model ekonomii społecznej. Rekomendacje dla rozwoju. Zaproszenie do dyskusji (Warszawa: Fundacja Inicjatyw Społeczno-Ekonomicznych, 2008), 15,

14

Introduction

the axiological and normative (rather than purely pragmatic) aspects of social entrepreneurship are also important. The results achieved with such an approach can be used, for example, to develop an ethical code for social entrepreneurs and other detailed guidelines or recommendations for individuals operating in the social entrepreneurship sector.

2.

Detailed Rationale for the Axionormative Analysis of Social Entrepreneurship

For the purpose of analysing the conduct of a social entrepreneur, a distinction can be made between the internal level of their actions (acts), which includes the mental, moral and spiritual dimensions, and the external level, which reflects the material (physical) effects of their actions. The first level enables the description, interpretation and evaluation of the conduct of a social entrepreneur, e. g. from the perspective of moral values, norms and virtues, as well as spiritual and religious inspirations, which can also constitute the basis for the initiatives undertaken by that individual. The second level relates to the specific organisational form given by an entrepreneur to their venture in order to be able to achieve the adopted goals; it also includes detailed initiatives, projects and tasks. In practice, the two levels are closely linked. What is necessary is both an appropriate set of internal motivations to determine the direction and stimulate creative action in fulfilling the function of a social entrepreneur, as well as professionalism in organising material and personal resources so that they can be used to achieve economic and social goals in an efficient and effective way. Taking the above insight into account, especially the indication of the first, intrinsic level, it should be noted that a deeper understanding of social entrepreneurship requires research also in the scope of normative and axiological analyses. A review of the existing literature on the subject allows concluding that there is a research gap prompting axionormative analyses of social entrepreneurship in several areas. First, the concept of social entrepreneurship is rooted in values that are only intuitively “sensed” but not sufficiently clearly indicated and described in the academic literature. Second, social enterprises as specific organisations need to develop an appropriate concept of the moral dimension of their management. Third, there is no coherent proposal relating to the principles and virtues of the professional ethics of social entrepreneurs. Such a concept could certainly constitute

https://www.fise.org.pl/wp-content/uploads/2018/09/Polski-model-ekonomii-spolecznej.pdf. John Paul II, Encyclical Letter Sollicitudo rei socialis (30 December 1987), no. 8.

Study Objectives

an axionormative point of reference for an ethical code for professional social entrepreneurs.

3.

Study Objectives

The study focuses on the three identified areas of axionormative determinants of social entrepreneurship. After analysing these determinants, they will be subjected to a conceptual assessment from the point of view of Catholic social teaching. The scant interest in the above-mentioned topic is probably due to the belief of many researchers that if an activity is social in nature, it also means that it is ethically correct. Thus, it is assumed a priori that every human action that pursues social goals is morally justified. This position is extended to the ideological and systemic (macro), organisational (meso) and individual (micro) levels of social entrepreneurship. Hence, it is assumed that (1) the idea of social entrepreneurship is based on a clearly defined axionormative system, (2) a social enterprise as an organisation should be managed in a morally appropriate manner, and (3) a social entrepreneur, due to the pro-social nature of the profession, should act ethically according to certain principles and be characterised by relevant moral virtues. In that context, the problem of the lack of theoretical concepts that would describe the axiological and normative determinants of social entrepreneurship in the three indicated aspects is noticeable. Only a few articles on this topic have been published so far.4 There is no monograph on the subject.5 Therefore, the main purpose of this study is to enhance knowledge in that field and fill the publishing gap.

4 Adam Zadroga, “Ekonomia społeczna i nauczanie społeczne Kościoła. Wzajemne implikacje aksjologiczne,” Roczniki Teologiczne 56, no. 3 (2009): 213–29. John F. McVea and Michael J. Naughton, “Enriching Social Entrepreneurship from the Perspective of Catholic Social Teaching,” Religions 12, no. 3 (March 9, 2021): 173, https://doi.org/10.3390/rel12030173. 5 Therefore, the author, who has already published partial research results in the above-mentioned area in the form of articles in scientific journals, collects them in this project and presents them in a coherent form (in a new way) as a monograph. These are primarily: Adam Zadroga, “Etyka zawodowa przedsiębiorców społecznych w perspektywie chrześcijańskiej etyki personalistycznej,” in Humanistyczne i społeczne aspekty biznesu i zarządzania, ed. Leszek Karczewski and Henryk A. Kretek (Opole: Oficyna Wydawnicza Politechniki Opolskiej, 2019), 97–104. Adam Zadroga, “Professional Ethics of Social Entrepreneurs: The Perspective of Christian Personalist Ethics,” Verbum Vitae 39, no. 2 (2021): 495–513, https://doi.org/10.31743/vv.11462. Adam Zadroga, “Catholic Social Teaching as a Source of Enrichment of the Moral Dimension of Social Enterprise Management,” Verbum Vitae 40, no. 4 (2022): 989–1006, https://doi.org/10.31743/vv.14380. Adam Zadroga, “Axionormative Determinants of Social Entrepreneurship in View of the Principles of Catholic Social Teaching,” The Person and the Challenges. The Journal of Theology, Education, Canon Law and Social Studies Inspired by Pope John Paul II 13, no. 1 (2023): 37–49, https://doi.org/10.15633/pch.13103.

15

16

Introduction

Another noticeable issue is that the authors of the existing, albeit not very numerous, publications who undertake research in the indicated field eagerly refer to various approaches to normative ethics (e. g. Kantian ethics, utilitarian ethics, virtue ethics, discourse ethics, postmodern ethics, ethics of care, etc.) but almost completely ignore Catholic social teaching.6 Hence, another purpose of the dissertation is to explore the axionormative potential of Catholic social teaching in terms of: (1) identifying and describing the axionormative determinants of the idea of social entrepreneurship, (2) developing moral principles for the management of a social enterprise, and (3) preparing a concept of professional ethics for social entrepreneurs.

4.

Detailed Rationale for the Theological and Moral Analysis of Social Entrepreneurship

What makes the research approach in this monograph unique is the fact that the analyses undertaken here are conducted from the point of view of the axionormative system of Catholic social teaching, which is primarily personalistic in nature. Although there is a long and rich tradition7 of conducting theological and moral scientific discourse in relation to all social issues, including economic issues, it seems that addressing social entrepreneurship from the perspective of Catholic social teaching requires more explanation and justification. To start with, it should be emphasised that one of the goals of Catholic social teaching8  – as a theological, and specifically theological and moral discipline9  – is

6 Elizabeth Chell et al., “Social Entrepreneurship and Business Ethics: Does Social Equal Ethical?,” Journal of Business Ethics 133, no. 4 (November 20, 2014): 619–25, https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551014-2439-6. 7 More in: Domènec Melé and Joan Fontrodona, “Christian Ethics and Spirituality in Leading Business Organizations: Editorial Introduction,” Journal of Business Ethics 145, no. 4 (November 1, 2017): 671–79, https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-016-3323-3. Jerzy Gocko, Ekonomia a moralność. Poszukiwania teologicznomoralne (Lublin: Redakcja Wydawnictw KUL, 1996). 8 At that point, it should be clarified that the Social Doctrine of the Church belongs to the deposit of faith and is subject to the official interpretation of the Magisterium Ecclesiae. Something slightly different, however, is Catholic Social Teaching, which is a scientific theoretical and practical reflection based on the official teaching of the Church on social matters, with the purpose of deepening and expanding it. More in: Władysław Piwowarski, “Katolicka nauka społeczna,” in Słownik katolickiej nauki społecznej, ed. Władysław Piwowarski (Warszawa: Instytut Wydawniczy PAX, 1993), 76–77. 9 This position is adopted by John Paul II in the encyclicals: Sollicitudo rei socialis, no. 41 and Centesimus annus, no. 55.

Detailed Rationale for the Theological and Moral Analysis of Social Entrepreneurship

a dialogue with every field of human knowledge.10 John Paul II, in the encyclical Centesimus annus, stated that this task stems from the conviction that “the theological dimension is needed both for interpreting and solving present-day problems in human society.”11 At the same time, the fundamental intention of that dialogue remains the desire to inspire and imbue social life with the values that result from the Gospel. In that sense, moral theology is an instrument of the evangelising mission of the Church.12 It should also be emphasised that human dignity is placed at the centre of the social teaching of the Church. Through this, the Church wants to make its contribution to “the question of man’s place in nature and in human society.”13 It is an expression of “solidarity, respect and affection for the whole human family.”14 The above is done by establishing a dialogue with humanity on fundamental problems, [bringing] to mankind light kindled from the Gospel, and [putting] at its disposal those saving resources which the Church herself, under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, receives from her Founder. For the human person deserves to be preserved; human society deserves to be renewed.15

The fulfilment of that mission is expressed by, inter alia, encouraging other scientific disciplines to open up to the values and norms presented to them by Catholic social teaching, as well as “to a broader horizon, aimed at serving the individual person who is acknowledged and loved in the fullness of his or her vocation.”16 What the Church offers to all people can be defined as an integral and solidary humanism,17 as such humanism is in line with God’s design of love towards every human being and calling all people to unity as children of one Father.18 At the same time, this approach is accompanied by the conviction that the implementation of the assumptions of humanism understood in this way will make it possible to

10 Pontifical Council for Justice and Peace, Compendium of the Social Doctrine of the Church (Città del Vaticano: Libreria Editrice Vaticana, 2004), no. 76–78. 11 John Paul II, Centesimus annus, no. 55. 12 Pontifical Council for Justice and Peace, Compendium of the Social Doctrine of the Church, no. 62–68. More in: Jerzy Gocko, Kościół obecny w świecie – posłany do świata. Teologiczno-społeczne aspekty posłannictwa Kościoła w świecie po Soborze Watykańskim II (Lublin: Wydawnictwo KUL, 2003). 13 Pontifical Council for Justice and Peace, Compendium of the Social Doctrine of the Church, no. 14. 14 Pontifical Council for Justice and Peace, Compendium of the Social Doctrine of the Church, no. 18. 15 Second Vatican Council, Pastoral Constitution on The Church in the Modern World Gaudium et spes (7 December 1965), no. 3. 16 John Paul II, Centesimus annus, no. 59. 17 Pontifical Council for Justice and Peace, Compendium of the Social Doctrine of the Church, no. 19. 18 Second Vatican Council, Dogmatic Constitution on the Church Lumen gentium (21 November 1964), no. 1.

17

18

Introduction

[create] a new social, economic and political order, founded on the dignity and freedom of every human person, to be brought about in peace, justice and solidarity. This humanism can become a reality if individual men and women and their communities are able to cultivate moral and social virtues in themselves and spread them in society. “Then, under the necessary help of divine grace, there will arise a generation of new men, the moulders of a new humanity”.19

On the other hand, the attitude of openness to interdisciplinary dialogue naturally also applies to Catholic social teaching. It can thus acquire competence, concreteness and topicality and, consequently, the Church can gain a more precise understanding of man in society, speak to the men and women of her own day in a more convincing manner and more effectively fulfil her task of incarnating in the conscience and social responsibility of our time.20

One of the areas of human knowledge in which the Church has become more interested in recent decades is social sciences. As John Paul II stated, research in the field of social sciences can effectively contribute to the improvement of relations between people … That is why the Church, constantly concerned for the true good of a man, becomes more and more interested in that field of scientific research and wants to draw from its specific guidelines to fulfil its mission of teaching based on them.21

The key premise of the Church’s openness to social sciences is the conviction that if the truth about a man and the surrounding world is sought, no area of knowledge can be excluded from that process. Thus, the Pontifical Council for Justice and Peace states that the Church recognises and receives everything that contributes to the understanding of man in the ever broader, more fluid and more complex network of his social relationships. She is aware of the fact that a profound understanding of man does not come from theology alone…22

19 Pontifical Council for Justice and Peace, Compendium of the Social Doctrine of the Church, no. 19. Cf. Second Vatican Council, Gaudium et spes, no. 30. 20 Pontifical Council for Justice and Peace, Compendium of the Social Doctrine of the Church, no. 78. 21 John Paul II, Motu Proprio Socialium scientiarum (1 January 1994). Translated by the author. 22 Pontifical Council for Justice and Peace, Compendium of the Social Doctrine of the Church, no. 78.

Research Methodology

In that context, one should also keep in mind the observations by Ireneusz Mroczkowski: The most important methodological task in the creation of ... moral theology remains the critical dialogue between faith and practical understanding of ethics, taking into account the effectiveness of God’s grace as well as the biological, psychological and social conditions of activities of a contemporary man. However, the most difficult methodological task is the defence against the reductionist approach to a man by modern human sciences, which are as suspicious of biblical moral truth as they are of the ability of ethics to develop objective values that would defend the value of a man.23

Hence, it is worth reaching for Catholic social teaching, which provides valuable principles of reflection, criteria for evaluation and guidelines for action. In view of the presented scope of competence of Catholic social teaching, it is also necessary to point out the legitimacy of undertaking theological and moral analyses of entrepreneurship. The starting point is that entrepreneurship can be read in the light of Revelation as the vocation of every human being.24 The source of that truth is the act of creation. Through that act, a man was endowed with the ability to love, free will and reason (and thus creativity as an aspect of rationality). Thus, it was God who made a man enterprising. Therefore, it can be stated that a man is entrepreneurial by nature. This is the main source of the theological and moral rationale for entrepreneurship, including social entrepreneurship.25

5.

Research Methodology

The research undertaken as part of this study is primarily conceptual and will be conducted based on the methodology characteristic of moral theology, particularly Catholic social teaching. Accordingly, the study uses the method of content analysis of academic literature on social entrepreneurship, economics, organisational and management theory, business ethics, Catholic social teaching and moral theology

23 Ireneusz Mroczkowski, Chrześcijańska tożsamość osoby. Zarys antropologii moralnoteologicznej (Płock: Płocki Instytut Wydawniczy, 2016), 5–6. Translated by the author. 24 Cf. Pontifical Council for Justice and Peace, “Vocation of the Business Leader,” November 2014, https://www.humandevelopment.va/content/dam/sviluppoumano/pubblicazioni-documenti/ archivio/economia-e-finanza/vocation-of-business-leader/Vocation_ENGLISH_4th%20edition. pdf. 25 More in: Anthony Percy, Entrepreneurship in the Catholic Tradition (Studies in Ethics and Economics) (Lanham: Lexington Books, 2010). Michael Novak, Business as a Calling: Work and the Examined Life (New York: Free Press, 1996).

19

20

Introduction

to develop the ethical concepts identified in the research objectives. Considering that the main research task is to formulate and justify the norms of economic ethics in the context of a specific form of business activity, i. e. social entrepreneurship, it will also be necessary to use the comparative method. Firstly, the methodical analysis of the content of selected publications in the field of social entrepreneurship will allow to discover: (1) constitutive values of social entrepreneurship (macro level), (2) characteristic principles of social enterprise operation (meso level), and (3) the specificity of the social entrepreneur profession (micro level). Secondly, the analysis of literature in the field of business ethics will make it possible to explore the axiological and moral issues concerning the three levels of research indicated above. Combining and comparing the results of those two stages of analysis, thanks to the author’s conceptual work, will allow for the implementation of detailed research tasks related to the axiological and normative conditions of social entrepreneurship. The research will use the text analysis method, applying it to the collected literature. In order to obtain answers to the detailed research problems, the comparative method will also be necessary to show the axiological links between Catholic social teaching and the values that determine the effective implementation of the idea of social entrepreneurship. The descriptive method will be necessary to characterise the key concepts related to the subject matter of the study. Meanwhile, the method of synthesis will be essential in drawing important conclusions and developing the concepts of morally responsible social enterprise management and professional ethics for social entrepreneurs. The following categories of research material will be used at the analysis stage: literature necessary to characterise social entrepreneurship, theological sources (the Bible, patristic literature, documents of the Ecclesiastical Magisterium), theological studies, and auxiliary literature. The results of the content analysis of the methodically selected literature will be subjected to conceptual assessment to develop a design of professional ethics for social entrepreneurs in an original way – that is, from the point of view of Catholic social teaching. The concept of the moral dimension of social enterprise management will be developed in a similar way. In turn, the meta-theoretical reflection on the axiological conditions of social entrepreneurship will make it possible to define and describe in detail the constitutive values of this idea.

6.

Specific Study Objectives

In light of the above, the selection of publications (research material) for analysis was made according to the criterion of substantive relevance for the implementation of the following research tasks (in the following order):

Specific Study Objectives

1) Discussion of the concept of social entrepreneurship as the subject matter of the research and description of the phenomenon (nature) of social entrepreneurship. 2) Characterisation of the axionormative criteria drawn from Catholic social teaching. Demonstration of the nature and importance of the principles of Catholic social teaching and fundamental values, especially in the process of creating a moral conception of broadly-understood socio-economic order, including the axionormative foundations of social entrepreneurship. 3) At the macro level (ideological, systemic) – identification, definition and description of the axionormative conditions of social entrepreneurship. This research stage will focus on exploring the axionormative background of social entrepreneurship; therefore, it will be necessary to refer to the literature on economics, economic philosophy, axiology and Catholic social teaching. 4) At the meso level (organisational, managerial) – development of a concept of ethical principles in the social enterprise management process. This stage of the research will concern the moral dimension of the functioning of a social enterprise. The investigation and analysis in this area will cover the literature in the field of management sciences, particularly relevant publications on the specificity of managing a social enterprise. 5) At the micro level (individual, professional) – development of a concept of professional ethics for a social entrepreneur. At this stage of the research process, the author will focus on the analysis of the individual dimension of social entrepreneurship, i. e. on the normative determinants of the conduct of a social entrepreneur. At this point, it will be necessary to perform a scientific query focused on the characteristics and competence of a social entrepreneur, as well as to consider the issue of professional ethics in general and the question of what moral virtues and codes of ethics are in that context. The publications in the field of social entrepreneurship, business ethics, business psychology, moral theology and Catholic social teaching will be useful here. It should be emphasised that the logic of the above-mentioned stages of the research procedure corresponds to the methodological assumptions characteristic of Catholic social teaching. Finally, the collected research material will be analysed in terms of specific research objectives, and then, it will be organised based on the principles of logical and coherent outcome. Ultimately, this will allow the author to develop a compact synthesis presenting the achieved theoretical results in the form of a monograph.

21

22

Introduction

7.

Description of the Monograph Content Layout

The stages of the research procedure described above had a direct impact on the layout (structure) of the content of the monograph. The study consists of five chapters, which are separate thematic sections. At the end of each chapter, the most relevant conclusions are presented as the results of the conducted analysis and discussion. The first chapter is meta-scientific research on the identity of social entrepreneurship. Firstly, a discussion on the definitions is conducted. Next, social entrepreneurship as a field of practice and policy is described. Then, the main lines of research on social entrepreneurship are discussed. Finally, theoretical contexts as possibilities for further research are presented, and the most important academic schools of thought on social entrepreneurship are discussed. The second chapter presents an overview of the fundamental axionormative assumptions of Catholic social teaching. The nature and relevance of the principles of Catholic social teaching and core values are analysed and discussed here. Those principles and values, as universal axionormative criteria, can be used to make a significant contribution to the creation of a moral concept of the broadlyunderstood socio-economic order. Thus, they can also be the point of reference for axionormative research in the field of social entrepreneurship. The subsequent chapters contain a detailed discussion on the possibility of using the axionormative potential of Catholic social teaching to describe the key values and principles constituting social entrepreneurship (the third chapter), as well as to develop the concept of the moral dimension of social enterprise management (the fourth chapter) and the professional ethics of social entrepreneurs (the fifth chapter).

I.

Social Entrepreneurship as a Phenomenon and Research Field – a Brief Overview

In the modern day, in an era of rapid and multidimensional civilisational change, challenges are emerging that require new theoretical concepts and practical solutions. This includes the need for innovative approaches to the economy, politics and all social issues. One of the concepts for fostering social and economic development is to disseminate the idea of social entrepreneurship. This idea, although it has its historical foundations, has received renewed interest from academics, practitioners, governments and the public in the last few decades. In recent years, there have been many initiatives, both on a practical and academic level, to analyse and understand “social entrepreneurship” and “social enterprises”.1 Even if these initiatives partly refer to different practices or theoretical concepts, they are all – essentially – about community engagement combined with entrepreneurial action.2 In this way, social entrepreneurship as a distinct field has expanded the concept of entrepreneurship by including (and in some cases emphasising) the “social dimension” of entrepreneurial ventures.3 In practice, this means first and foremost pursuing a social mission and generating social value through commercial means. It is currently difficult to make holistic judgements about social entrepreneurship. Nonetheless, in this initial chapter – before jumping into a detailed discussion on its axionormative determinants – it is worth to present a brief overview of social

1 An excellent text on this subject was written by Marzena Starnawska and Agnieszka Brzozowska, “Editorial Paper. Social Entrepreneurship and Social Enterprise Phenomenon: Antecedents, Processes, Impact across Cultures and Contexts,” Journal of Entrepreneurship, Management and Innovation 14, no. 2 (2018): 3–18, https://doi.org/10.7341/20181421. Mirvis has recently published a valuable article on the debate on the definition of social entrepreneurship: Jonathan Mirvis, “The Diverse Definitions of Social Entrepreneurship: The Underlying Issues,” International Journal of Science, Engineering and Management 9, no. 10 (October 18, 2022): 45–54, https://doi.org/10.36647/ijsem/09.10.a011. Much valuable insight into the essential aspects of social entrepreneurship is provided by Anders Lundström and Chunyan Zhou, “Introduction,” in Social Entrepreneurship. Leveraging Economic, Political, and Cultural Dimensions, ed. Anders Lundström et al., vol. 29 (Cham: Springer, 2013), 3–22. I have drawn extensively on all the three publications to prepare this chapter. 2 Malin Gawell, “Soci(et)al Entrepreneurship and Different Forms of Social Enterprise,” in Social Entrepreneurship. Leveraging Economic, Political, and Cultural Dimensions, ed. Anders Lundström, Chunyan Zhou, and Yvonne Von Friedrichs, vol. 29 (Cham: Springer, 2013), 24. 3 Lundström and Zhou, “Introduction,” 4.

24

Social Entrepreneurship as a Phenomenon and Research Field – a Brief Overview

entrepreneurship as an area of practice and research. However, it is important to start with the discussion surrounding the definition of social entrepreneurship.

1.

Definition of Social Entrepreneurship

Guo and Bielefeld point out that the term social entrepreneurship was first used in the literature as early as the 1960s,4 but it was not until the 1980s that the term began to be widely used, thanks to Bill Drayton5 (a founder of Ashoka6 and pioneer in the field of social entrepreneurship).7 The term is now widely used in public discourses and has found interest among policymakers, corporations, the media and various groups of practitioners and specialists.8 Despite the undeniable increase in attention to social entrepreneurship over the past few decades, researchers have yet to reach a consensus on the definition of this concept. For example, the terms “social entrepreneurship” and “social enterprise” are sometimes used interchangeably, giving rise to confusion.9 Research into the literature has confirmed that there is a variety of definitions of social entrepreneurship.10 Mair, Robinson and Hockertshighlight the diversity of definitions among all fifteen authors of the book on social entrepreneurship edited by them.11 Similarly,

4 Meanwhile, Mirvis notes (see: “The Diverse Definitions of Social Entrepreneurship: The Underlying Issues,” 46) that the term social entrepreneurship was “coined” in 1972 by British sociologist Joseph Banks − see: Joseph Ambrose Banks, The Sociology of Social Movements (New York: Macmillan Publishers, 1972) and also Peter F. Drucker, The Practice of Management (New York: Macmillan Publishers, 1975). 5 “Innowator społeczny o swojej ciągłej ciekawości,” accessed February 27, 2023, https://www.ashoka. org/pl-pl/story/innowator-spo%C5%82eczny-o-swojej-ci%C4%85g%C5%82ej-ciekawo%C5%9Bci. 6 “Ashoka,” Ashoka | Everyone a Changemaker, accessed February 27, 2023, https://www.ashoka. org/en-nl. 7 Chao Guo and Wolfgang Bielefeld, Social Entrepreneurship: An Evidence-Based Approach to Creating Social Value (Bryson Series in Public and Nonprofit Management) (San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, A Wiley Brand, 2014), 3. 8 Starnawska and Brzozowska, “Editorial Paper. Social Entrepreneurship and Social Enterprise Phenomenon: Antecedents, Processes, Impact across Cultures and Contexts,” 3. 9 Guo and Bielefeld, Social Entrepreneurship: An Evidence-Based Approach to Creating Social Value, 3. 10 Mirvis, “The Diverse Definitions of Social Entrepreneurship: The Underlying Issues,” 45–54. Jacques Defourny and Marthe Nyssens, “Conceptions of Social Enterprise and Social Entrepreneurship in Europe and the United States: Convergences and Divergences,” Journal of Social Entrepreneurship 1, no. 1 (March 2010): 32–53, https://doi.org/10.1080/19420670903442053. 11 Johanna Mair, Jeffrey Robinson, and Kai Hockerts, Social Entrepreneurship (London: Palgrave Macmillan, 2006).

Definition of Social Entrepreneurship

Dacin, Dacin and Matear list as many as 37 definitions, which confirms the lack of agreement.12 According to Mirvis, this lack of consensus in definitions arises from the fact that, as a new field that requires a multidisciplinary approach, it has attracted researchers from many fields. This has led individual scholars to undertake research from the perspective of their primary disciplines.13 Lundström and Zhou argue that the proposals made so far have placed considerable emphasis on understanding the nature and limits of social entrepreneurship while attempting to distinguish it from commercial entrepreneurship.14 Trivedi, on the other hand, notes that efforts to define the concept have conceptualised it in terms of the characteristics of the social entrepreneur, the processes of social entrepreneurship, and the outcomes that social entrepreneurship generates: from purely social to socio-economic ones.15 Guo and Bielefeld state that, the wide variety of existing definitions can be roughly categorised as broad and narrow. A narrow definition of social entrepreneurship refers mainly to earned-income strategies for non-profit organisations, or what Dees and Anderson call the “social enterprise” school of thought. (…) A broad definition of social entrepreneurship tends to include all types of innovation, social-value-creating activities that occur within or across sectors, or what Dees and Anderson call the “social innovation” school of thought, which sees social entrepreneurs as people who attempt to solve societal problems and meet its needs in a novel way.16

Mirvis provides a valuable analysis of the different approaches to defining social entrepreneurship.17 First, he argues that it is worth noting that the purpose of

12 Peter A. Dacin, M. Tina Dacin, and Margaret Matear, “Social Entrepreneurship: Why We Don’t Need a New Theory and How We Move Forward from Here,” Academy of Management Perspectives 24, no. 3 (August 1, 2010): 37–57, https://doi.org/10.5465/amp.2010.52842950. 13 Mirvis, “The Diverse Definitions of Social Entrepreneurship: The Underlying Issues.” 14 Lundström and Zhou, “Introduction,” 7. 15 Chitvan Trivedi, “Towards a Social Ecological Framework for Social Entrepreneurship,” The Journal of Entrepreneurship 19, no. 1 (January 2010): 63–80, https://doi.org/10.1177/097135570901900104. 16 Guo and Bielefeld, Social Entrepreneurship: An Evidence-Based Approach to Creating Social Value (Bryson Series in Public and Nonprofit Management), 3,6−7. See also: James Gregory Dees and Beth Battle Anderson, “Framing a Theory of Social Entrepreneurship: Building on Two Schools of Practice and Thought,” in Research on Social Entrepreneurship: Understanding and Contributing to an Emerging Field, vol. 1(3) (Indianapolis: Association for Research on Nonprofit Organizations and Voluntary Action (ARNOVA), 2006), 39–66, https://centers.fuqua.duke.edu/case/wp-content/ uploads/sites/7/2015/02/BookChapter_Dees_FramingTheoryofSE_2006.pdf. 17 Mirvis, “The Diverse Definitions of Social Entrepreneurship: The Underlying Issues,” 47.

25

26

Social Entrepreneurship as a Phenomenon and Research Field – a Brief Overview

social entrepreneurship has been understood in many different ways. According to Boschee and McClurg, it is “to generate revenue in support of its charitable mission”.18 For other authors, the objective is the creation of social value19 or social change.20 Second, different perspectives on how to achieve the aforementioned goals can be observed. Austin, Stevenson and Wei–Skillernpoint to the importance of “an innovative, social value-creating activity”.21 Mair and Martí call for the “innovative use and combination of resources”.22 Kramer mentions “new ideas, methodologies, and changes in attitude”.23 Robinson, on the other hand, calls for “the creation of a social mission-oriented for-profit or a business-oriented non-profit entity”.24 Still other authors, such as Martin and Osberg, focus on the need for identifying an opportunity, followed by “forging a new, stable equilibrium” and “the creation of a stable ecosystem around the new equilibrium”.25 Third, the approaches of the different authors to the question of in which sector social entrepreneurship should be (is) implemented are not uniform. Boschee and McClurg argue that this only applies to the non-profit sector,26 while Kramer

18 Jerr Boschee and Jim McClurg, “Towards a Better Understanding of Social Entrepreneurship: Some Important Distinction - Term Paper,” 2003, 3, accessed February 27, 2023, https://www. termpaperwarehouse.com/essay-on/Towards-A-Better-Understanding-Of-Social/92212. 19 James E. Austin, Howard H. Stevenson, and Jane Wei-Skillern, “Social and Commercial Entrepreneurship: Same, Different, or Both?,” Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice 30, no. 1 (January 1, 2006): 2, https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-6520.2006.00107.x. 20 Mark R. Kramer, “Measuring Innovation: Evaluation in the Field of Social Entrepreneurship” (San Francisco, CA, United States of America: Foundation Strategy Group, April 2005), 6, accessed February 27, 2023, https://community-wealth.org/sites/clone.community-wealth.org/files/downloads/ report-kramer.pdf. Mair and Johanna Mair and Ignasi Martí, “Social Entrepreneurship Research: A Source of Explanation, Prediction, and Delight,” Journal of World Business 41, no. 1 (February 2006): 37, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jwb.2005.09.002. 21 Austin, Stevenson, and Wei–Skillern, “Social and Commercial Entrepreneurship: Same, Different, or Both?,” 2. 22 Mair and Martí, “Social Entrepreneurship Research: A Source of Explanation, Prediction, and Delight,” 37. 23 Kramer, “Measuring Innovation: Evaluation in the Field of Social Entrepreneurship,” 6. 24 Jeffrey Robinson, “Navigating Social and Institutional Barriers to Markets: How Social Entrepreneurs Identify and Evaluate Opportunities,” in Social Entrepreneurship, ed. Johanna Mair, Jeffrey Robinson, and Kai Hockerts (London, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland: Palgrave Macmillan, 2006), 95, https://doi.org/10.1057/9780230625655_7. 25 Roger L. Martin and Sally Osberg, “Social Entrepreneurship: The Case for Definition,” Stanford Social Innovation Review, season-01 2007, 35, http://web.mit.edu/sloan2/dese/readings/week01/ Martin_Osberg_SocialEntrepreneurship.pdf. 26 Boschee and McClurg, “Towards a Better Understanding of Social Entrepreneurship: Some Important Distinction - Term Paper,” 3.

Social Entrepreneurship as a Field of Practice and Policy

and Robinson also take the for-profit sector into account.27 In contrast, Austin, Stevenson and Wei–Skillern (in addition to the two sectors already mentioned) also consider the government sector.28 A similar approach seems to be shared by Mair and Martí,29 as well as Martin and Osberg.30 Fourth, there is no consensus among authors on who is responsible for making the concept of social entrepreneurship a reality. Bornstein writes about individuals and groups of individuals who want to “change the world” using the idea of social entrepreneurship.31 Martin and Osberg also narrow down social entrepreneurship to a few outstanding individuals who are able to change the balance.32 In contrast, Robinson and Kramer look at the issue more broadly, as they also take into account those who set up organisations.33 Boschee and McClurg, Austin et al., as well as Mair and Martí adopt a far more inclusive approach.34 Taking the above analyses into account, for the purposes of this book, I define social entrepreneurship as the pursuit of social goals (involving the creation of social value or the making of social change) by individuals or groups of individuals through innovative activity (based on new ideas, methods and attitudes) within a social mission-oriented for-profit or business-oriented non-profit entity by generating income to support its social mission.

2.

Social Entrepreneurship as a Field of Practice and Policy

Social entrepreneurship as a field of practice developed much earlier than its academic equivalent. Over the past few centuries, prominent individuals and groups 27 Kramer, “Measuring Innovation: Evaluation in the Field of Social Entrepreneurship,” 6. Robinson, “Navigating Social and Institutional Barriers to Markets: How Social Entrepreneurs Identify and Evaluate Opportunities,” 95. 28 Austin, Stevenson, and Wei–Skillern, “Social and Commercial Entrepreneurship: Same, Different, or Both?,” 2. 29 Mair and Martí, “Social Entrepreneurship Research: A Source of Explanation, Prediction, and Delight,” 37. 30 Martin and Osberg, “Social Entrepreneurship: The Case for Definition,” 35. 31 David Bornstein, How to Change the World: Social Entrepreneurs and the Power of New Ideas (New York: Oxford University Press, 2004). 32 Martin and Osberg, “Social Entrepreneurship: The Case for Definition,” 35. 33 Kramer, “Measuring Innovation: Evaluation in the Field of Social Entrepreneurship,” 6. Robinson, “Navigating Social and Institutional Barriers to Markets: How Social Entrepreneurs Identify and Evaluate Opportunities,” 95. 34 Boschee and McClurg, “Towards a Better Understanding of Social Entrepreneurship: Some Important Distinction - Term Paper,” 3. Austin, Stevenson, and Wei–Skillern, “Social and Commercial Entrepreneurship: Same, Different, or Both?,” 2. Mair and Martí, “Social Entrepreneurship Research: A Source of Explanation, Prediction, and Delight,” 37.

27

28

Social Entrepreneurship as a Phenomenon and Research Field – a Brief Overview

have attempted to respond to social challenges, both locally and beyond, using economic resources. Among others, the Rochdale activists who inspired the ideals of co-operatives in the 19th century can be considered pioneers in this field.35 However, many other social initiative endeavours can be traced back to earlier, medieval or even ancient times. In most Western European countries, social sector organisations such as NPOs, cooperatives and mutual societies had already played a significant role long before the Second World War. In the late 1960s and 1970s, calls for increased democracy and equality in all spheres of life led to the flourishing of civic society movements centred around major social concerns.36 Today, social entrepreneurship is a set of practices widely recognised around the world, which has become an important alternative to the inability of governments and businesses to address pressing social problems, including poverty, social exclusion and environmental issues.37 2.1

The Practice of Social Entrepreneurship

With a view to systematising social entrepreneurship in its practical dimension, it is possible to identify five key areas of activity (after Mirvis):38 1) Providing goods and services to disadvantaged communities at below-market prices (this includes health, education, legal and financial services).39 2) Providing employment opportunities for people who cannot find employment on the open labour market. This applies to two groups of people: a. The first group includes people with the necessary professional competences but who are discriminated against by potential employers due to prejudice

35 In 1844, a group of weavers founded a consumers’ co-operative in Rochdale (a town in north-west England), whose principles became a model for the international co-operative movement. “Rochdale, Encyklopedia PWN: źródło wiarygodnej i rzetelnej wiedzy,” in PWN, accessed February 27, 2023, https://encyklopedia.pwn.pl/haslo/;3968198. 36 Lundström and Zhou, “Introduction,” 6. Defourny and Nyssens, “Conceptions of Social Enterprise and Social Entrepreneurship in Europe and the United States: Convergences and Divergences.” 37 Starnawska and Brzozowska, “Editorial Paper. Social Entrepreneurship and Social Enterprise Phenomenon: Antecedents, Processes, Impact across Cultures and Contexts,” 4. 38 Mirvis, “The Diverse Definitions of Social Entrepreneurship: The Underlying Issues,” 48–49. 39 A well-known example of the latter is the Grameen Bank, founded by Muhammad Yunus in Bangladesh in 1976. This profit-driven bank provided loans to millions of citizens who were excluded from the traditional banking system. The bank operated as a for-profit entity and relied on the generated income. See: David Bornstein, “The Barefoot Bank with Cheek,” The Atlantic Monthly 276, no. 6 (December 1995): 40–47, https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/1995/12/thebarefoot-bank-with-cheek/305324/. Mirvis, “The Diverse Definitions of Social Entrepreneurship: The Underlying Issues,” 48.

Social Entrepreneurship as a Field of Practice and Policy

or stereotypes. This primarily concerns paroled prisoners, individuals with severe physical disabilities or other so-called disadvantaged groups (longterm unemployed, homeless, migrants, etc.).40 b. The second group includes low-skilled workers who are at an existential and social disadvantage and thus require training and support to become employed.41 3) Offering support and training for business ventures undertaken by people in poverty-stricken areas. The context for action in this area is when a commercial venture has the potential to succeed but fails to realise it due to a lack of entrepreneurial training or a lack of access to support networks, funding and markets. Therefore, to ensure that such an enterprise can reach its full potential, some social enterprises have access to funders and markets and provide the necessary support.42 4) Pursuing environmental protection and conservation. With the increase in pollution and other environmental threats, some social enterprises focus on protecting the natural assets of our planet. For this reason, they take initiatives to use clean energy and fuels, recycle waste and use degradable raw materials

40 An example is Greyston Bakery, founded in 1982 by Bernie Glassman in Yonkers, New York. Greyston’s open employment policy has provided employment for thousands of long-term unemployed people over the past few decades. See more: Michael Pirson and Reut Livne-Tarandach, “Restoring Dignity with Open Hiring- Greyston Bakery and the Recognition of Value,” SSRN Electronic Journal, 2020, https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3563835. Mirvis, “The Diverse Definitions of Social Entrepreneurship: The Underlying Issues,” 48. 41 One of the social enterprises that serves this group is Cara, founded by Tom Owens in 1991 in Chicago. Cara operates a limited liability subsidiary, Cleanslate, which provides maintenance services (litter removal, landscaping and snow removal) and employs homeless people. Employees receive a programme of training and support to meet the requirements of their employment. This social enterprise provides jobs for around 1,000 workers annually who would otherwise remain outside the labour market. See more: Erynn Beaton and Elena Dowin Kennedy, “Responding to Failure: The Promise of Market Mending for Social Enterprise,” Public Management Review 23, no. 5 (January 3, 2021): 641–64, https://doi.org/10.1080/14719037.2020.1865438. Mirvis, “The Diverse Definitions of Social Entrepreneurship: The Underlying Issues,” 48. 42 Matr Boomie is one of such examples. In 2006, Manish Gupta and his wife Ruchi Agrawal founded Matr Boomie, a fair trade and social responsibility company, with a mission to revitalise communities in India. The company successfully supports more than 20,000 artisans in 40 communities in India, connecting them with 1,500 sellers in North America, Europe, Australia and Asia who market their unique handcrafted products. Without Matr Boomie’s intervention, these artisans and their families would possibly still be poor. See more: Manish Gupta, “Bridging the Gap: Manish Gupta and Matr Boomie Connect Indian Artisans with Western Consumers,” interview by Cory Ames, ed. Grow Ensemble, May 28, 2019, accessed February 27, 2023, https://www.listennotes.com/podcasts/ the-social/24-bridging-the-gap-manish-vIhPcTZR8Az/. Mirvis, “The Diverse Definitions of Social Entrepreneurship: The Underlying Issues,” 48−49.

29

30

Social Entrepreneurship as a Phenomenon and Research Field – a Brief Overview

in their production processes. These social enterprises, committed to environmental protection and additionally addressing social issues, are referred to as “triple-bottom-line” organisations.43 5) Developing a for-profit enterprise with the aim of using profits to support socially beneficial projects.44 2.2

Social Entrepreneurship Policy and Institutionalisation

Social entrepreneurs receive extensive institutional support. To this end, major networks and organisations have been established that work for the development of social entrepreneurship. These include the Schwab Foundation for Social Entrepreneurship,45 Skoll Foundation,46 Impact Economy Foundation,47 School for Social Entrepreneurs,48 Canadian Social Entrepreneurship Foundation,49 and Agastya International Foundation.50 Of particular significance was the founding of the Ashoka51 organisation by Bill Drayton in 1980 in Arlington, USA. For example, one of its programmes, “Innovators for the Public”, focuses more on specific individuals or “public entrepreneurs” capable of social innovation in various fields than on the forms of organisations 43 Beaton and Dowin Kennedy, “Responding to Failure: The Promise of Market Mending for Social Enterprise.” Mirvis, “The Diverse Definitions of Social Entrepreneurship: The Underlying Issues.” An example of a high-impact triple-bottom-line enterprise is Solar Sister, founded by Katherine Lucey in 2010. Solar Sister provides solar lanterns with clean energy to villages in Uganda, Tanzania and Nigeria that have no electricity. The lanterns are sold by enterprising women to local villagers. Solar Sister has benefited from the support of over 700,000 people and provided livelihoods for over 2,500 entrepreneurs. See more: Leslie Gray, Alaina Boyle, and Victoria Yu, “Turning on the Lights: Transcending Energy Poverty Through the Power of Women Entrepreneurs” (Santa Clara University’s Miller Center for Social Entrepreneurship, 2017), accessed February 27, 2023, https://www.millersocent.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/01/Turning-on-the-Lights-MillerCenter.FINAL_.03301712.pdf. Mirvis, “The Diverse Definitions of Social Entrepreneurship: The Underlying Issues,” 49. 44 An example is Newman’s Own, founded by Paul Newman in 1982. Newman’s Own donates all of its profits to charity, and since its inception it has given USD 550 million to thousands of charities. See more: Newman’s Own Foundation Partnership, “Our Mission | Newman’s Own Foundation,” October 19, 2022, https://newmansown.org/mission/. Mirvis, “The Diverse Definitions of Social Entrepreneurship: The Underlying Issues,” 49. 45 “Schwab Foundation for Social Entrepreneurship,” accessed February 27, 2023, https://www.schwabfound.org/our-vision-mission. 46 “Skoll Foundation,” January 18, 2023, accessed February 27, 2023, https://skoll.org/. 47 “Impact Economy Foundation,” accessed February 28, 2023, https://www.impactinstitute.com/. 48 “School for Social Entrepreneurs,” accessed February 28, 2023, https://www.the-sse.org/. 49 “Canadian Social Entrepreneurship Foundation,” accessed February 28, 2023, https://www.csef.ca/. 50 “Agastya International Foundation,” accessed February 28, 2023, https://www.agastya.org/. 51 “Ashoka.”

Social Entrepreneurship as a Field of Practice and Policy

they could set up.52 What is more, Ashoka seeks out high-performing social entrepreneurs around the world and provides them with financial and professional support, expecting these outstanding individuals to increase their impact.53 In 2006, Muhammad Yunus and the Grameen Bank of Bangladesh were awarded the Nobel Prize for their extraordinary efforts to promote economic and social development in the poorest sections of society. This has certainly had an impact on increasing the interest in social entrepreneurship.54 In Italy, the concept of “social enterprise” (as such) seems to have had its first real impact when it was promoted in 1990 by the Impresa Sociale magazine. The term was originally used to describe the pioneering initiatives that led the Italian Parliament to introduce the legal form of “social cooperative” a year later.55 Also in France, Portugal, Spain and Greece, new legal forms of cooperative association have been introduced, while other countries such as Belgium and the UK have opted for more open social enterprise models (not only inspired by the cooperative tradition). Meanwhile, in the USA, it is foundations that play a central role in the social sector.56 Chitvan Trivedi argues that the UK was the first country in the world to recognise the economic and social importance of the social sector by establishing the “third sector.” The sector includes groups of volunteers, local communities, social enterprises, charities, cooperatives and mutual societies, all of which share the common characteristic of being non-governmental and value-driven, and generally reinvest any financial surpluses to further social, environmental or cultural goals.57

52 Lundström and Zhou, “Introduction,” 7. 53 Mirvis, “The Diverse Definitions of Social Entrepreneurship: The Underlying Issues,” 45. David Bornstein, “Changing the World on a Shoestring,” The Atlantic Monthly 281, no. 1 (1998): 34–39, https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/1998/01/changing-the-world-on-ashoestring/377042/. Bornstein, How to Change the World: Social Entrepreneurs and the Power of New Ideas. 54 Mirvis, “The Diverse Definitions of Social Entrepreneurship: The Underlying Issues,” 45. “The Grameen Bank, which dates back to 1976 and was transformed into an independent bank by government legislation in October 1983, is a microfinance organisation and community development bank that offers small loans (microcredit or ‘grameencredit’) to the very poor without requiring collateral. It is one of social entrepreneurship’s most important and typical practices—the archetypal social business. Its low-cost housing programme won a World Habitat Award in 1998.” (Lundström and Zhou, “Introduction,” 6). 55 Lundström and Zhou, “Introduction,” 6–7. Defourny and Nyssens, “Conceptions of Social Enterprise and Social Entrepreneurship in Europe and the United States: Convergences and Divergences.” 56 Lundström and Zhou, “Introduction,” 6. Defourny and Nyssens, “Conceptions of Social Enterprise and Social Entrepreneurship in Europe and the United States: Convergences and Divergences.” 57 Trivedi, “Towards a Social Ecological Framework for Social Entrepreneurship.” Lundström and Zhou, “Introduction,” 7.

31

32

Social Entrepreneurship as a Phenomenon and Research Field – a Brief Overview

The UK Government established the Office for Civil Society58 , today known as the Civil Society and Youth Directorate59 , which is responsible for coordinating cross-sector activity to ensure support for the thriving third sector, enabling the sector to campaign for social change, delivering public services, promoting social enterprises, and strengthening communities.60 In Poland, the Department of Social and Solidarity Economy plays a similar role.61 The USA set up the Office of Social Innovation and Civic Participation, which operates the Social Innovation Fund. It is tasked with identifying and reproducing high-impact result-oriented social organisations that solve the country’s most difficult social problems.62

3.

Social Entrepreneurship as a Field of Research

In addition to describing the practical aspect of social entrepreneurship, there is a need for a detailed examination and structuring of the theoretical (intellectual) exploration of this field of research. As a field of research, social entrepreneurship has received considerable attention from academics across a variety of disciplines for more than three decades now. There has been a particularly significant increase in scholarly output through research in the fields of management and entrepreneurship. Furthermore, scholars from other academic perspectives, such as economics, finance, marketing, political science, sociology and several other disciplines, have also found social entrepreneurship to be an exciting field of research.63 Nevertheless, a review of the literature on the subject allows for the conclusion that there is a research gap prompting axionormative analyses of social entrepreneurship, which is the aim of this monograph. As already mentioned above, the academic origins of social entrepreneurship as a discipline can be traced back to the British sociologist Joseph Banks, who not 58 “Office for Civil Society,” accessed February 28, 2023, https://www.civilsociety.co.uk/. 59 “Civil Society and Youth Directorate,” January 18, 2021, accessed February 28, 2023, https://www. gov.uk/government/organisations/office-for-civil-society. 60 Lundström and Zhou, “Introduction,” 7. 61 “Department of Social and Solidarity Economy,” accessed February 28, 2023, https://www.ekonomiaspoleczna.gov.pl. 62 “Office of Social Innovation and Civic Participation,” accessed February 28, 2023, https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/administration/eop/sicp. Lundström and Zhou, “Introduction,” 7. Trivedi, “Towards a Social Ecological Framework for Social Entrepreneurship.” 63 Starnawska and Brzozowska, “Editorial Paper. Social Entrepreneurship and Social Enterprise Phenomenon: Antecedents, Processes, Impact across Cultures and Contexts,” 3.

Social Entrepreneurship as a Field of Research

only coined the term “social entrepreneurship” in 1972 but also emphasised that managerial skills could be used to solve social problems.64 From then on, according to Mirvis,65 it is worth noting the following publications that were relevant to the development of research on social entrepreneurship. In 1986, Young discussed the role of entrepreneurs in the non-profit sector.66 In 1991, Waddock and Post showed that the various instances of social entrepreneurship involve a synthesis of commercial and social logic.67 In 1998, Dees published one of the most cited articles on social entrepreneurship to date, in which he traced the roots of the field to commercial entrepreneurship, explained the differences between the two types of entrepreneurship and outlined the key characteristics of a social entrepreneur.68 Also in the 1990s, Bornstein’s articles on the Grameen Bank and Ashoka reinforced academic interest in social entrepreneurship.69 The last three decades have seen a rapid increase in research on social entrepreneurship, and the topics of discussion and their impact have expanded significantly, as shown by numerous reviews of the literature.70 For example, in their review of articles published in major journals and databases, Moss, Lumpkin and Short show an increase from 1 to 45 in the number of papers published per year between 1990 and 2010.71 An article published in 2019 by Saebi, Foss and Linder

64 Banks, The Sociology of Social Movements; Drucker, The Practice of Management. See also: Mirvis, “The Diverse Definitions of Social Entrepreneurship: The Underlying Issues,” 46. Alex Nicholls, “Introduction,” in Social Entrepreneurship: New Models of Sustainable Social Change, ed. Alex Nicholls (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2006), 1–35. 65 Mirvis, “The Diverse Definitions of Social Entrepreneurship: The Underlying Issues,” 46. 66 Dennis R. Young, “Entrepreneurship and the Behaviour of Nonprofit Organisations: Elements of a Theory,” in The Economics of Nonprofit Institutions: Studies in Structure and Policy, ed. Susan Rose-Ackerman (New York, United States of America: Oxford University Press, 1986), 161–84. 67 Sandra A. Waddock and James E. Post, “Social Entrepreneurs and Catalytic Change,” Public Administration Review 51, no. 5 (September 1991): 393–401, https://doi.org/10.2307/976408. 68 James Gregory Dees, “The Meaning of ‘Social Entrepreneurship,’” October 31, 1998, accessed February 28, 2023, https://centers.fuqua.duke.edu/case/wp-content/uploads/sites/7/2015/03/Article_Dees_MeaningofSocialEntrepreneurship_2001.pdf. 69 Bornstein, “The Barefoot Bank with Cheek.” Bornstein, “Changing the World on a Shoestring.” Later, Bornstein published a book entitled How to Change the World: Social Entrepreneurs and the Power of New Ideas. 70 See for example: Anne Pierre, Yvonne Von Friedrichs, and Joakim Wincent, “A Review of Social Entrepreneurship Research,” in Social Entrepreneurship. Leveraging Economic, Political, and Cultural Dimensions, ed. Anders Lundström et al. (Cham: Springe, 2013), 43–69, https://doi.org/10.1007/ 978-3-319-01396-1_3. 71 Todd W. Moss, George T. Lumpkin, and Jeremy C. Short, “Social Entrepreneurship: A Historical Review and Research Agenda,” in Historical Foundations of Entrepreneurship Research, ed. Hans Landström and Franz T. Lohrke (Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing Ltd., 2010), 318–40, https:// doi.org/10.4337/9781849806947.00025. Starnawska and Brzozowska, “Editorial Paper. Social En-

33

34

Social Entrepreneurship as a Phenomenon and Research Field – a Brief Overview

also reflects the increase in research in this field. The authors identified 395 peerreviewed articles on social entrepreneurship to serve as the basis for their analysis. As a result, they 1) identify gaps in social entrepreneurship research on three levels of analysis (i. e. individual, organisational and institutional), 2) offer an integrative multi-stage, multi-level framework, and 3) discuss promising avenues for further research on social entrepreneurship.72 The dynamic rise in the number of publications in the field of social entrepreneurship has certainly resulted, among other things, from the emergence of academic journals dedicated to research on social entrepreneurship, such as the Journal of Social Enterprise (established in 2005), the Journal of Social Entrepreneurship (2010) and the International Journal of Social Entrepreneurship (2011).73 Looking from the qualitative perspective, Lundström and Zhou note that most empirical studies focus on summarising experiences and opinions related to the field of social entrepreneurship or on addressing conceptual issues in order to identify the main features of the academic field, rather than the real-life factors that determine it. Therefore, they conclude that more robust qualitative empirical work is needed.74 In addition, the aforementioned researchers present a list of keywords that they identify as the most commonly used in the literature. They include: social and societal entrepreneurship, social innovation, corporate social entrepreneurship, social entrepreneur, corporate social entrepreneur, corporate social responsibility (CSR), social enterprise, social business, socially embedded initiatives, social venture capital, social sector, NPO, social value creation, social mission, social goal (or social objective), social outcome, social performance, social impact, triple bottom line (and double bottom line), shared value, blended value, and so on.75

University centres for social entrepreneurship, including at Oxford, Harvard and Cambridge, became another significant environment for the dissemination of the

72

73 74 75

trepreneurship and Social Enterprise Phenomenon: Antecedents, Processes, Impact across Cultures and Contexts,” 4. Tina Saebi, Nicolai J. Foss, and Stefan Linder, “Social Entrepreneurship Research: Past Achievements and Future Promises,” Journal of Management 45, no. 1 (August 14, 2018): 70–95, https://doi. org/10.1177/0149206318793196. Mirvis, “The Diverse Definitions of Social Entrepreneurship: The Underlying Issues,” 46. Mirvis, “The Diverse Definitions of Social Entrepreneurship: The Underlying Issues,” 46. Lundström and Zhou, “Introduction,” 8. Lundström and Zhou, “Introduction,” 8.

Theoretical Contexts as Research Opportunities for Social Entrepreneurship

discipline (through courses, textbooks, journals and conferences).76 At Harvard Business School, for example, the first academic social entrepreneurship course, entitled “Entrepreneurship in the Social Sector,” was proposed by Dees as early as the mid-1990s. Subsequently, similar courses started to be offered at Stanford, Columbia and Berkeley.77 The analyses by Kim and Leu reveal that by 2011, more than 148 institutions taught some aspect of social entrepreneurship.78

4.

Theoretical Contexts as Research Opportunities for Social Entrepreneurship

In 2009, Short, Moss, and Lumpkin conducted an in-depth analysis of the field of social entrepreneurship and found only “152 relevant articles”. They arrived at the conclusion that in order to develop a more uniform terminology, researchers should adopt key themes in strategic entrepreneurship, such as contingency theory, discovery theory and resource dependency theory.79 In 2011, Dacin, Dacin, and Tracey proposed five avenues of “theory building at varying levels of analysis: institutions and social movements, networks, culture, identity and image, and cognition.”80 In particular, they highlighted the significance of social processes for the pursuit of social entrepreneurship. Moreover, they mapped existing social entrepreneurship research into four key areas: (1) the characteristics of individual social entrepreneurs; (2) their sphere of activities, social needs and target groups; (3) the processes and resources used; and (4) the mission of the social entrepreneur/enterprise.81 76 Starnawska and Brzozowska, “Editorial Paper. Social Entrepreneurship and Social Enterprise Phenomenon: Antecedents, Processes, Impact across Cultures and Contexts,” 4. 77 Mirvis, “The Diverse Definitions of Social Entrepreneurship: The Underlying Issues,” 46. 78 Marina Kim and Jane Leu, “Foreword. The Field of Social Entrepreneurship Education: From the Second Wave of Growth to a Third Wave of Innovation,” in Social Entrepreneurship Education Resource Handbook, ed. Debbi D. Brock and Marina Kim (Arlington, VA: Ashoka U, 2011), 4, https:// doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.1872088. Mirvis, “The Diverse Definitions of Social Entrepreneurship: The Underlying Issues,” 46. 79 Jeremy C. Short, Todd W. Moss, and George T. Lumpkin, “Research in Social Entrepreneurship: Past Contributions and Future Opportunities,” Strategic Entrepreneurship Journal 3, no. 2 (June 2009): 161–94, https://doi.org/10.1002/sej.69. Nicola M. Pless, “Social Entrepreneurship in Theory and Practice—An Introduction,” Journal of Business Ethics 111, no. 3 (November 21, 2012): 317, https:// doi.org/10.1007/s10551-012-1533-x. 80 M. Tina Dacin, Peter A. Dacin, and Paul Tracey, “Social Entrepreneurship: A Critique and Future Directions,” Organization Science 22, no. 5 (October 2011): 1211, https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.1100. 0620. 81 Dacin, Dacin, and Tracey, “Social Entrepreneurship: A Critique and Future Directions.” Pless, “Social Entrepreneurship in Theory and Practice—An Introduction,” 317.

35

36

Social Entrepreneurship as a Phenomenon and Research Field – a Brief Overview

Starnawska and Brzozowska also emphasise that network related theories, institutional theory and structuration theory are worth including in the field of social entrepreneurship.82 They note in this context that network related theories include social capital and stakeholder theory. Social enterprise embeddedness in the local community is more pronounced when compared with commercial entrepreneurship (...). The importance of building relationships and relying on a social network of entrepreneurs is essential for leveraging resources and building legitimacy across different sectors and different logics. It is also visible that the SE [social entrepreneurship] community is being strengthened by many global foundations, like Ashoka or Skoll, which aim to support them. Moreover, in the end, a network approach can help to explain the potential for generating social impact.83

Institutional theory, in turn, helps to provide insights into the need of SE [social entrepreneurship] legitimation as a separate field or sub-field of entrepreneurship practice and research. This theoretical framework also responds to the institutional barriers that entrepreneurs face, and this is of particular importance for SE [social entrepreneurship] organisations that are set between conflicting logics. This includes the emergence of social enterprise in a variety of settings and can be, for example, explained by a social movement’s theory. Also, it helps to add to the understanding of the institutionalisation of SE [social entrepreneurship] as a field of research and practice, and what powers and institutional actors are at play. Moreover, social innovations generate institutional change, and social entrepreneurs can be analysed as institutional entrepreneurs.84

82 Starnawska and Brzozowska, “Editorial Paper. Social Entrepreneurship and Social Enterprise Phenomenon: Antecedents, Processes, Impact across Cultures and Contexts,” 6. 83 Starnawska and Brzozowska, “Editorial Paper. Social Entrepreneurship and Social Enterprise Phenomenon: Antecedents, Processes, Impact across Cultures and Contexts,” 6. Marzena Starnawska, “Przedsiębiorczość społeczna w świetle teorii instytucjonalnej - próba przyczynku teoretycznego,” Przedsiębiorczość i Zarządzanie 18, no. 12 (2017): 149–60, http://piz.san.edu.pl/docs/e-XVIII-12-1. pdf. 84 Starnawska and Brzozowska, “Editorial Paper. Social Entrepreneurship and Social Enterprise Phenomenon: Antecedents, Processes, Impact across Cultures and Contexts,” 6. Mair and Martí, “Social Entrepreneurship Research: A Source of Explanation, Prediction, and Delight.” Starnawska, “Przedsiębiorczość społeczna w świetle teorii instytucjonalnej - próba przyczynku teoretycznego.”

Academic Schools of Thought on Social Entrepreneurship

Meanwhile, the concept of a social entrepreneur as an institutional agent is in line with the structureagency debate and provides opportunities for discussion on the transformative, change the potential of SE [social entrepreneurship]. The institutional and social capital approaches provide arguments for more engagement of the academic community to employ more interpretivist lenses, through social constructionist approaches, which requires more in-depth and more longitudinal data collection and analysis, with more qualitative approaches, to study the complex and contextual phenomenon of SE [social entrepreneurship].85

5.

Academic Schools of Thought on Social Entrepreneurship

Three main academic schools of thought on social entrepreneurship can be distinguished: social innovation, earned income, and the EMES approach. The first school essentially focuses on the concept and phenomenon of social entrepreneurship, but it also accentuates the importance of social innovation in raising the performance level of social enterprises, appreciating the key role of the social entrepreneur in this process. The second and third schools are closely linked to the concept and phenomenon of social enterprise.86 In view of the above, to avoid repetition, a detailed description of all three schools will be presented in chapter four of this book as a context for the analyses of the links between Catholic social teaching and the moral aspect of managing a social enterprise.87 It is perhaps worth adding at this point that in 2016, on the basis of a project entitled International Comparative Social Enterprise Models (ICSEM) – which brought together researchers from more than 50 countries – Defourny and Nyssens proposed a universal typology of social enterprise models: entrepreneurial non-profit 85 Starnawska and Brzozowska, “Editorial Paper. Social Entrepreneurship and Social Enterprise Phenomenon: Antecedents, Processes, Impact across Cultures and Contexts,” 6. Marzena Starnawska, “Social Entrepreneurship Research – Challenges, Explanations and Suggestions for the Field Development,” Problemy Zarzadzania 14, no. 3 (61) (July 30, 2016): 13–31, https://doi.org/10.7172/16449584.61.1. 86 Starnawska and Brzozowska, “Editorial Paper. Social Entrepreneurship and Social Enterprise Phenomenon: Antecedents, Processes, Impact across Cultures and Contexts,” 7. Dees and Anderson, “Framing a Theory of Social Entrepreneurship: Building on Two Schools of Practice and Thought.” Jacques Defourny and Marthe Nyssens, “The EMES Approach of Social Enterprise in a Comparative Perspective” (EMES European Research Network, 2013), accessed March 1, 2023, https://emes.net/ content/uploads/publications/EMES-WP-12-03_Defourny-Nyssens.pdf. 87 See the section of chapter IV entitled “The Phenomenon of Social Enterprises”.

37

38

Social Entrepreneurship as a Phenomenon and Research Field – a Brief Overview

organisations, social business, social cooperatives and public sector social enterprises.88

6.

Conclusions

A time of rapid and all-encompassing change such as the present requires new theoretical concepts, including new proposals for the economy, society or politics. Social entrepreneurship is one of the ideas for economic and social development that different regions and countries of the world pursue to varying degrees. The concept itself is relatively new, so it is still challenging both for researchers, who seek to explore it from a theoretical perspective, and for practitioners, who aim to use it to change the world for the better. At this stage, it is difficult to make a holistic judgment about this concept. Nevertheless, further analysis and conceptual work from different research perspectives are worth undertaking. For example, it seems that one cannot fully understand (and also act effectively in) the field of social entrepreneurship if the axionormative perspective is not considered. After all, one of the significant factors in the responsible implementation of social entrepreneurship is the appropriate shape of the norms and values that determine it. The social teaching of the Church could provide a valuable and original contribution to identifying, defining and interpreting these axionormative determinants.

88 Jacques Defourny and Marthe Nyssens, “Fundamentals for an International Typology of Social Enterprise Models,” VOLUNTAS: International Journal of Voluntary and Nonprofit Organizations 28, no. 6 (June 8, 2017): 2469–97, https://doi.org/10.1007/s11266-017-9884-7. Starnawska and Brzozowska, “Editorial Paper. Social Entrepreneurship and Social Enterprise Phenomenon: Antecedents, Processes, Impact across Cultures and Contexts,” 8.

II.

Catholic Social Teaching and its Axionormative Dimension

Theologians, engaging reason and faith in their research, seek the deepest meaning of the existence of the world, and the life of man human life in its individual and social dimensions. Entering into dialogue with all “men of good will,”1 they reflect in depth on the various challenges of civilisation, including the current phenomena of social, political and economic life. The specificity of Catholic social teaching (hereafter: CST) calls for a presentation not only of its axionormative dimension but also at least a brief explanation of its most important epistemological and methodological assumptions. This type of theological thought, rooted in the Bible and especially the New Testament, has always been present in theological discourse to some extent. However, by the end of the 19th century, it had evolved into a distinct discipline – CST.

1.

The Nature and Tasks of Catholic Social Teaching2

The nature and tasks of CST were defined mainly by the Second Vatican Council3 and Pope John Paul II.4 CST is not a social discipline (science) in the strict sense. It does not propose its own specific solutions to social, economic or political problems. This is not within its remit. It has essentially moral and spiritual aims. Nevertheless, the results of its reflections are not only addressed to believers, but to humanity as a whole. The principles of the Church’s Social Doctrine offer the opportunity for all people of good will to build a moral foundation. This approach is linked to the fact that “besides being destined primarily and specifically to the sons and daughters of the Church, her social doctrine also has a universal destination.”5 The Church explains this truth as follows:

1 Second Vatican Council, Gaudium et spes, no. 22. 2 To present this issue I have used excerpts from my book: Adam Zadroga, Katolicka myśl ekonomicznospołeczna wobec fundamentalnych założeń ekonomii głównego nurtu (Lublin: Wydawnictwo KUL, 2018), 170–73. 3 Second Vatican Council, Gaudium et spes, no. 3. 4 John Paul II, Centesimus annus, no. 54. 5 Pontifical Council for Justice and Peace, Compendium of the Social Doctrine of the Church, no. 84.

40

Catholic Social Teaching and its Axionormative Dimension

The light of the Gospel that the Church’s Social Doctrine shines on society illuminates all men and women, and every conscience and mind is in a position to grasp the human depths of meaning and values expressed in it and the potential of humanity and humanisation contained in its norms of action. It is to all people – in the name of mankind, of human dignity which is one and unique, and of humanity’s care and promotion of society – to everyone in the name of the one God, Creator and ultimate end of man, that the Church’s Social Doctrine is addressed.6

Moreover, another important issue must be recalled: “With her social doctrine the Church does not attempt to structure or organise society, but to appeal to, guide and form consciences.”7 Ultimately, based on their conscience, formed and oriented towards the good by these principles, men will make a decisive choice as to how to act in a particular situation. Moreover, the content of CST is not exclusively normative. The beginning of the discourse is based on a detailed analysis of the studied slice of social reality and an attempt to understand it in depth. It is thus the initial, descriptive, part of research. Only in the next stage do professionals using the CST methodology move on to a normative (duty-based) interpretation of the object of analysis, including in the light of Revelation.8 Above all, they use strictly defined, axionormative criteria of evaluation, which make it possible to formulate issue-specific guidelines (recommendations) that introduce and/or sustain the moral and social order. “Integral and solidary humanism” should be considered the original proposal of CST, a criterion for the evaluations and interpretations made.9 It constitutes an axiological and normative paradigm based on the premises of a theological, anthropological and social nature that are contained in Scripture, as well as theological anthropology,10 and the ethical principles of CST. Promoting integral and solidary humanism reminds us that the Church is a sign of God’s love for all people and the vocation of the whole human race to unity as children of the one Father.11 Indeed, this humanism is 6 7 8 9 10

Pontifical Council for Justice and Peace, Compendium of the Social Doctrine of the Church, no. 84. Pontifical Council for Justice and Peace, Compendium of the Social Doctrine of the Church, no. 81. Second Vatican Council, Gaudium et spes, no. 4. Pontifical Council for Justice and Peace, Compendium of the Social Doctrine of the Church, no. 19. Notably, the amount of valuable literature on this subject available today is enormous – see e. g.: Angelo Scola, Gilfredo Marengo, and Javier Prades López, Osoba ludzka: antropologia teologiczna, trans. Lucjan Balter (Poznań: Pallottinum, 2005). Mroczkowski, Chrześcijańska tożsamość osoby. Zarys antropologii moralnoteologicznej. Krzysztof Góźdź, Teologia człowieka: z najnowszej antropologii niemieckiej (Lublin: Wydawnictwo KUL, 2006). 11 Catechism of the Catholic Church (Città del Vaticano: Libreria Editrice Vaticana, 1994), no. 1. Pontifical Council for Justice and Peace, Compendium of the Social Doctrine of the Church, no. 1–19; Marian Pokrywka, “Humanizm chrześcijański,” in Jan Paweł II. Encyklopedia nauczania moralnego,

The Nature and Tasks of Catholic Social Teaching

capable of creating a new social, economic and political order, founded on the dignity and freedom of every human person, to be brought about in peace, justice and solidarity. This humanism can become a reality if individual men and women and their communities are able to cultivate moral and social virtues in themselves and spread them in society. “Then, under the necessary help of divine grace, there will arise a generation of new men, the moulders of a new humanity”.12

Thus, it can also be seen that the ultimate goal of CST is to promote integral human development. To properly understand the nature and role of axionormative statements within CST, it is first necessary to clarify the complexity and aims of this theological and moral discipline. After all, it must be recognised that here we are dealing with content of a theoretical, historical and practical nature.13 The basis of the theoretical dimension of CST is formed by the assertions formulated organically and systematically by the Ecclesiastical Magisterium14 in social documents. The principles of CST must be “appreciated in their unity, interrelatedness and articulation.”15 Indeed, the social teaching of the Church forms a unified doctrinal body, explaining homogeneously and comprehensively the various areas of social reality.16 The contents of this doctrinal body refer both to God’s Revelation contained in Scripture (theological claims) and to natural law17 (philosophical claims). Both

12 13

14

15 16 17

ed. Janusz Nagórny and Krzysztof Jeżyna (Radom: Polwen Polskie Wydawnictwo Encyklopedyczne, 2005), 236–37. Pontifical Council for Justice and Peace, Compendium of the Social Doctrine of the Church, no. 19. Second Vatican Council, Gaudium et spes, no. 30. Congregation for Catholic Education, Guidelines: For the Study and Teaching of the Church’s Social Doctrine in the Formation of Priests (Washington, D.C.: Office for Publishing and Promotion Services, United States Catholic Conference, 1988), https://www.humandevelopment.va/content/dam/ sviluppoumano/pubblicazioni-documenti/archivio/dottrina-sociale-della-chiesa/orientamenti/ ODSI_ENG.pdf. Gocko, Ekonomia a moralność. Poszukiwania teologicznomoralne, 108. Paweł Góralczyk, “Twierdzenia empiryczne, filozoficzne i teologiczne w katolickiej nauce społecznej,” Studia Theologica Varsaviensia 21, no. 1 (1983): 75–92. To learn more about the Ecclesiastical Magisterium, see: “The Ecclesiastical Magisterium and Theology,” accessed March 1, 2023, https://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/cti_documents/rc_cti_1975_magistero-teologia_en.html. Pontifical Council for Justice and Peace, Compendium of the Social Doctrine of the Church, no. 162. John Paul II, Sollicitudo rei socialis, no. 1. Here, it is worth recalling the two essential attributes of natural law, which are universality and immutability. Natural law is a universally binding norm of human action because, as John Paul II emphasises, “as it is inscribed in the rational nature of the person, it makes itself felt to all beings endowed with reason and living in history” (John Paul II, Encyclical Letter Veritatis splendor (6 August 1993), no. 51). Its precepts have a universal significance because it expresses the dignity of

41

42

Catholic Social Teaching and its Axionormative Dimension

aim to get to the essence of man and society and to identify the fundamental causes of the phenomena under study. On this basis – while reading these metaphysical data as morally inflicted – statements of a normative nature are derived.18 These are universal principles pointing towards a social order built according to the truths and values discovered.19 Apart from the natural law, expressing the “first and essential precepts which govern the moral life”20 of all human beings, the virtues also determine the universality of human morality.21 From the Christian standpoint, human perfection originates in the fact that “the invisible God … out of the abundance of His love speaks to men as friends … and lives among them …, so that He may invite and take them into fellowship with Himself.”22 This divine outreach to mankind can simultaneously become a source of moral renewal of the world in all its dimensions when men and their associations cultivate in themselves the moral and social virtues, and promote them in society; thus, with the needed help of divine grace men who are truly new and artisans of a new humanity can be forthcoming.23

18

19

20 21 22 23

the human person and constitutes the foundation of rights and duties. Of course, this universality does not ignore the sovereignty of individual human beings – it does not negate the singularity and uniqueness of each person. Cf. Adam Zadroga, Współczesne ujęcia etyki biznesu w Polsce. Próba oceny z perspektywy teologii moralnej (Lublin: Wydawnictwo KUL, 2009), 209. In the Compendium of the Social Doctrine of the Church, we can read: “On the one hand, God is seen as the origin of what exists, as the presence that guarantees to men and women organised in a society the basic conditions of life, placing at their disposal the goods that are necessary. On the other hand, he appears as the measure of what should be, as the presence that challenges human action – both at the personal and at the social levels – regarding the use of those very goods in relation to other people” (Pontifical Council for Justice and Peace, Compendium of the Social Doctrine of the Church, no. 20). As one theologian states: “The Church is the only historical place that guarantees the truthfulness of the theoretical cognition and the practical realisation of man’s revealed identity.” In other words, “apart from the Church (extra Ecclesiam), there is no other place in the human world that makes it possible to actualise the historical fullness of this cognitive experience” (Jerzy Cuda, Praktyczno-społeczne kryterium wiarygodności objawionego sensu historii: analityczno-syntetyczne studium inspirowane paradygmatem nowej teologii politycznej (Katowice: Księgarnia św. Jacka, 1999), 200–201). Translated by the author. Catechism of the Catholic Church, no. 1955. Andrzej Derdziuk, “The Integrating Function of Virtue,” Journal for Perspectives of Economic Political and Social Integration 27, no. 1 (March 21, 2022): 59–79, https://doi.org/10.18290/pepsi-2021-0003. Second Vatican Council, Dogmatic Constitution on Divine Revelation Dei Verbum (18 November 1965), no. 2. Second Vatican Council, Gaudium et spes, no. 30.

The Nature and Tasks of Catholic Social Teaching

It is in this respect that the whole of Christian aretalogy coincides with the needs of contemporary business ethics to seek and identify universal forms and contents for building a moral foundation for business activity. The historical dimension manifests itself in the interpretation of specific social problems and challenges in the light of previously formulated axionormative criteria. Such a moral and social interpretation requires a prior thorough analysis and description of an empirical nature. It should be noted that the Church is interested in all social issues that in any way pertain to moral problems and human salvation. The essential content of CST is contained in the papal encyclicals. Beginning with the encyclical Rerum novarum, published in 1891 by Leon XIII, popes have addressed the pertinent issues of their time. All documents of the Church’s social teaching contain evaluations of many different structures, social systems and ideologies. They are always critical and evaluative analyses of a particular reality in relation to the principles and values promoted by CST.24 Notably, from the very onset of the development of its social thought, the Church has addressed many important moral issues related to socioeconomic ethics.25 In Rerum novarum, Leon XIII defended a personalist view of labour and certain labour rights. CST also initiated many other important concepts, some of which are now the legacy of business ethics: the enterprise as a community;26 the common good as a criterion for the legitimacy of business and the market;27 subsidiarity;28 a focus not only on social and economic development but above all on integral human development;29 educating consumers to exercise their power of choice responsibly in the market for products and services;30 the principle of gratuitousness in entrepreneurship (“the logic of the gift”, alongside “the logic of the market” and

24 Luigi Lorenzetti, “Rapporto dialettico tra valori sociali e sistemi socio-economici,” Rivista Di Teologia Morale 13 (1981): 612. Karl-Heinz Peschke, Social Economy in the Light of Christian Faith (Trier: Paulinus-Verlag, 1991), 23, https://ordosocialis.de/wp-content/uploads/wacsengA4neu.pdf. 25 See more: Melé and Fontrodona, “Christian Ethics and Spirituality in Leading Business Organizations: Editorial Introduction.” 26 John XXIII, Encyclical Letter Mater et Magistra (15 May 1961), no. 91. John Paul II, Centesimus annus, no. 32, 35, 43. 27 John Paul II, Centesimus annus, no. 32, 35, 43. Benedict XVI. Encyclical Letter Caritas in Veritate (29 June 2009), no. 36. 28 Pius XI, Encyclical Letter Quadragesimo anno (15 May 1931), no. 184–186. John Paul II, Centesimus annus, no. 48. 29 Paul VI, Encyclical Letter Populorum progressio (26 March 1967), no. 14. Benedict XVI, Caritas in Veritate. 30 John Paul II, Centesimus annus, no. 36.

43

44

Catholic Social Teaching and its Axionormative Dimension

“the logic of the state”);31 business as a noble vocation;32 the planet as our “common home”;33 the concept of “integral ecology”;34 responsible stewardship of nature;35 and sustainable development.36 The practical dimension complements the two previous stages of the CSR discourse. This is because the Church does not limit itself to proclaiming specific norms allowing analytical-critical reflection on concrete social phenomena, but also proposes solutions (according to its limited competence) that are possible and necessary in given circumstances.37 In the context of the search for concrete normative solutions for economic activity, the reference to natural law should be considered particularly relevant. This is confirmed by the wording of the Catechism of the Catholic Church: The natural law, the Creator’s very good work, provides the solid foundation on which man can build the structure of moral rules to guide his choices. It also provides the indispensable moral foundation for building the human community. Finally, it provides the necessary basis for the civil law with which it is connected, whether by a reflection that draws conclusions from its principles, or by additions of a positive and juridical nature.38

In the context of the practical dimension of CST, it must be stressed that this proximity to the reality studied and evaluated must not be so great on the part of Catholic social ethicists that it causes their principles and values to lose their proper character. Their entire value lies in the fact that they constitute a universal criterion of evaluation; hence, they will never automatically resolve every social problem of a

31 Benedict XVI, Caritas in Veritate, no. 34, 36, 39. 32 Pontifical Council for Justice and Peace, “Vocation of the Business Leader.” Francis, Encyclical Letter Laudato Si (24 May 2015), no. 129. 33 Francis, Laudato Si, no. 1. 34 Francis, Laudato Si, no. 132. 35 Benedict XVI, Caritas in Veritate, no. 50. Francis, Laudato Si, no. 116. 36 Benedict XVI, Caritas in Veritate, no. 27, 40. Francis, Laudato Si, no. 50, 207. 37 The Compendium of the Social Doctrine of the Church reads as follows: “The universality and integrality of the salvation wrought by Christ makes indissoluble the link between the relationship that the person is called to have with God and the responsibility he has towards his neighbour in the concrete circumstances of history. (...) Inextricably linked in the human heart are the relationship with God – recognised as Creator and Father, the source and fulfilment of life and of salvation – and openness in concrete love towards man, who must be treated as another self, even if he is an enemy (cf. Matt 5:43–44). In man’s inner dimension are rooted, in the final analysis, the commitment to justice and solidarity, to the building up of a social, economic and political life that corresponds to God’s plan” (Pontifical Council for Justice and Peace, Compendium of the Social Doctrine of the Church, no. 40). 38 Catechism of the Catholic Church, no. 1959.

The Nature and Tasks of Catholic Social Teaching

practical or historical nature,39 although the legitimate degree of their concreteness is historically conditioned.40 The Compendium of the Social Doctrine of the Church states that due to their permanence and universal relevance,41 social principles must be regarded as the primary and fundamental perameters of reference for interpreting and evaluating social phenomena, which is the necessary source for working out the criteria for the discernment and orientation of social interactions in every area.42

Hence, CST contains “principles for reflection, the criteria for judgment and the directives for action which are the starting point for the promotion of an integral and solidary humanism.”43 These serve as a kind of “landmarks” (as called by Aniela Dylus) that refer back to the ultimate foundations for ordering social life and covering various political and economic issues, among other things.44

39 Aniela Dylus, Moralność krańcowa jako problem dla katolickiej nauki społecznej (Warszawa: Pallottinum, 1992), 237. Czesław Strzeszewski, Ewolucja katolickiej nauki społecznej (Warszawa: Ośrodek Dokumentacji i Studiów Społecznych, 1978), 303. 40 Dylus, Gospodarka. Moralność. Chrześcijaństwo, 92. The author explains: “It is unrealistic to expect that the Church in her teaching and the CST will provide answers to all important concrete social problems, even such as forms of social partnership of enterprise employees, the direction of ownership changes or the shape of family policy. If one construes ‘concrete’ solutions as technical and pragmatic proposals, close to certain legal solutions or easily translatable into positive law, then undertaking such a task simply exceeds the possibilities and competencies of the CST. It is not a legal discipline, after all, and its statements do not have the character of legal normativity.” (Dylus, Gospodarka. Moralność. Chrześcijaństwo, 93). Translated by the author. 41 The Compendium of the Social Doctrine of the Church reads as follows: “These are principles of a general and fundamental character, since they concern the reality of society in its entirety: from close and immediate relationships to those mediated by politics, economics and law; from relationships among communities and groups to relations between peoples and nations.” (Pontifical Council for Justice and Peace, Compendium of the Social Doctrine of the Church, no. 161). 42 Pontifical Council for Justice and Peace, Compendium of the Social Doctrine of the Church, no. 161. 43 Pontifical Council for Justice and Peace, Compendium of the Social Doctrine of the Church, no. 7. 44 Dylus, Gospodarka. Moralność. Chrześcijaństwo, 93. The author further explains that: “While providing politicians with ‘landmarks’ in the form of social principles, social ethics nevertheless leaves them with a lot of room for their own decisions. A hasty judgment in terms of right and wrong is not advisable here. A proper ethical evaluation of political decisions presupposes a thorough knowledge of the complex interplay of various interdependencies and multiple consequences. Political concretisation, which exceeds the competence of CST, is instead the task of the Christian social movement. ... The final decision in matters of economic and social policy is taken by the politician, but the ethicist should help them to see the ethical objectives that are contained in these decisions. Moreover, the ethicist should be able to perceive, and sometimes predict, the economic and ethical implications and consequences of certain political ideas” (Dylus, Gospodarka. Moralność. Chrześcijaństwo, 93). Translated by the author.

45

46

Catholic Social Teaching and its Axionormative Dimension

Therefore, one cannot speak of specific norms in this case. Through its teaching, the Church wants to provide direction and guidance, yet on the other hand, it leaves it up to individual people to choose or reject specific technical or pragmatic solutions. This applies both to the personal conduct of individuals and to the activities of social organisations. Thus, principles are generally set out as formal criteria for the proper functioning of a given community and not as content norms. In this way, these principles constitute criteria for the moral qualification of individual phenomena in the field of social reality (including economic reality), and in the case of a negative assessment, they provide the basis for criticism of the existing circumstances and the formulation of general rationales for postulated reforms. They become convenient tools to facilitate a critical response to a complex and evolving social reality.45 CST aims to fulfil a social and critical function. The reason is that apart from its commitment to the service of spreading and strengthening the Catholic faith,46 the Church continues to discover the world with all its complexity as an inherent part of its mission.47 Moreover, being one of the essential actors of social life, it is itself strongly present in this world (as a significant economic and financial institution, among other things), thereby becoming the sender and addressee of its own moral message concerning socio-economic life.48 In light of the above considerations, a fundamental question must be posed: What are the principles of CST and what are the fundamental values to which the Church wishes to refer?

45 Tadeusz Ślipko, “Tradycyjna etyka społeczna w obliczu współczesnych kontestacji,” Życie Katolickie 5, no. 1 (1985): 90. Leopold Neuhold, “Soziallehre, Katholische,” in Neues Lexikon Der Christlichen Moral, ed. Hans Rotter and Günter Virt (Innsbruck-Wien, Austria: Tyrolia - Verlag, 1990), 705.702–710. 46 Andrzej Derdziuk, Teologia moralna w służbie wiary Kościoła (Lublin: Wydawnictwo KUL, 2009). 47 The Compendium of the Social Doctrine of the Church reads as follows: “The Church journeys along the roads of history together with all of humanity. She lives in the world, and although not of the world (cf. John 17:14–16) she is called to serve the world according to her innermost vocation” (Pontifical Council for Justice and Peace, Compendium of the Social Doctrine of the Church, no. 18). See more: Gocko, Kościół obecny w świecie – posłany do świata. Teologiczno-społeczne aspekty posłannictwa Kościoła w świecie po Soborze Watykańskim II. 48 Bernhard Häring, Frei in Christus: Moraltheologie für die Praxis des christlichen Lebens (Freiburg: Herder, 1989), 283–285.

The Nature and Importance of Catholic Social Teaching Principles and Fundamental Values

2.

The Nature and Importance of Catholic Social Teaching Principles and Fundamental Values

The importance of the axionormative foundations of social reality is explicitly stated in the Compendium of the Social Doctrine of the Church: The exposition of the Church’s Social Doctrine is meant to suggest a systematic approach for finding solutions to problems, so that discernment, judgment and decisions will correspond to reality, and so that solidarity and hope will have a greater impact on the complexities of current situations. These principles, in fact, are interrelated and shed light on one another mutually, insofar as they are an expression of Christian anthropology, fruits of the revelation of God’s love for the human person.49

The above explanation makes it possible to conclude that the principles of CST (as a whole) are a fundamental expression of the truth about man and society. It is through them that Catholic thought proposes and reveals to the world a true and complete image of man – also in the context of his multiple forms of social commitment. As stated by Cardinal Angelo Sodano: The principles of the Church’s Social Doctrine, which are based on the natural law, are then seen to be confirmed and strengthened, in the faith of the Church, by the Gospel of Christ. In this light, men and women are invited above all to discover themselves as transcendent beings, in every dimension of their lives, including those related to social, economic and political contexts.50

As emphasised by Jerzy Gocko, the principles and values promoted by CST define the normative horizon, that is, that Christian framework of truth which can be called eternal. It is defined by the principles of social life and fundamental values, which include above all the dignity of the human person together with the personal freedom of man.51

49 Pontifical Council for Justice and Peace, Compendium of the Social Doctrine of the Church, no. 9. 50 Angelo Sodano, “Letter of Cardinal Angelo Sodano,” June 29, 2004, https://www.vatican.va/roman_ curia/pontifical_councils/justpeace/documents/rc_pc_justpeace_doc_20060526_compendio-dottsoc_en.html#SECRETARIAT%20OF%20STATE. 51 Jerzy Gocko, “Zasady nauki społecznej Kościoła i wartości podstawowe jako normy moralne życia społecznego. Refleksja na kanwie współczesnych dokumentów społecznych Kościoła,” Roczniki Teologiczne 53, no. 3 (2006): 87.Translated by the author. See also: John Paul II, Encyclical Letter Laborem exercens (14 September 1981), no. 3.

47

48

Catholic Social Teaching and its Axionormative Dimension

It is also worth noting that the Church worked out these principles and values gradually as part of the historical process of the formation of CST when confronted with specific social issues on which it wanted to formulate a competent theological and moral position.52 It is difficult to find a clear systematisation of social principles in the documents of the Magisterium of the Catholic Church. Rather, it is the result of the efforts of CST researchers. Nevertheless, a kind of hierarchisation is certainly discernible. The supreme principle is the personalistic norm or, in other words, the principle of the dignity of the human person. From this root sprout all the other principles and all the specific contents of the Church’s social teaching. Moreover, each of the principles of social life can be regarded as a concrete application of the personalistic norm to a particular area or aspect of social life.53 Apart from the already mentioned fundamental norm of the dignity of the human person, the Compendium of the Social Doctrine of the Church points to the principles of the common good, subsidiarity and solidarity.54 In addition, the Compendium discusses such ideas as universal destination of goods and participation. Further, it characterises the four fundamental values of social life: truth, freedom, justice and love.55 In turn, the Congregation for Catholic Education considers as fundamental the principles “regarding persons, the common good, solidarity and participation”.56 Here, it should be added that some of the principles are considered ontological because they are derived from the structure of being. This is particularly the case with the dignity of the human person, but also with the principles of the common good, subsidiarity and solidarity. It is primarily these that organise and systematise the set of all other specific principles and serve as their source in the first place. They are most often seen as formal criteria for the morally correct functioning of a given community, system, structure or social institution.57 In this context, the Compendium of the Social Doctrine of the Church points out that due to their universal relevance, these principles should be regarded as

52 Pontifical Council for Justice and Peace, Compendium of the Social Doctrine of the Church, no. 160. Enrique Colom, “Principi e Valori Della DSC,” in Per Un Umanesimo Degno Dell’amore. Il “Compendio Della Dottrina Sociale Della Chiesa,” ed. Paolo Carlotti and Mario Toso (Roma: LAS, 2005), 281–316. 53 Pontifical Council for Justice and Peace, Compendium of the Social Doctrine of the Church, no. 160. 54 Pontifical Council for Justice and Peace, Compendium of the Social Doctrine of the Church, no. 160. 55 Pontifical Council for Justice and Peace, Compendium of the Social Doctrine of the Church, no. 164–208. 56 Congregation for Catholic Education, Guidelines: For the Study and Teaching of the Church’s Social Doctrine in the Formation of Priests, no. 30. 57 Gocko, “Zasady nauki społecznej Kościoła i wartości podstawowe jako normy moralne życia społecznego. Refleksja na kanwie współczesnych dokumentów społecznych Kościoła,” 89. See also: Congregation for Catholic Education, Guidelines: For the Study and Teaching of the Church’s Social Doctrine in the Formation of Priests, no. 31.

The Nature and Importance of Catholic Social Teaching Principles and Fundamental Values

primary and fundamental parameters of reference for interpreting and evaluating social phenomena, which is the necessary source for working out the criteria for the discernment and orientation of social interactions in every area.58

On the other hand, these fundamental and general norms of social life can be used as heuristic principles to discover more content-specific principia of social life59 or a selected area of social reality, e. g. entrepreneurship.60 The caveat here, however, is that this concretisation of principles – as mentioned above – must be sufficiently careful and balanced so that they continue to serve as criteria of evaluation and as general guidelines for action rather than unequivocally resolving practical or historical issues. Furthermore, one must bear in mind that it is impossible to attribute only one segment of social reality to each particular principle – each such principle may regulate many other phenomena of the complex social life.61 Ultimately, the principles of CST are to be “appreciated in their unity, interrelatedness and articulation.”62 This is because they form a unified and coherent doctrinal system that explains various areas of social reality homogeneously and holistically.63 Hence: Examining each of these principles individually must not lead to using them only in part or in an erroneous manner, which would be the case if they were to be invoked in a disjointed and unconnected way with respect to each of the others.64

In addition to the principles discussed so far, CST states that fundamental values play an important role as criteria for assessing social reality. These are values that correspond to human nature and, as such, are not the result of a social contract. Therefore, they must not be arbitrarily changed or disregarded. Despite the widespread axiological pluralism, basic human rights are based on these very values,

58 Pontifical Council for Justice and Peace, Compendium of the Social Doctrine of the Church, no. 161. 59 Tullo Goffi, “Valori e Norme Morali in Economia,” Rivista Di Teologia Morale 19, no. 76 (1987): 15, 17. 60 For an example of this type of procedure, see: Pontifical Council for Justice and Peace, “Vocation of the Business Leader.” 61 Gocko, “Zasady nauki społecznej Kościoła i wartości podstawowe jako normy moralne życia społecznego. Refleksja na kanwie współczesnych dokumentów społecznych Kościoła,” 88−89. 62 Pontifical Council for Justice and Peace, Compendium of the Social Doctrine of the Church, no. 162. 63 John Paul II, Sollicitudo rei socialis, no. 1. 64 Pontifical Council for Justice and Peace, Compendium of the Social Doctrine of the Church, no. 162.

49

50

Catholic Social Teaching and its Axionormative Dimension

and there is a broad consensus on this issue.65 Like the principles of social life, social values are also inextricably linked to the dignity of the human person and promote the latter’s development.66 Influenced by the processes set in motion by the French Revolution of 1789, liberty, equality and fraternity came to be accepted as fundamental values, except that today fraternity is typically referred to as solidarity.67 In contrast, Pope John XXIII proposed truth, freedom, justice and love as the values on which the order of social life should be based.68 In CST, this approach has come to be known as the “John’s Quadrilateral”.69 Nonetheless, Janusz Nagórny – in the light of the holistic vision of Christian morality and the teaching of John Paul II – considers love as the foundation of the social order rather than as one of the values co-constituting it. According to this author, the place of love in the “John’s Quadrilateral” should be taken by solidarity or social love.70 Wolfgang Ockenfels, on the other hand, sees peace as the supreme value, i. e. the one that establishes the order of the four fundamental values proposed by Pope John XXIII. In this way, all four fundamental values are seen by him as positive peace values. Hence, it is these values that ought to impact all social structures and the consciences of individual decision-makers.71

3.

The Characteristics of Catholic Social Teaching Principles and Fundamental Values

For a concise description of CST principles and fundamental values, it is worth referring to the Compendium of the Social Doctrine of the Church – a document that provides a comprehensive overview of the basic issues of the doctrinal body of

65 Gocko, “Zasady nauki społecznej Kościoła i wartości podstawowe jako normy moralne życia społecznego. Refleksja na kanwie współczesnych dokumentów społecznych Kościoła,” 92. 66 Pontifical Council for Justice and Peace, Compendium of the Social Doctrine of the Church, no. 197. 67 Oswald von Nell-Breuning, Gerechtigkeit und Freiheit: Grundzüge katholischer Soziallehre (Wien: Europaverl, 1980), 110–14. 68  Pope John XXIII described this concept in his Encyclical Letter Pacem in terris (11 April 1963), no. 35. This theory was also referred to by Second Vatican Council, Gaudium et spes, no. 26. 69 Marciano Vidal, L’atteggiamento Morale, vol. 3 (Assisi: Cittadella, 1981), 291–292. 70 Janusz Nagórny, “Fundamentalne zasady życia chrześcijańskiego,” in Być chrześcijaninem dziś. Teologia dla szkół średnich, ed. Marian Rusecki (Lublin: Redakcja Wydawnictw KUL, 1992), 381. 71 Wolfgang Ockenfels, Zarys katolickiej nauki społecznej: wprowadzenie, trans. Aniela Dylus (Warszawa: Wydawnictwo Fundacji ATK, 1995), 44–50, https://ordosocialis.de/wp-content/uploads/kkspola4neu.pdf.

The Characteristics of Catholic Social Teaching Principles and Fundamental Values

CST.72 As already mentioned above, the Compendium discusses the principles of the common good, the common destination of goods, subsidiarity, participation and solidarity, as well as the four fundamental values of social life: truth, freedom, justice and love.73 It is notable that in the course of history and with the light of the Spirit, the Church has wisely reflected within her own tradition of faith and has been able to provide an ever more accurate foundation and shape to these principles, progressively explaining them in the attempt to respond coherently to the demands of the times and to the continuous developments of social life.74

One must, of course, bear in mind that all the principles of social life and fundamental values are intrinsically linked to the dignity of the human person and are conducive to its development.75 It is the concern for respect for human dignity that is the most general norm of social order. The other principles are related to it and derive from the rights of the human person and their social nature. Moreover, each of the principles of social life can be seen as a more particularised application of this basic personalistic norm to a specific area or aspect of social life.76 As noted by Jerzy Gocko, the social principles refer to the same moral and social reality which is described and postulated by the norm of the dignity of the human person, but they have a more dynamic and specific character in relation to it – they name and order the processes of arriving at a moral social order.77

72 Pontifical Council for Justice and Peace, Compendium of the Social Doctrine of the Church, no. 9. 73 Pontifical Council for Justice and Peace, Compendium of the Social Doctrine of the Church, no. 164–208. 74 Pontifical Council for Justice and Peace, Compendium of the Social Doctrine of the Church, no. 160. 75 Pontifical Council for Justice and Peace, Compendium of the Social Doctrine of the Church, no. 197. 76 Pontifical Council for Justice and Peace, Compendium of the Social Doctrine of the Church, no. 160. 77 Gocko, Ekonomia a moralność. Poszukiwania teologicznomoralne, 202. As a side note, it is worth mentioning what Paragraph 2407 of the Catechism of the Catholic Church recalls in this context: “respect for human dignity requires the practice of the virtue of temperance, so as to moderate attachment to this world’s goods; the practice of the virtue of justice, to preserve our neighbour’s rights and render him what is his due; and the practice of solidarity, in accordance with the golden rule and in keeping with the generosity of the Lord, who ‘though he was rich, yet for your sake became poor so that by his poverty, you might become rich’ (2 Cor 8:9).”

51

52

Catholic Social Teaching and its Axionormative Dimension

3.1

The Dignity of the Human Person – the Personalist Norm78

Human dignity, which arises primarily from the revealed truth of man’s creation in the image of God (Gen 1:26–31; 2:4b–7; 18–25), means that every human person has an intrinsic value that should be respected in every dimension of social life. As already pointed out, this personalist principle is the foundation and root of all the other principles of CST and all the contents of the Church’s Social Doctrine.79 One variant of normative ethics that is based on the recognition of and respect for the dignity of each human person is referred to as personalist ethics. This term is often expanded to include the term “Christian”, hence: Christian personalist ethics. This is because the Greek term “persona” (person) is closely linked to the formation of the theological doctrine of Jesus Christ as God and Man in one Divine Person, and as One God in Three Persons. Christian morality is also personalistic in nature, as is all Christian theology. After all, it is concerned with a personal God and with the human being as a person related to Him. It is the morality of man created in the image and likeness of God (Gen 1:27) and the morality of the believer in Christ who, through His Incarnation, has bound Himself to every human being.80 Hence the Catholic Church places the human person at the centre of all her moral teaching. Before discussing this question in detail, it is worth recalling that in moral theology – under the influence of the Second Vatican Council – the primary way of ethically regulating human acts has been termed “moral theonomy”.81 This means that the highest norm of human life is the divine law-eternal, objective and universal-whereby God orders, directs and governs the entire universe and all the ways of the human community by a plan conceived in wisdom and love.82

78 To present this issue, I used excerpts from my previous publications: Zadroga, “Professional Ethics of Social Entrepreneurs: The Perspective of Christian Personalist Ethics.” Zadroga, “Catholic Social Teaching as a Source of Enrichment of the Moral Dimension of Social Enterprise Management.” 79 Pontifical Council for Justice and Peace, Compendium of the Social Doctrine of the Church, no. 160. 80 Second Vatican Council, Gaudium et spes, no. 25. John Paul II, Encyclical Letter Redemptor hominis (4 March 1979), no. 10. 81 The term “theonomy” means “God’s law”, as it is derived from the Greek terms “theos” = God and “nomos” = law. 82 Second Vatican Council, Declaration on Religious Freedom Dignitatis humanae (7 December 1965), no. 3.

The Characteristics of Catholic Social Teaching Principles and Fundamental Values

In another document, the Council explains that the norm of human activity is this: that in accord with the divine plan and will, it harmonises with the genuine good of the human race, and that it allows men as individuals and as members of society to pursue their total vocation and fulfil it.83

It should also be noted here that such a view of the moral norm accepts the fundamental theses of the Christian faith: (1) there exists a God who has created the world and man; (2) God has implanted in every human being a law discernible by reason – the so-called “natural law”; (3) the capacity and objectivity of rational cognition has been impaired by the effects of original sin, so man is not always able to discern this law properly or to keep it discerned; (4) consequently, God has revealed the moral law; (5) at the same time, he invites man to make use of grace, the primary source of which is the sacraments, so that man can keep this revealed divine law in his life.84 The Second Vatican Council influenced a shift in the Church’s approach to contemporary world affairs, including the economy and entrepreneurship.85 The anthropological dimension was taken as the basic criterion for analysis and evaluation, which was complemented by a personalist approach: “all things on earth should be related to man as their centre and crown.”86 With regard to economic issues, it has become an axiom that man is “the source, the centre, and the purpose of all economic and social life.”87 Therefore, it can be said that the Church promotes a personalist ethic as part of its moral doctrine. Indeed, it places the dignity of the human person above all and proposes solutions in which man – remaining free in the pursuit of his ultimate goal – is not viewed merely as a tool of social, economic and political structures, but rather as a subject. This approach was particularly close to Karol Wojtyła/John Paul II. For him, the human person was not only the optimal starting point for a universal interpretation of being but also the metaphysical model of all human activity. From these fundamental assumptions, he derived three axioms: (1) the primacy of spirit over matter; (2) the primacy of “to be” over “to have”; (3) the primacy of person over thing.

83 Second Vatican Council, Gaudium et spes, no. 35. 84 Catechism of the Catholic Church, no. 1949–2051. 85 Gocko, Kościół obecny w świecie – posłany do świata. Teologiczno-społeczne aspekty posłannictwa Kościoła w świecie po Soborze Watykańskim II. Percy, Entrepreneurship in the Catholic Tradition (Studies in Ethics and Economics). 86 Second Vatican Council, Gaudium et spes, no. 12. 87 Second Vatican Council, Gaudium et spes, no. 63.

53

54

Catholic Social Teaching and its Axionormative Dimension

Based on this last rule – referring to Kant’s second imperative88  – Karol Wojtyła formulated the personalist norm: “Nobody can use a person as a means towards an end, no human being, nor yet God the Creator. ... each man alone will decide for himself the ends of his activity.”89 This principle is the normative expression of the recognition of the truth about man as a person and supra-utilitarian good. In his encyclical Caritas in Veritate, in line with the spirit of personalism, Pope Benedict XVI places individuals and their communities (including businesses) at the heart of social thought. The Pope emphasises that “the economy needs ethics”. Importantly, he immediately adds that this is not about “any ethics whatsoever, but an ethics which is people-centred.”90 Thus, he puts forth the claim that only a personalist ethics, which refers to the fundamental principle of recognising and respecting the dignity of the human person and prohibits treating the human being as a means to any end (including economic ones), can uphold an authentic moral order in business, including social entrepreneurship. An entrepreneurial ethics that does not consider the inviolable dignity of the human person, as well as the transcendent value of natural moral norms, inevitably risks losing its distinctive nature and it falls prey to forms of exploitation; more specifically, it risks becoming subservient to existing economic and financial systems rather than correcting their dysfunctional aspects. Among other things, it risks being used to justify the financing of projects that are in reality unethical.91

Hence the importance of the principle of Christian personalism, the implementation of which leads to responsible behaviour towards each person and authentic human fulfilment through the gift of oneself to others (which is a manifestation of love). This view of ethical norms also makes it possible to see that morality is not constituted – as in the case of deontonomism92  – by some norms or detailed rules imposed on

88 “So act that you treat humanity, whether in your own person or in the person of any other, always at the same time as an end, never merely as a means.” See more: “Treating Persons as Means (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy),” April 13, 2019, accessed March 3, 2023, https://plato.stanford.edu/ entries/persons-means/. Immanuel Kant, Groundwork of the Metaphysics of Morals: A GermanEnglish Edition, trans. Gregor Mary and Jens Timmermann (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2011), 62, https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511973741. 89 Karol Wojtyła, Love and Responsibility (Amsterdam, Netherlands: Amsterdam University Press, 1993), 29–30. 90 Benedict XVI, Caritas in Veritate, no. 45. 91 Benedict XVI, Caritas in Veritate, no. 45. 92 See more: “Deontological Ethics | Definition, Meaning, Examples, & Facts,” July 20, 1998, accessed March 3, 2023, https://www.britannica.com/topic/deontological-ethics.

The Characteristics of Catholic Social Teaching Principles and Fundamental Values

man (for example, in the form of codes of professional ethics), but rather by the fulfilment of the person through a morally good act.93 The personalistic norm is expressed through love, which is the affirmation of the value of the human person as the highest good. In terms of its scope and content, the commandment of love is so broad and capacious that it ensures respect for every person and does not allow them to be objectified. Thus, as a person, every human deserves love, i. e. affirmation, from every other person. The source of knowledge of this norm is a correctly formed and functioning conscience. Consequently, the personalistic norm can be known and recognised by every person of good will. As a side note, it is worth mentioning that the development of personalism has not only enriched philosophy, theology and CST but has also impacted the social and cultural transitions of the last few decades.94 Personalism, construed as a direction of thought, shaped especially in the Euro-Atlantic culture circle,95 stands out more and more clearly among the multitude of scientific and cultural paradigms;96 however, it is still insufficiently appreciated by such communities as business ethicists in Poland.97 Nevertheless, the assumptions of Christian ethics are taken into account in studies of business organisations worldwide.98 In this book, the personalist approach is taken as a hermeneutic key to analysing the axionormative determinants of social entrepreneurship. 3.2

The Common Good99

The principle of the common good is first and foremost a reminder that social institutions ought to strive for the betterment of the human person and humanity

93 Derdziuk, “The Integrating Function of Virtue.” 94 Bartnik, Personalizm (Lublin: Wydawnictwo KUL, 2013). 95 Personalism as a system originated in the USA but developed based on European (especially German) philosophy. This was mainly done by G.H. Howison (1834–1916), B.P. Bowne (1847–1910), E.Sh. Brightman (1884–1953), R.T. Flewelling (1871–1960), A. Bertocci (1910–1989), G. Muelder (born 1907), and C.S. Robb (born 1945). In Europe, the personalist system was explored by E. Mounier (1905–1950) and his “Esprit” school. 96 See for example: Jarosław Jęczeń, Piotr Guzdek, and Agnieszka Petryk, eds., Personalizm w nauce i kulturze (Lublin: Wydawnictwo KUL, 2020). 97 Adam Zadroga, “Business Ethics in Poland: A Metatheoretical Analysis,” Annales. Etyka W Życiu Gospodarczym 20, no. 8 (March 1, 2017): 19–32, https://doi.org/10.18778/1899-2226.20.8.02. 98 See for example: Melé and Fontrodona, “Christian Ethics and Spirituality in Leading Business Organizations: Editorial Introduction.” 99 To discuss this issue, I used excerpts from my previous publications: Zadroga, Katolicka myśl ekonomiczno-społeczna wobec fundamentalnych założeń ekonomii głównego nurtu, 174 and Zadroga, “Catholic Social Teaching as a Source of Enrichment of the Moral Dimension of Social Enterprise Management,” 996–97, 1000–1002.

55

56

Catholic Social Teaching and its Axionormative Dimension

in their activities. In general terms, it can thus be construed as the duty to create social conditions that offer an enabling environment to ensure that the human person and entire communities can achieve their potential. While the CST tradition contains an extensive reflection on the common good, it is Second Vatican Council’s definition that sheds important light on the issues analysed in the subsequent sections of this book. Gaudium et spes defines this principle as “the sum total of social conditions which allow people, either as groups or as individuals, to reach their fulfillment more fully and more easily.”100 The common good cannot be treated as an end in itself, since it has value only in relation to the attainment of the ultimate ends of man and the universal common good of all creation. This means that the common good cannot be deprived of its transcendent dimension, since it is God who is the ultimate end of His creations.101 Ultimately, it is only through God, by Him and for His sake that any reality, including human economic activity, can be brought to its highest Good. Otherwise, a purely utilitarian and materialist vision would lead to the transformation of the common good into social and economic well-being, devoid of any transcendent purpose and therefore of the deepest reason for its existence.102 This is an important warning against attempts to build any system (including an economic one) that would like to eliminate this most profound, transcendent dimension from its axiological assumptions.103 It is also worth emphasising that from a CST perspective, the common good is not an external principle imposed on a business but an internal principle that describes the good that a business creates, as well as how this good is linked to the development of the people who contribute to its creation through their work. The common good helps to understand what actions can allow good businesses to flourish.104 Hence, from the point of view of this principle, it is worthwhile to expand the concept of social enterprise management to steer it towards good social entrepreneurship. This is discussed in greater detail in the fourth chapter of this book. Here, however, it is worth recalling the concept put forth by McVea and Naughton, who – like the Pontifical Council for Justice and Peace105  – define a well-managed

100 101 102 103

Second Vatican Council, Gaudium et spes, no. 26. John Paul II, Centesimus annus, no. 41. Pontifical Council for Justice and Peace, Compendium of the Social Doctrine of the Church, no. 170. Zadroga, “Ekonomia społeczna i nauczanie społeczne Kościoła. Wzajemne implikacje aksjologiczne,” 220–21. 104 Cf. Agnieszka Marek and Arkadiusz Jabłoński, “Care of the Common Good as a Responsibility of Business Leaders. Catholic Social Teaching Perspective,” Religions 12, no. 2 (February 16, 2021): 125, https://doi.org/10.3390/rel12020125. 105 Cf. Pontifical Council for Justice and Peace, “Vocation of the Business Leader.”

The Characteristics of Catholic Social Teaching Principles and Fundamental Values

enterprise by identifying three fundamental criteria: (1) “good goods” – producing goods (commodities) and offering services that are genuinely good; (2) “good work” – organising work in such a way that employees develop their potential and talents while allowing the employer to benefit at the same time; (3) “good wealth” – creating wealth (prosperity) in a sustainable way and distributing it fairly. When all three of these goods are present, businesses create social conditions that increase the likelihood of people flourishing. Behind each of these interrelated goods are principles that help the leader to structure organisational processes in such a way as to create a community that serves the development of all those associated with the enterprise.106 3.3

Subsidiarity107

The principle of subsidiarity reminds one that it is a grave mistake to deprive individual human beings and individual human communities of what they can achieve by their own initiative. Thus, this principle gives people and communities the freedom to contribute to the development of each human person, as well as the whole human family. In CST, it is generally construed as the duty to protect and foster the manifestations of the innate social nature of human beings. Its essential meaning was formulated by Pope Pius XI in his encyclical Quadragesimo anno: just as it is gravely wrong to take from individuals what they can accomplish by their own initiative and industry and give it to the community, so also it is an injustice and at the same time a grave evil and disturbance of right order to assign to a greater and higher association what lesser and subordinate organisations can do. For every social activity ought of its very nature to furnish help to the members of the body social, and never destroy and absorb them.108

In this respect, the principle of subsidiarity is contrasted with all forms of overprotectiveness, bureaucracy and an exaggerated presence of the state and public authorities in social life, and the realisation of this principle is fostered by such things as valuing the importance of associations and intermediaries and supporting

106 McVea and Naughton, “Enriching Social Entrepreneurship from the Perspective of Catholic Social Teaching,” 4, 7. 107 To discuss this issue, I use an excerpt from my previously published article: Zadroga, “Catholic Social Teaching as a Source of Enrichment of the Moral Dimension of Social Enterprise Management,” 997, 1001–2. 108 Pius XI, “Quadragesimo anno,” no. 79. See also John Paul II, Centesimus annus, no. 48 and Catechism of the Catholic Church, no. 1883.

57

58

Catholic Social Teaching and its Axionormative Dimension

them, e. g. through legislative and institutional means. In this way, intermediaries such as social enterprises can properly perform the tasks that belong to them.109 3.4

Solidarity110

In John Paul II’s view, solidarity is not a feeling of vague compassion or shallow distress at the misfortunes of so many people, both near and far. On the contrary, it is a firm and persevering determination to commit oneself to the common good; that is to say to the good of all and of each individual, because we are all really responsible for all.111

This principle encourages the sharing of means, time, talents and skills with those who suffer from poverty, oppression, lack of freedom, illness, disability, old age, etc. For every person should (above all out of love) care for each one of their neighbours, as taught by Jesus Christ in the Gospel (Mark 12:29–31; John 13:34). The Church recognises the great potential capable of solving many human problems, which lies, for example, in private not-for-profit organisations like social enterprises. This is because it is precisely such organisations that are characterised by a bold pursuit of a harmonious combination of productive efficiency and interpersonal solidarity.112 In line with the principle of solidarity, in the case of a social enterprise, managers should make every effort to improve the conditions and quality of life of all with whom their organisation interacts, insofar as this is necessary. This may include employees, customers, suppliers, shareholders, and the communities in which they operate. They should, for example, pay attention to whether any of their employees are suffering. Then ask themselves: how can we help? How can we put into practice in our social enterprise the principle of solidarity, expressed most profoundly in the commandment to love our neighbour? In this sense, social entrepreneurship is sometimes referred to as solidarity economics.113

109 Pontifical Council for Justice and Peace, Compendium of the Social Doctrine of the Church, no. 186–187. 110 To discuss this issue, I use an excerpt from my previous publication: Zadroga, “Catholic Social Teaching as a Source of Enrichment of the Moral Dimension of Social Enterprise Management,” 998, 1002–3. 111 John Paul II, Sollicitudo rei socialis, no. 38. 112 Pontifical Council for Justice and Peace, Compendium of the Social Doctrine of the Church, no. 357. 113 Benner and Pastor, Solidarity Economics: Why Mutuality and Movements Matter (Cambridge, UK; Medford, MA: Polity Press, 2021).

The Characteristics of Catholic Social Teaching Principles and Fundamental Values

3.5

The Universal Destination of Goods

The principle of the universal destination of goods is based on the following fact: The original source of all that is good is the very act of God, who created both the earth and man, and who gave the earth to man so that he might have dominion over it by his work and enjoy its fruits (Gen 1:28). God gave the earth to the whole human race for the sustenance of all its members, without excluding or favouring anyone. This is the foundation of the universal destination of the earth’s goods. The earth, by reason of its fruitfulness and its capacity to satisfy human needs, is God’s first gift for the sustenance of human life.114

One way of realising the principle of the universal destination of goods is demonstrating the social dimension of private ownership, as well as shared ownership of the means of production, and ensuring a share in the wealth produced.115 All these demands are realistically reflected in good social entrepreneurship practices. The broader relationship of this principle to economics and entrepreneurship is particularly reflected by the fact that it encourages an economy based on moral values. This prevents losing sight of the source and purpose of all wealth, so that a more just and solidarity-based world can be built, where wealth creation has a positive function as a means of promoting the well-being of all people and as a tool against social exclusion or exploitation.116 3.6

Participation

The principle of participation is expressed in the activities by which man – whether alone or in cooperation with others, directly or indirectly – contributes to society at all its levels: political, economic and cultural.117 The Church emphasises that “participation is a duty to be fulfilled consciously by all, with responsibility and with a view to the common good.”118

114 John Paul II, Centesimus annus, no. 31. 115 Jerzy Gocko, “Własność,” in Jan Paweł II. Encyklopedia nauczania moralnego, ed. Janusz Nagórny and Krzysztof Jeżyna (Radom: Polwen Polskie Wydawnictwo Encyklopedyczne, 2005), 580. 116 Pontifical Council for Justice and Peace, Compendium of the Social Doctrine of the Church, no. 174. See also Zadroga, “Ekonomia społeczna i nauczanie społeczne Kościoła. Wzajemne implikacje aksjologiczne,” 221. 117 Second Vatican Council, Gaudium et spes, no. 75. 118 Pontifical Council for Justice and Peace, Compendium of the Social Doctrine of the Church, no. 189. See also Catechism of the Catholic Church, no. 1913–1917.

59

60

Catholic Social Teaching and its Axionormative Dimension

Pope John Paul II noted that the complex social reality of the modern world demands participation. Moreover, in his view, it is even becoming a kind of moral duty, especially in the context of various forms of distortion and even negation of participation. The main manifestations of its distortion are individualism and totalism, in which the possibility of reconciling the good of the individual with the common good is negated. These two extreme approaches give rise to attitudes that negate the implementation of the principle of participation, primarily conformism and avoidance. Hence, the call for participation is so important.119 As John Paul II observed, a new state of affairs today, both in the Church and in social, economic, political and cultural life, calls with a particular urgency for the action of the lay faithful. If lack of commitment is always unacceptable, the present time renders it even more so. It is not permissible for anyone to remain idle.120

3.7

Fundamental Values

In addition to social principles, CST points to four fundamental values: truth, freedom, justice and love. As mentioned earlier, such a proposal was made by Pope John XXIII,121 which is why the concept has come to be known as the “John’s Quadrilateral”. In the Church’s view, this axiological model should constitute an indisputable “point of reference” for those in charge of social affairs and a kind of tool to carry out “substantial reforms of economic, political, cultural and technological structures and the necessary changes in institutions.”122 The issues of truth, freedom, justice and love occupy a special place in the teaching of John Paul II. Hence, when discussing individual values, it is worth recalling at least the most relevant content from his papal documents.

119 Marian Pokrywka, “Uczestnictwo,” in Jan Paweł II. Encyklopedia nauczania moralnego, ed. Janusz Nagórny and Krzysztof Jeżyna (Radom: Polwen Polskie Wydawnictwo Encyklopedyczne, 2005), 553–55. 120 John Paul II, Post-synodal Apostolic Exhortation Christifideles laici (30 December 1988), no. 3. 121 John XXIII, Pacem in terris, no. 35. 122 Congregation for Catholic Education, Guidelines: For the Study and Teaching of the Church’s Social Doctrine in the Formation of Priests, no. 43.

The Characteristics of Catholic Social Teaching Principles and Fundamental Values

3.7.1 Truth123

John Paul II reminds us that God desires all men to come to the knowledge of the truth.124 In turn, man can be defined as one who seeks the truth. Moreover, man is always “on a journey of discovery which is humanly unstoppable”.125 Ultimately, “the guiding into all the truth” is therefore achieved in faith and through faith: and this is the work of the Spirit of truth and the result of his action in man. Here the Holy Spirit is to be man’s supreme guide and the light of the human spirit.126

Supernatural help is even more necessary because man experiences various obstacles in the process of seeking and discovering the truth. These include primarily the natural limitations of rational cognition and the unsteady heart (will). Moreover, other pursuits sometimes dominate over the desire for the truth. It also happens that man flees from the truth due to fear of the consequences of accepting it.127 There are two paths leading to full truth: the natural (truth discovered through philosophical reflection and empirical scientific research) and the supernatural (truth contained in Revelation, discovered through theology). Ultimately, “this unity of truth, natural and revealed, is embodied in a living and personal way in Christ, as the Apostle reminds us: ‘Truth is in Jesus’.”128 At the same time, Pope John Paul II emphasises that “the content of Revelation can never debase the discoveries and legitimate autonomy of reason. Yet, conscious that it cannot set itself up as an absolute and exclusive value, reason on its part must never lose its capacity to question and to be questioned”.129 John Paul II also draws attention to the role of truth in social life. Truth has a communal and community-forming character.130 Pope John Paul II states that,

123 In developing this issue, I used the following source: Marian Pokrywka, “Prawda,” in Jan Paweł II. Encyklopedia nauczania moralnego, ed. Janusz Nagórny and Krzysztof Jeżyna (Radom: Polwen Polskie Wydawnictwo Encyklopedyczne, 2005), 417–19. 124 See: John Paul II, Redemptor hominis, no. 4. 125 John Paul II, Encyclical Letter Fides et ratio (14 September 1998), no. 33. 126 John Paul II, Encyclical Letter Dominum et Vivificantem (18 May 1986), no. 6. 127 John Paul II, Fides et ratio, no. 28. 128 John Paul II, Fides et ratio, no. 34. 129 John Paul II, Fides et ratio, no. 79. 130 Catechism of the Catholic Church, no. 2469.

61

62

Catholic Social Teaching and its Axionormative Dimension

morality – founded upon truth and open in truth to authentic freedom – renders a primordial, indispensable and immensely valuable service not only for the individual person and his growth in the good, but also for society and its genuine development.131

In this context, it is worth adding that it will be impossible to genuinely develop the social enterprise sector (and more broadly the economy as a whole) without seeking the truth about its determinants. Here, the need for transparency and honesty in entrepreneurial activities and in the way, money is used, both by individuals and by the social enterprises they manage, is particularly vital. In this case, truth cannot be reduced to the sum of selected socio-economic views, some expert opinion, the dominant movement of a particular ideology or a certain model of social policy. 3.7.2 Freedom132

John Paul II states that freedom is “within man, is connatural to the human person and is the distinctive sign of man’s nature.”133 It is therefore an essential characteristic and an indelible attribute; a sign of the uniqueness and singularity of every human being. To somewhat simplify this concept, it can be defined as the intrinsic capacity that enables the human person to choose and stand for certain values. At this point, it must be emphasised that freedom is closely linked to truth and goodness since it stems from truth and is oriented towards goodness. It is worth explaining these points in greater detail. Truth is the foundation of the freedom of the human person. John Paul II notes that freedom “contains in itself the criterion of truth, the discipline of truth. To be truly free means to use one’s own freedom for what is a true good.”134 For this reason, being truthful is not a kind of enslavement but rather staying true to oneself and a condition for preserving one’s identity as a person.135

131 John Paul II, Veritatis splendor, no. 101. 132 In developing this issue, I used the following source: Sławomir Nowosad and Michał Wyrostkiewicz, “Wolność,” in Jan Paweł II. Encyklopedia nauczania moralnego, ed. Janusz Nagórny and Krzysztof Jeżyna (Radom: Polwen Polskie Wydawnictwo Encyklopedyczne, 2005), 582–84. 133 John Paul II, XIV World Day for Peace 1981: To Serve Peace, Respect Freedom (7 December 1980), no. 5. 134 John Paul II, Apostolic Letter Dilecti amici (31 March 1985), no. 13. 135 See more: John Paul II, Redemptor hominis, no. 12. 15–16. John Paul II, Dominum et Vivificantem, no. 37–38. John Paul II, Veritatis splendor, no. 1. 61. 84–89. John Paul II, Fides et ratio, no. 13–15.

The Characteristics of Catholic Social Teaching Principles and Fundamental Values

Moreover, Pope John Paul II reminds us that, according to Christian faith and the Church’s teaching, “only the freedom which submits to the Truth leads the human person to his true good. The good of the person is to be in the Truth and to do the Truth.”136

Hence, one must remember that the freedom of the human person is limited; it must halt before the “tree of the knowledge of good and evil”, for it is called to accept the moral law given by God. … God, who alone is good, knows perfectly what is good for man, and by virtue of his very love proposes this good to man in the commandments.137

It also follows from this conviction that human freedom cannot be the source of moral values. Instead, humans should skilfully read and apply God’s moral law to their lives. In this context, it can be said that the key purpose and full meaning of freedom is the unrestricted possibility of choosing the true good. The fullest sign of this is love.138 This means that man cannot remain at the level of a colloquial understanding of freedom as the absence of any limitation, for then it becomes an end in itself (without content and meaning). Only the correct understanding and experience of freedom as a means to the fulfilment of the person lead to the attainment of human perfection – becoming fully the image of God who is Good (Matt 19:17) and, at the same time, being a truly good person for others.139 Thus (as stated in the Compendium of the Social Doctrine of the Church), the meaning of freedom must not be restricted, considering it from a purely individualistic perspective and reducing it to the arbitrary and uncontrolled exercise of one’s own personal autonomy … The understanding of freedom becomes deeper and broader when it is defended, even at the social level, in all of its various dimensions.140

Applying the above statements to social reality, it should be emphasised that the value of freedom is realised

136 137 138 139 140

John Paul II, Veritatis splendor, no. 84. John Paul II, Veritatis splendor, no. 35. Cf. John Paul II, Dominum et Vivificantem, no. 36. See more: John Paul II, Veritatis splendor, no. 17–18. John Paul II, Fides et ratio, no. 81. John Paul II, Dilecti amici, no. 13. Pontifical Council for Justice and Peace, Compendium of the Social Doctrine of the Church, no. 199.

63

64

Catholic Social Teaching and its Axionormative Dimension

when every member of society is permitted to fulfil his personal vocation; to seek the truth and profess his religious, cultural and political ideas; to express his opinions; to choose his state of life and, as far as possible, his line of work; to pursue initiatives of an economic, social or political nature.141 3.7.3 Justice142

According to the classical formula, justice “consists in the constant and firm will [of men] to give their due to God and neighbour.”143 Thus, it is a moral attitude that expresses itself in giving to each person what is rightfully due to them by virtue of their dignity and membership in a given community. At the same time, this value determines the extent of a person’s duty towards other individuals and the community. CST recommends the observance of three classical forms of justice in social life: commutative, distributive and legal justice.144 In the context of social entrepreneurship, it is particularly worth recalling the teaching of John Paul II on distributive justice. This axiological criterion calls for all members of a given community to benefit from the goods produced by that community. The aim is to take care of the basic needs of individuals and gradually bridge the gap in economic and social status.145 In practice, this involves appropriate ways of helping those in need, among other things. Pope John Paul II stresses that to act in a spirit of justice, it is not enough to “act against” in the name of a hardened force. Rather it is necessary to “act through and with” others, or, in the world of the media, to communicate through and with each one.146

Yet, a commitment to better take care of the poor must not be about taking over their responsibility for themselves and others. It is necessary to seek solutions that will not only help to “lift” them out of poverty, but also allow them to take full personal responsibility for their fate. Indeed, helping the poor in a way that removes

141 Pontifical Council for Justice and Peace, Compendium of the Social Doctrine of the Church, no. 200. 142 In developing this issue, I used the following source: Piotr Kieniewicz, “Sprawiedliwość,” in Jan Paweł II. Encyklopedia nauczania moralnego, ed. Janusz Nagórny and Krzysztof Jeżyna (Radom: Polwen Polskie Wydawnictwo Encyklopedyczne, 2005), 501–4. 143 Catechism of the Catholic Church, no. 1807. 144 Pontifical Council for Justice and Peace, Compendium of the Social Doctrine of the Church, no. 201. 145 John Paul II, Centesimus annus, no. 8. 146 John Paul II, 21st World Communications Day: Social Communications at the Service of Justice and Peace (23 January 1987).

The Characteristics of Catholic Social Teaching Principles and Fundamental Values

their responsibility for the common good ultimately becomes a form of injustice and a denial of concern for the subjectivity and dignity of the human person. It is also vital to have a good understanding of the relationship between justice and love in the light of Revelation. John Paul II explains that, love, so to speak, conditions justice and, in the final analysis, justice serves love. The primacy and superiority of love vis-a-vis justice – this is a mark of the whole of revelation – are revealed precisely through mercy. This seemed so obvious to the psalmists and prophets that the very term justice ended up by meaning the salvation accomplished by the Lord and His mercy. Mercy differs from justice, but is not in opposition to it …147

It follows from the logic of salvation that not only is it impossible to separate justice and mercy, but it is also impossible to contrast them. Pope John Paul II also states the following: True mercy is, so to speak, the most profound source of justice. If justice is in itself suitable for “arbitration” between people concerning the reciprocal distribution of objective goods in an equitable manner, love and only love (including that kindly love that we call “mercy”) is capable of restoring man to Himself.148

Social justice, which regulates social relations according to the criterion of respect for the law, is becoming increasingly important in CST and concerns social, political and economic aspects, as well as, above all, the structural dimension of problems and the solutions relating to them.149 In the context of this variety of justice, John Paul II emphasises its close relationship with (social) love. In one of his homilies, he reminded that social love is greater than social justice. If it is true that justice must prepare the ground for love, then it is even more profoundly true that only love can secure full justice. It is thus necessary that man be truly loved if human rights are to be fully safeguarded. This is the first and fundamental dimension of social love.150

147 148 149 150

John Paul II, Encyclical Letter Dives in misericordia (30 November 1980), no. 4. John Paul II, Dives in misericordia, no. 14. Pontifical Council for Justice and Peace, Compendium of the Social Doctrine of the Church, no. 201. John Paul II, “Pellegrinaggio apostolico in Polonia: Celebrazione Mariana di ringraziamento e di implorazione a Katowice,” (20 June 1983), no. 12. Translated by the author.

65

66

Catholic Social Teaching and its Axionormative Dimension

3.7.4 Love151

Love, much like an inner source, gives rise to and reinforces the values discussed so far: truth, freedom and justice. Hence, it can be said that all these four fundamental values are “the pillars which give strength and consistency to the edifice of life and deeds: they are values that determine the quality of every social action and institution.”152 CST notes that love should be seen as “the highest and universal criterion of the whole of social ethics”.153 Nonetheless, the Church is aware that for this to happen it is necessary that care be taken to show love not only in its role of prompting individual deeds but also as a force capable of inspiring new ways of approaching the problems of today’s world, of profoundly renewing structures, social organisations, legal systems from within.154

This corresponds well with the logic of social entrepreneurship, in which the love of one’s neighbour materialises at the social level through the use of the fundraising business model to improve the living conditions of individuals and social groups or to initiate the process of eradicating the drivers of poverty. In this context, it is worth recalling some important statements on love, taken from the social teaching of the Church (and particularly the teachings of John Paul II). The Catechism of the Catholic Church reminds us that “charity is the theological virtue by which we love God above all things for his own sake, and our neighbour as ourselves for the love of God.”155 Moreover, as emphasised by the Second Vatican Council man, “who is the only creature on earth which God willed for itself, cannot fully find himself except through a sincere gift of himself.”156 To put it yet another way,

151 In developing this issue, I used the following source: Andrzej Franciszek Dziuba, “Miłość,” in Jan Paweł II. Encyklopedia nauczania moralnego, ed. Janusz Nagórny and Krzysztof Jeżyna (Radom: Polwen Polskie Wydawnictwo Encyklopedyczne, 2005), 327–33. 152 Pontifical Council for Justice and Peace, Compendium of the Social Doctrine of the Church, no. 205. 153 Pontifical Council for Justice and Peace, Compendium of the Social Doctrine of the Church, no. 204. 154 Pontifical Council for Justice and Peace, Compendium of the Social Doctrine of the Church, no. 207. 155 Catechism of the Catholic Church, no. 1822. 156 Second Vatican Council, Gaudium et spes, no. 24.

Conclusion

man cannot live without love. He remains a being that is incomprehensible for himself, his life is senseless, if love is not revealed to him, if he does not encounter love, if he does not experience it and make it his own, if he does not participate intimately in it.157

Here, it ought to be mentioned that man becomes capable of love in equal measure to that of Christ only by virtue of the gift received.158 It is the awareness of having received that gift – of having God’s love in Jesus Christ – that “generates and sustains the free response of a full love for God and the brethren …”159 Jesus himself “asks us to follow him and to imitate him along the path of love, a love which gives itself completely to the brethren out of love for God …”160 Moreover, Christ revealed that “man not only receives and experiences the mercy of God, but that he is also called ‘to practice mercy’ towards others: ‘Blessed are the merciful, for they shall obtain mercy’.”161 Finally, it must be strongly emphasised that mercy is “an indispensable element for shaping mutual relationships between people, in a spirit of deepest respect for what is human, and in a spirit of mutual brotherhood.”162

4.

Conclusion

Based on the discourse, a general conclusion can be drawn that the principles of CST and fundamental values make it possible to make judgements and interpret social reality in its various dimensions (including particular situations, structures, social systems or ideas). Consequently, they set a normative framework for the prophetic and critical mission of the Church’s social teaching, including in relation to social entrepreneurship (as a specific theoretical concept and, at the same time, business and managerial practice). Furthermore, through the application of a heuristic way of thinking, these principles and values make it possible to uncover the more contentspecific axionormative determinants of social entrepreneurship. These two lines of research are worthy of further analysis and conceptual consideration.

157 158 159 160 161 162

John Paul II, Redemptor hominis, no. 10. John Paul II, Veritatis splendor, no. 22. John Paul II, Veritatis splendor, no. 24. John Paul II, Veritatis splendor, no. 20. John Paul II, Dives in misericordia, no. 14. John Paul II, Dives in misericordia, no. 14.

67

III.

The Axionormative Foundation of Catholic Social Teaching and Social Entrepreneurship: The Key Mutual Implications*

The values, motivations, goals, and methods of their implementation characteristic of social entrepreneurship are aptly expressed in the publication entitled Polski model ekonomii społecznej [The Polish Social Economy Model]: Social economy is ... primarily a specific approach of individuals and institutions to social reality. This includes both the attitude to one’s own problems (i. e. activity rather than entitlement), the manner in which they are solved (collective rather than individual), as well as the goals one sets (common good – the good of others rather than the interests of a narrow group). Such actions are thus heavily based on solidarity and cooperation, not particularism and competition.1

Furthermore, solidarity, subsidiarity, entrepreneurship, commitment, prudence, responsibility, self-reliance, empowerment,2 as well as freedom, multidimensionality and a long-term time horizon are clearly indicated in the dimension of the axionormative rooting of social entrepreneurship.3

* To present this issue, I have used excerpts from my following publications: Zadroga, “Axionormative Determinants of Social Entrepreneurship in View of the Principles of Catholic Social Teaching.” Zadroga, “Ekonomia społeczna i nauczanie społeczne Kościoła. Wzajemne implikacje aksjologiczne.” 1 Frączak and Wygnański, Polski model ekonomii społecznej. Rekomendacje dla rozwoju. Zaproszenie do dyskusji, 15. Translated by the author. At this point, it should be noted that the term “social economy” – or “social and solidarity economy”, as it has recently been called – has been adopted in Poland (see e.g., www.ekonomiaspoleczna.gov.pl). The author believes that the term “social entrepreneurship” is more adequate to describe both the idea itself and the academic discipline. Cf. e.g. Jacek Klich, “Przedsiębiorczość i społeczna przedsiębiorczość jako przedmiot badań,” Ekonomia Społeczna 6, no. 1 (2013): 20–33. Pradeep Kumar Hota, S. Balaji, and Gopalakrishnan Narayanamurthy, “Mapping the Intellectual Structure of Social Entrepreneurship Research: A Citation/Co-Citation Analysis,” Journal of Business Ethics 166, no. 1 (September 1, 2020): 89–114, https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551019-04129-4. 2 “ManifESt – ekonomii społecznej,” accessed March 22, 2023, http://www.wsparcie.es/wp-content/ uploads/2018/10/manifest_ekonomii_spolecznej.pdf. 3 Monika Chomątowska, “Nauka społeczna Kościoła a gospodarka społeczna,” Ekonomia Społeczna, 2013, 71–74.

70

The Axionormative Foundation of Catholic Social Teaching and Social Entrepreneurship

In this context, it appears worthwhile to analyse the presented axionormative foundation of social entrepreneurship from the perspective of the principles advocated by CST.4 This is justified for several reasons. Firstly, both disciplines, being fundamentally focused on social issues, have the opportunity to meet in this way, not only on a subject matter level but also in terms of their deepest foundations – as axionormative assumptions – and thus enrich each other. Secondly, from the very beginning, CST has been assigned the role of promoting moral values that should be taken into account when establishing or evaluating a given social, economic or political system.5 This also applies to smaller structures, specific institutions, concepts and practical social solutions, which may include social entrepreneurship. As such, the various principles of social life promoted by the Church are certainly worth analysing in terms of their presence, implementation, or necessity in social entrepreneurship. Therefore, the ultimate aim of this chapter is to confirm the hypothesis that taking into account the principles of CST in the process of discovering the axionormative determinants of social entrepreneurship allows its deeper understanding and more effective implementation of its praxeological goals. The starting point of the discourse will consist in highlighting the common source of all general and specific axionormative criteria of the two analysed disciplines (CST and social entrepreneurship), which is the dignity of the human person. Further deliberations will revolve around other values and principles, such as the value of human work and entrepreneurship, the common good, the universal destination of goods, the preferential option for the poor, solidarity, subsidiarity, and participation.6

4 The following article provides only a synthetic presentation of the most relevant research findings on the subject. This subject was previously covered by Zadroga, “Ekonomia społeczna i nauczanie społeczne Kościoła. Wzajemne implikacje aksjologiczne.” Chomątowska, “Nauka społeczna Kościoła a gospodarka społeczna.” McVea and Naughton, “Enriching Social Entrepreneurship from the Perspective of Catholic Social Teaching.” 5 Gocko, “Zasady nauki społecznej Kościoła i wartości podstawowe jako normy moralne życia społecznego. Refleksja na kanwie współczesnych dokumentów społecznych Kościoła.” 6 Following the Pontifical Council for Justice and Peace, it is important to emphasise that “the principles of the Church’s social doctrine must be appreciated in their unity, interrelatedness and articulation. ... Examining each of these principles individually must not lead to using them only in part or in an erroneous manner, which would be the case if they were to be invoked in a disjointed and unconnected way with respect to each of the others. A deep theoretical understanding and the actual application of even just one of these social principles clearly shows the reciprocity, complementarities and interconnectedness that is part of their structure.” Pontifical Council for Justice and Peace, Compendium of the Social Doctrine of the Church, no. 162.

The Dignity of the Human Person

1.

The Dignity of the Human Person

Centuries of in-depth reflection on the essence of social life led to the conclusion that the metaphysical “root” of every social principle is the social nature of humans.7 From the moment of conception, every human being carries a certain personal potential only to reach the fullness of humanity through participation in social life. It is through various social principles that the imperative of practical reason to create common values as a means of achieving personal goals finds expression. That is why humans occupy a central place in every area and manifestation of socialisation. It is around human beings that all social life should revolve. It is the human person who remains the main and most active participant in this life and its various forms.8 The man “far from being the object and ..., a merely passive element in the social order, is in fact, and must be and continue to be, its subject, its foundation and its end.”9 The effective implementation of this fundamental axionormative assumption takes place in the case of social entrepreneurship. It reveals a distinctly personalistic approach.10 The core of this concept lies in a genuine concern for the integral development of the human person. Every individual involved in social entrepreneurship initiatives is treated as a subject. All undertakings, projects and specific activities are ultimately intended to activate, unleash and fulfil their personal potential, and ultimately make them independent. This pursuit of empowerment and independence becomes more understandable considering that various innovative forms of social entrepreneurship are undertaken, among other things, to counteract the phenomenon of social exclusion of people at risk of marginalisation (the unemployed, homeless, disabled, migrants, etc.).11 In practice, it provides these people with an opportunity to abandon the position of a client, of being an object of philanthropy and social transfers, the position of a person dependent on the help of others – and on the help of non-governmental organisations; an opportunity to become an independent

7 For more on the social nature of humans − cf. Pontifical Council for Justice and Peace, Compendium of the Social Doctrine of the Church, no. 149–151. 8 Pontifical Council for Justice and Peace, Compendium of the Social Doctrine of the Church, no. 106. 9 Pius XII, Radio Message ‘Benignitas et Humanitas’ for Christmas (24 December 1944), no. 5. 10 Cf. Zadroga, “Professional Ethics of Social Entrepreneurs: The Perspective of Christian Personalist Ethics.” 11 Cf. Zadroga, “Ekonomia społeczna i nauczanie społeczne Kościoła. Wzajemne implikacje aksjologiczne,” 217. At this point, it is necessary to point out that social entrepreneurship not only undertakes activities for the benefit of people in need of support (including, in essence, people at risk of social exclusion), but it also seeks to introduce positive solutions for society as a whole (in particular the local community), as well as launches initiatives to protect the environment.

71

72

The Axionormative Foundation of Catholic Social Teaching and Social Entrepreneurship

individual capable of taking care of their own fate and of their loved ones. This involves the possibility, but also the necessity, of earning an income from work, and consequently means regaining the dignity that originates in making independent choices about one’s own destiny.12

2.

The Value of Human Work and Entrepreneurship

The possibility of engaging in decent work, and even more so participating in the management of a social enterprise, is a form of implementation which the Church postulates in relation to human work and entrepreneurship. For humans, work is a fundamental right and good that appropriately expresses and multiplies their dignity. Therefore, it is not only objective but, above all, subjective. Its proper organisation benefits human development.13 Work is necessary to support the family,14 maintain the right to own property15 and contribute to the common good of the human family.16 Therefore, many initiatives within the social enterprise sector can be regarded as excellent examples of the practical implementation of the Church’s social teaching on the value of human work.17 As was already noted by Pope John XXIII, numerous examples of established social enterprises, based either on an associative agreement or on cooperative law, confirm the possibility of building socio-economic solutions that genuinely benefit people by enhancing the value of work, fostering the development of individual and collective responsibility, as well as promoting other human values – for example entrepreneurship – which are useful for the growth of the market and society as a whole.18 John Paul II also expressed his deep conviction that “the role of disciplined and creative human work and, as an essential part of that work, initiative and entrepreneurial ability becomes increasingly evident and decisive.”19 Such a way of thinking and acting is consistent with the notion of social entrepreneurship, which stems from the desire to take responsibility for one’s own

12 Frączak and Wygnański, Polski model ekonomii społecznej. Rekomendacje dla rozwoju. Zaproszenie do dyskusji, 16. Translated by the author. 13 John Paul II, Laborem exercens, no. 9, 18. 14 John Paul II, Laborem exercens, no. 10. 15 John Paul II, Centesimus annus, no. 31. 16 John Paul II, Laborem exercens, no. 16. 17 See: Ryszard Praszkier and Andrzej Nowak, Social Entrepreneurship: Theory and Practice (Cambidge: Cambridge University Press, 2011). 18 John XXIII, Mater et Magistra, no. 18–44. 19 John Paul II, Centesimus annus, no. 32. For more on the entrepreneurial vocation, see: Pontifical Council for Justice and Peace, “Vocation of the Business Leader.”

The Common Good

destiny. As experts creating the assumptions for the Polish social economy model stated: Without an entrepreneurial spirit in people, in organisations and in communities, even the best external conditions will not lead to fundamental changes. Of course, first of all, this requires a change in people, who must be willing and able to take up the challenge.20

This was one of the contexts in which John Paul II saw the need for there to be “an open process by which society organised itself.”21 Moreover, this links to the Pope’s conviction that besides the earth, man’s principal resource is man himself. His intelligence enables him to discover the earth’s productive potential and the many different ways in which human needs can be satisfied.22

The entrepreneurial attitude to solving social problems confirms the papal intuition.

3.

The Common Good

The common good is defined in CST as “the sum of those conditions of social life which allow social groups and their individual members relatively thorough and ready access to their own fulfilment.”23 After translating this to social entrepreneurship, it is important to first and foremost draw attention to the importance of social capital. In fact, social enterprises not only rely on social capital but simultaneously foster its creation.24 In a broader sense, it is necessary to state that the entire economic sector formed by social enterprises can only function efficiently in an environment where people engage in joint ventures, know how to work together and have trust in each other to take risks together. This implies that effective social enterprises

20 Frączak and Wygnański, Polski model ekonomii społecznej. Rekomendacje dla rozwoju. Zaproszenie do dyskusji, 15. Translated by the author. 21 John Paul II, Centesimus annus, no. 16. 22 John Paul II, Centesimus annus, no. 32. 23 Second Vatican Council, Gaudium et spes, no. 26. 24 Cf. Marek and Jabłoński, “Care of the Common Good as a Responsibility of Business Leaders. Catholic Social Teaching Perspective.”

73

74

The Axionormative Foundation of Catholic Social Teaching and Social Entrepreneurship

need to operate in an environment where social initiatives and citizens’ initiatives are something natural.25

It is worth emphasising that the common good should not be treated as a goal in itself. This principle assumes its deepest meaning only in relation to the fulfilment of the ultimate objectives of human beings and the whole of creation. This indicates that the common good cannot be deprived of its transcendent dimension since God is the ultimate goal of His creations.26 It is only through Him, by Him and because of Him that any reality, including human activity in the sphere of social entrepreneurship, can be brought to its highest good. Otherwise, a purely materialist vision would lead to the transformation of the common good into mere social welfare deprived of any transcendent purpose and thus of the deepest reason for its existence.27 This is an important warning with regard to potential attempts to implement a model of social entrepreneurship that would, by definition, eliminate this deepest transcendent dimension from its axionormative assumptions.

4.

The Universal Destination of Goods

One form of care for the common good is the principle of the universal destination of goods. Its key significance in CST was emphasised by John Paul II, who described it as “the first principle of the whole ethical and social order”28 and “the characteristic principle of Christian social doctrine.”29 It originates from the revealed truth that the first and most important source of all good is God Himself. He is the Creator of humans and of the earth, and he gave the earth to humans to subjugate it with their human efforts and creativity, and to enjoy the results of their work and entrepreneurship (Gen 1:28–29). What is relevant from the point of view of the analyses is that the Creator gave the earth to the whole human race to sustain all its members, without excluding or distinguishing anyone. This constitutes the fundamental premise of the universal destination of the earth’s goods.30 Such an approach in social entrepreneurship is manifested in all initiatives aimed at taking care of the environment and promoting responsible consumer attitudes and be-

25 Frączak and Wygnański, Polski model ekonomii społecznej. Rekomendacje dla rozwoju. Zaproszenie do dyskusji, 15. Translated by the author. 26 John Paul II, Centesimus annus, no. 41. 27 Pontifical Council for Justice and Peace, Compendium of the Social Doctrine of the Church, no. 170. 28 John Paul II, Laborem exercens, no. 19. 29 John Paul II, Sollicitudo rei socialis, no. 42. 30 John Paul II, Centesimus annus, no. 31.

A Preferential Option for the Poor as an Expression of Social Love

haviours.31 Moreover, any project in line with the idea of social entrepreneurship should, by definition, lead to the establishment of a fairer and more solidarity-based world, in which not only natural resources but all accumulated goods are intended to serve as a means of fostering the well-being of all people, in particular those most vulnerable to exclusion and exploitation.32

5.

A Preferential Option for the Poor as an Expression of Social Love

The motivation to counteract the phenomenon of social marginalisation plays a key role in social entrepreneurship, while being consistent with the Church’s postulate to follow a preferential option in favour of the poor in social life. John Paul II explains this principle by stating that: This is an option, or a special form of primacy in the exercise of Christian charity, to which the whole tradition of the Church bears witness. It affects the life of each Christian inasmuch as he or she seeks to imitate the life of Christ, but it applies equally to our social responsibilities and hence to our manner of living, and to the logical decisions to be made concerning the ownership and use of goods.33

In this context, it is worth highlighting the crucial benefits of social entrepreneurship as perceived from the point of view of specific groups of people at risk of social exclusion. They include the creation of permanent jobs (individuals who struggle to find work on the open labour market become employed), social inclusion of disabled people through work (in this case, it is work, rather than productivity, that is the most important value), as well as social and professional reintegration (i. e. the broadly understood socialisation of excluded people, such as the homeless, by involving them in the process of productive work).34

31 Frączak and Wygnański, Polski model ekonomii społecznej. Rekomendacje dla rozwoju. Zaproszenie do dyskusji, 16. 32 Zadroga, “Ekonomia społeczna i nauczanie społeczne Kościoła. Wzajemne implikacje aksjologiczne,” 221. 33 John Paul II, Sollicitudo rei socialis, no. 42. 34 Cf. Halina Sobocka-Szczapa, Ekonomia społeczna w Polsce (Łódź: Społeczna Wyższa Szkoła Przedsiębiorczości i Zarządzania, 2010), 27–28. Barbara Kowalczyk, “Ekonomia społeczna w pomocy społecznej w Polsce w walce z wykluczeniem społecznym,” in Praca socjalna wobec nowych obszarów wykluczenia społecznego. Modele teoretyczne, potrzeby praktyki, ed. Kazimiera Wódz and Sabina Pawlas-Czyż (Toruń: AKAPIT, 2008), 35.

75

76

The Axionormative Foundation of Catholic Social Teaching and Social Entrepreneurship

6.

Solidarity

Solidarity can be defined as “a firm and persevering determination to commit oneself to the common good; that is to say to the good of all and of each individual.”35 This means that apart from compassion for those in need of support, there needs to be a specific, thoughtful, and goodwill-based commitment to making a positive difference in their lives. Furthermore, it is not enough to act together; according to the theory and practice of social entrepreneurship, it is necessary to learn how to act effectively, boldly striving to harmoniously combine interpersonal solidarity with business efficiency. At this point, it is worth recalling the opinion of John Paul II, included in his encyclical Centesimus annus, on the social reforms that had been undertaken over the past hundred years, which at the same time exemplify the practical application of the principle of solidarity through the mechanisms of social entrepreneurship: These same reforms were also partly the result of an open process by which society organised itself through the establishment of effective instruments of solidarity, which were capable of sustaining an economic growth more respectful of the values of the person. Here we should remember the numerous efforts to which Christians made a notable contribution in establishing producers’, consumers’ and credit cooperatives, in promoting general education and professional training, in experimenting with various forms of participation in the life of the work-place and in the life of society in general.36

The aforementioned historical experiences should serve as an inspiration for appropriate changes in legislation and market rules to foster the creation of authentic “structures of solidarity,”37 by which the entities of the social enterprise sector can be classified. The State naturally plays an essential role in this process, but this intervention by the public authority can by no means be carried out in disregard of the principle of subsidiarity.

35 John Paul II, Sollicitudo rei socialis, no. 38. 36 John Paul II, Centesimus annus, no. 16. 37 Cf. Pontifical Council for Justice and Peace, Compendium of the Social Doctrine of the Church, no. 193.

Subsidiarity

7.

Subsidiarity

In CST, the principle of subsidiarity, generally understood as the requirement to protect and foster expressions of the innate social nature of humans, was formulated in the encyclical Quadragesimo anno in the following words: Just as it is gravely wrong to take from individuals what they can accomplish by their own initiative and industry, and give it to the community, so also it is an injustice and at the same time a grave evil and disturbance of right order to assign to a greater and higher association what lesser and subordinate organisations can do. For every social activity ought of its very nature to furnish help to the members of the social body, and never destroy and absorb them.38

In this respect – with regard to social entrepreneurial actors – it is the responsibility of entities such as the State or other “larger communities” to respect their nature as “bottom-up” organisations created as part of a civil society initiative. This must be expressed by appreciating their specificity, by putting the concept of subsidiarity into practice. A concrete indication of this approach would be respect and promotion of dignity and unrestricted responsibility of the supported entity.39 In social entrepreneurship, the principle of subsidiarity is fulfilled when social managers strive to achieve the financial independence of the managed organisations in relation to external institutions. It is reflected in actions focused on raising funds primarily at one’s own risk, as well as through one’s own efforts and resources, i. e. in the form of business activities. This allows shifting away from the “extended hand” attitude which results in almost complete dependence on the preferences of public and/or private donors (as is the case with many NGOs). Guided by the principle of subsidiarity, well-managed social enterprises aim to become sovereign entities capable of taking action in line with their own mission and based on their own resources, including financial resources. In this way, the opportunity to avoid falling into the trap of becoming an “extension” of public institutions or a hostage to philanthropic emotions, in favour of a real implementation of the notion of empowerment, becomes real.40

38 Pius XI, Quadragesimo anno, no. 79. 39 Pontifical Council for Justice and Peace, Compendium of the Social Doctrine of the Church, no. 357. 40 Zadroga, “Ekonomia społeczna i nauczanie społeczne Kościoła. Wzajemne implikacje aksjologiczne,” 15.

77

78

The Axionormative Foundation of Catholic Social Teaching and Social Entrepreneurship

8.

Participation

Subsidiarity is closely linked to the principle of participation. The latter is expressed in the commitment by which a person – either alone or in cooperation with others – contributes to society at its various levels.41 The Church stresses that “participation is a duty to be fulfilled consciously by all, with responsibility and with a view to the common good.”42 In terms of social entrepreneurship, it is essential to note that it is impossible to effectively implement its fundamental idea without the direct and active involvement of the individuals and communities for the benefit of which a particular project’s activities are conducted.43 This applies particularly to initiatives promoting local community development and ventures of an associative, cooperative or mutual nature. Activity and cooperation based on mutual trust are vital in the development of local communities. All of these attitudes are simultaneously prerequisites for the effectiveness of activities in the field of social entrepreneurship. One must note that social entrepreneurship can only be truly social if it gains social support and, above all, is met with the right attitude on the part of its direct beneficiaries.44

9.

Conclusions

The above deliberations presented Catholic social teaching as complementary knowledge enriching the axionormative determinants of social entrepreneurship. The identification, description, and comparison of the fundamental assumptions of the two disciplines under study have allowed for a deeper reinterpretation of the concept of social entrepreneurship in relation to such values and principles as the dignity of the human person, the value of human work and entrepreneurship, the common good, the universal destination of goods, the preferential option for the poor, solidarity, subsidiarity and participation. Therefore, the hypothesis that engagement in social entrepreneurship cannot be devoid of a strong axiological rooting has been proven. Otherwise, such a practice, deprived of value factors, will not truly serve the benefit of humans and society. Most importantly, moral and social doctrine – both the one preached by the Catholic Church and the one contained in the axiological assumptions of social

41 Second Vatican Council, Gaudium et spes, no. 75. 42 Pontifical Council for Justice and Peace, Compendium of the Social Doctrine of the Church, no. 189. 43 Frączak and Wygnański, Polski model ekonomii społecznej. Rekomendacje dla rozwoju. Zaproszenie do dyskusji, 15. 44 Frączak and Wygnański, Polski model ekonomii społecznej. Rekomendacje dla rozwoju. Zaproszenie do dyskusji, 7.

Conclusions

entrepreneurship – is arranged and developed based on the principle affirming the inviolable dignity of the human person. This personalist standard is also the foundation on which all other principles and content of social teaching – especially concerning the common good, subsidiarity and solidarity – must be based. At the same time, social entrepreneurship promotes the creation of innovative organisational solutions that effectively affirm the value of each human being and enable their full participation in society, leading to an integral development. That is why it is an excellent example of the practical implementation of the personalist norm into a socio-economic reality.

79

IV.

Catholic Social Teaching and the Moral Dimension of Social Enterprise Management*

In the literature, “social enterprise” is often used as an umbrella term for different types of social enterprises and various organisational and legal forms. In different countries and regions of the world, it is not uncommon for the social enterprise concept to cover different forms of specific objectives or ways of implementing social undertakings. That is why the term “social venture” – as Marzena Starnawska notes – is “the most universal term representing what is happening in social entrepreneurship, as it does not refer to any particular sector and does not point to any particular organisational and legal form.”1

1.

The Phenomenon of Social Enterprises

Setting aside the widespread debate on the term “social enterprise,”2 it is important to identify the three dominant schools of defining a social enterprise:3 (1) earned income – a social enterprise is any form of commercial activity that is undertaken by a non-profit organisation to fulfil its mission or (within the same approach) a commercial enterprise pursuing social objectives (for example, in the case of CSR initiatives); (2) social innovation – this approach emphasises the significance of social innovation in increasing the level of effectiveness of social enterprises, at the same time appreciating the key role of the social entrepreneur as a charismatic leader, social change agent and social businessman who seeks innovative solutions to existing social problems; (3) EMES4  – this strand, explained below, results from

* To present this issue, I have used excerpts from my previous publication: Adam Zadroga, “Catholic Social Teaching as a Source of Enrichment of the Moral Dimension of Social Enterprise Management,” Verbum Vitae 40, no. 4 (2022): 989–1006, https://doi.org/10.31743/vv.14380. 1 Marzena Starnawska, “Przedsiębiorczość społeczna w społeczeństwie obywatelskim w Polsce,” Studia BAS 44, no. 4 (December 1, 2015): 172–173, http://orka.sejm.gov.pl/WydBAS.nsf/0/ C1F8496B0BDCE0EFC1257F4000426F3F/$file/StronyodStudia_BAS_44-8.pdf. Translated by the author. 2 For the discussion about the definition of a social enterprise see: Anna Ciepielewska-Kowalik et al., “Social Enterprise in Poland: Institutional and Historical Context,” ICSEM Working Papers 11 (January 1, 2015). 3 Starnawska, “Przedsiębiorczość społeczna w społeczeństwie obywatelskim w Polsce,” 173–79. 4 The abbreviation EMES comes from the French title of a research project “L’EMergence de l’Entreprise Sociale en Europe” (Eng. “The Emergence of Social Enterprises in Europe”), carried out between 1996

82

Catholic Social Teaching and the Moral Dimension of Social Enterprise Management

the work of a network of collaborating universities and researchers in Europe who undertake research on social enterprises and social entrepreneurship. The first two approaches originated in the United States, while the third concept emerged in Europe. The twofold – North American and European – definition of social entrepreneurship stems from varying cultural, historical, social, political, and economic contexts in which social enterprises have developed on these continents. The fundamental difference between these approaches also lies in the diverse perception of social enterprise leaders. The European continent emphasises the associative nature of social entrepreneurship. The key role is played by a group of citizens and their joint initiative, self-help, and public-private partnerships. However, in the American model, social enterprise initiatives are created thanks to the involvement of individuals and their specific characteristics, such as entrepreneurship, charismatic leadership and social inclinations. Therefore, a social enterprise in the United States combines the aspect of social innovation with market-based activities and the use of management methods characteristic of private enterprises.5 The American understanding of a social enterprise includes a number of different legal forms: private profit-oriented businesses engaged in socially beneficial activities (corporate social responsibility, corporate philanthropies), dual-purpose businesses combining commercial and social objectives, or non-profit (social purpose) organisations that undertake market activities in order to be able to fulfil a social mission.6 In Europe, the concept of a social enterprise is not uniform either. The prevailing definition, as mentioned earlier, is the one developed by the EMES Network. According to this interpretation, a social enterprise can be identified using the following economic criteria: (1) continuous activity producing goods and/or providing services, (2) undertaking a significant level of economic risk, and (3) a minimum level of paid work; as well as social criteria: (1) an explicit aim to benefit the community, (2) an initiative launched by a group of citizens or civil society organisations, (3) a limited profit distribution; combined with participatory governance: (1) a high degree of autonomy, (2) a decision-making power not based on capital owner-

and 1999 on behalf of the EC Directorate-General for Research and Innovation – more information available at www.emes.net 5 Defourny and Nyssens, “Conceptions of Social Enterprise and Social Entrepreneurship in Europe and the United States: Convergences and Divergences.” 6 Janelle A. Kerlin, “Social Enterprise in the United States and Europe: Understanding and Learning from the Differences,” Voluntas 17, no. 3 (September 28, 2006): 246–62, https://doi.org/10.1007/ s11266-006-9016-2.

Characteristics of Social Enterprise Management

ship, and (3) a participatory nature, which involves various parties affected by the activity.7 As the authors of this definition emphasise, the indicated criteria should not be seen as necessary “conditions” that an organisation must meet in order to be seen as a social enterprise, but as a description of the “ideal type” of such a business. It is, therefore, a methodological tool rather than a normative set of elements that make up a social enterprise.8 It is worth noting that social enterprises adopt various organisational forms in different countries, depending on the legal system as well as the cultural and historical background of the development of the non-profit sector. As a result, the social enterprise sector includes both new organisational formations (in Poland, for example, this includes social cooperatives) and traditional third-sector organisations (foundations, associations).9 The increasing importance of this sector leads to a growing interest in the practical aspects of social enterprise management in the field of research. It is especially important to understand the determinants of success for these organisations. Factors conditioning the efficiency and effectiveness of social enterprises lie in the human layer (management and employees), as well as in other internal resources of the organisation and its environment.10

2.

Characteristics of Social Enterprise Management

Every organisation is isolated from its environment, with which it interacts in a specific manner. Social enterprises operate in settings involving particular challenges, constraints, opportunities, and threats. The role of a social manager is to deal with these conditions. As Martyna Wronka-Pośpiech et al. point out, according

7 Defourny and Nyssens, “The EMES Approach of Social Enterprise in a Comparative Perspective,” 12–15. 8 Jacques Defourny and Marthe Nyssens, “Social Enterprise in Europe: At the Crossroads of Market, Public Policies and Third Sector,” Policy and Society 29, no. 3 (August 1, 2010): 239, https://doi. org/10.1016/j.polsoc.2010.07.002. 9 Eugeniusz Brzuska, Iwona Kukulak-Dolata, and Mariusz Nyk, Ekonomia społeczna: teoria i praktyka przedsiębiorczości społecznej (Warszawa: Difin, 2017), 19–53. 10 Martyna Wronka-Pośpiech, Aldona Frączkiewicz-Wronka, and Małgorzata Dobrowolska, “Osobowościowe wyznaczniki pracy, wpływające na sukces przedsiębiorców społecznych,” Zarządzanie Zasobami Ludzkimi, January 1, 2017, 108, http://yadda.icm.edu.pl/yadda/element/bwmeta1.element. desklight-dfedc298-ae2c-4aed-8f3c-1bfbdd8e09e0.

83

84

Catholic Social Teaching and the Moral Dimension of Social Enterprise Management

to contingency theories of leadership,11 it is essential to adapt the management and leadership styles to the given situation and organisational context.12 The nature of social enterprises, which influences the manner in which they are managed, is determined by the inclusion and prioritisation of social objectives in their mission. This orientation towards creating social transformation facilitates the establishment of a well-defined direction for the actions of managers and employees. At this point, it is particularly important to engage in dialogue with stakeholders and create a coherent organisational culture.13 It is closely linked to another factor determining the functioning of these organisations, namely financial resources. Their level is reduced by profit, as it is not the purpose of social enterprises but rather a means to achieve their social mission. As a result, the managers of these entities – unlike managers in charge of commercial enterprises in which profits can be reinvested – have to be much more concerned about financial stability. However, social managers are not only obliged to look for diverse sources of funding (which will allow them to raise the financial capital necessary to invest in innovative initiatives in support of social change),14 but they should also remember about maintaining liquidity at the business level.15 Furthermore, it should be noted that in the process of raising funds for a social enterprise’s mission activities (also from a broad range of non-business sources), the management often becomes somewhat dependent on various stakeholder groups (e. g. public sector authorities, taxpayers, the unemployed and employees). Each of these groups may pursue different goals, develop different perceptions, and have different expectations of activities undertaken by social organisations.16 This poses a considerable management challenge, but in this case the success depends on the ability of a social enterprise to manage the issues that are relevant to its stakeholders.

11 Fred Edward Fiedler, A Theory of Leadership Effectiveness (New York: Wiley, 1967). Victor Harold Vroom and Philip W. Yetton, eds., Leadership and Decision-Making (Pittsburgh, United States of America: University of Pittsburgh Press, 1973). 12 Wronka-Pośpiech, Frączkiewicz-Wronka, and Dobrowolska, “Osobowościowe wyznaczniki pracy, wpływające na sukces przedsiębiorców społecznych,” 109. 13 Martyna Wronka-Pośpiech, “Kulturowe uwarunkowania zarządzania przedsiębiorstwem społecznym,” Studia Ekonomiczne / Uniwersytet Ekonomiczny W Katowicach, January 1, 2017, 90–102, http://yadda.icm.edu.pl/yadda/element/bwmeta1.element.ekon-element-000171500110. 14 Wronka-Pośpiech, Frączkiewicz-Wronka, and Dobrowolska, “Osobowościowe wyznaczniki pracy, wpływające na sukces przedsiębiorców społecznych,” 108–9. 15 Cheryl R. Clark and Linda Brennan, “Entrepreneurship with Social Value: A Conceptual Model for Performance Measurement,” Academy of Entrepreneurship Journal 18, no. 2 (July 1, 2012): 17, https://www.questia.com/library/journal/1G1-321579273/entrepreneurship-with-social-value-aconceptual-model. 16 Brzuska, Kukulak-Dolata, and Nyk, Ekonomia społeczna: teoria i praktyka przedsiębiorczości społecznej, 58.

Characteristics of Social Enterprise Management

This is what ultimately plays a crucial role in legitimising and accounting for the assigned responsibilities.17 In addition, the management of a social enterprise requires not only a modern approach (i. e. planning, good organisation of work and resources, leading and controlling) but also taking into account the uniqueness of the human factor involved in this type of organisation. The personnel and even the management of social cooperatives – which by definition have a democratic management style – are often made up of people from socially excluded groups or groups at risk of social marginalisation.18 However, it appears that the ability to achieve goals set by a given organisation depends mostly on the qualities and motivation of the social entrepreneur/manager.19 It is a person for whom pursuing a mission that encompasses social and economic objectives is a particular challenge. They must continuously adapt the enterprise’s strategy to external market requirements, other manifestations of the turbulent environment, as well as dynamic changes occurring in the non-profit sector. Moreover, operating at the intersection of business and social sectors means that they have to interact with various stakeholder groups and manage these relationships skilfully. While ensuring revenue generation, they cannot stop focusing on their social mission and the creation of social impact.20 Some researchers emphasise that social entrepreneurs exhibit a distinctive type of socio-moral commitment.21 Others highlight traits such as altruism, indignation and disagreement with existing inequalities and injustices,22 or compassion.23 Roger L. Martin and Sally Osberg point out that when searching for specific characteristics

17 Deborah B. Balser and John E. McClusky, “Managing Stakeholder Relationships and Nonprofit Organization Effectiveness,” Nonprofit Management and Leadership 15, no. 3 (March 2, 2005): 295–315, https://doi.org/10.1002/nml.70. Wronka-Pośpiech, Frączkiewicz-Wronka, and Dobrowolska, “Osobowościowe wyznaczniki pracy, wpływające na sukces przedsiębiorców społecznych,” 109. 18 Brzuska, Kukulak-Dolata, and Nyk, Ekonomia społeczna: teoria i praktyka przedsiębiorczości społecznej, 58. 19 Zadroga, “Professional Ethics of Social Entrepreneurs: The Perspective of Christian Personalist Ethics,” 501–4. 20 Wronka-Pośpiech, Frączkiewicz-Wronka, and Dobrowolska, “Osobowościowe wyznaczniki pracy, wpływające na sukces przedsiębiorców społecznych,” 109. 21 Wronka-Pośpiech, Frączkiewicz-Wronka, and Dobrowolska, “Osobowościowe wyznaczniki pracy, wpływające na sukces przedsiębiorców społecznych,” 110. Alex Nicholls, “Playing the Field: A New Approach to the Meaning of Social Entrepreneurship,” Social Enterprise Journal 2, no. 1 (January 1, 2006): 1–5. 22 Emmanuel Yujuico, “Connecting the Dots in Social Entrepreneurship through the Capabilities Approach,” Socio-Economic Review 6, no. 3 (July 1, 2008): 493–513, https://doi.org/10.1093/ser/ mwn003. 23 Toyah L. Miller, Curtis L Wesley, and Denise Williams, “Educating the Minds of Caring Hearts: Comparing the Views of Practitioners and Educators on the Importance of Social Entrepreneurship

85

86

Catholic Social Teaching and the Moral Dimension of Social Enterprise Management

distinguishing social entrepreneurs from commercial entrepreneurs, it is important to focus first and foremost on the values benefitting from their actions.24 In turn, the implementation of certain values is guarded by relevant principles.

3.

Catholic Social Teaching Principles and their Implications for Social Enterprise Management

A personalistic view of the morality of economic life cannot, however, stop at the level of general ethical theories and postulates. Respect for the dignity of every person without exception should be the basis and key criterion of any specific recommendation relating to the practice of social entrepreneurship. This is why John Paul II, in his encyclical Centesimus annus, emphasises that an enterprise (including a social enterprise) should first and foremost serve humans, in accordance with their material, intellectual, moral, spiritual as well as religious requirements25 . Consequently, it should not operate only to produce certain material goods or services in order to multiply the financial profit of the capital owner: profitability is not the only indicator of a firm’s condition. It is possible for the financial accounts to be in order, and yet for the people – who make up the firm’s most valuable asset – to be humiliated and their dignity offended.26

In this context, John Paul II declares that “the purpose of a business firm is not simply to make a profit, but is to be found in its very existence as a community of persons.”27 It is worth noting that this approach is consistent with the model of the functioning of an ideal social enterprise. However, the social entrepreneur’s recognition of the central role of the human person in the process of organisational management does not indicate that they should be less concerned about generating a financial profit. After all, it is by no means a matter of bankrupting a company in the name of personalism and other moral principles. What is needed is a strategy for optimising profit rather than maximising it at all costs. It is crucial to be aware of for whom and why profit is being made. This will help to avoid a rift between

24

25 26 27

Competencies,” Academy of Management Learning and Education 11, no. 3 (September 1, 2012): 349–70, https://doi.org/10.5465/amle.2011.0017. Martin and Osberg, “Social Entrepreneurship: The Case for Definition.” Wronka-Pośpiech, Frączkiewicz-Wronka, and Dobrowolska, “Osobowościowe wyznaczniki pracy, wpływające na sukces przedsiębiorców społecznych,” 110. John Paul II, Centesimus annus, no. 34–35. John Paul II, Centesimus annus, no. 35. John Paul II, Centesimus annus, no. 35.

Catholic Social Teaching Principles and their Implications for Social Enterprise Management

the need to fulfil the humanistic and social goals of social entrepreneurship and economic efficiency. For, as John Paul II stresses, the lives of human beings, their souls, their bodies, are more precious goods than any form of accumulated wealth. What use is it to accumulate material goods in ever-increasing quantities, asks the Pope, if the enterprise itself, which is a community of persons, is in danger of losing its soul, its true identity?28

Thus, in the process of managing a social enterprise, it is imperative to focus on its “inside” and give this specific working environment a human, deeply personalistic dimension. This implies the creation of working conditions and the implementation of a management model in which “the development of personal capabilities is accompanied by the efficient and rational production of goods and services and helps the employee to recognise that they are truly working for themselves.”29 At the same time, it should be noted that genuine respect for the dignity of the human person and their right to full development within a social enterprise promotes greater productivity. This is because “the integral development of the human person through work does not impede but rather promotes the greater productivity.”30 In contrast, the violation of the dignity of the human person is not only “morally inadmissible” but also “will eventually have negative repercussions on the firm’s economic efficiency.”31 The personalistic emphasis regarding social entrepreneurship is also revealed in Benedict XVI’s statement: “the primary capital to be safeguarded and valued is man, the human person in his or her integrity: ‘Man is the source, the focus and the aim of all economic and social life’.”32 The encyclical Caritas in Veritate contains a reflection on dual-purpose (hybrid) businesses, which explicitly refers to social enterprise. According to the Pope, “alongside profit-oriented private enterprise and the various types of public enterprise, there must be room for commercial entities based on mutualist principles and pursuing social ends … .”33

28 John Paul II, “L’incontro con i lavoratori, con gli imprenditori e con i dirigenti della Provincia Mantovana,” Insegnamenti 14/1 (1991) 1770. Mantova, Italy (23 June 1991). Translated by author. 29 John Paul II, “L’incontro con i rappresentanti del mondo del lavoro,” Insegnamenti 5/3 (1982) 1203. Barcelona, Spain (7 November 1982). Translated by author. 30 John Paul II, Centesimus annus, no. 43. 31 John Paul II, Centesimus annus, no. 35. 32 Benedict XVI, Caritas in Veritate, no. 25. 33 Benedict XVI, Caritas in Veritate, no. 38.

87

88

Catholic Social Teaching and the Moral Dimension of Social Enterprise Management

Hybrid business models introduce the “logic of gift” and the “principle of gratuitousness”34 as an expression of solidarity, both to the “logic of the market”35 and to the “logic of the State”36 . The dynamics of the “logic of gift” are based on the dynamics of an individual aiming to achieve integral development: “the human person by nature is actively involved in his own development.”37 Against this background, Benedict XVI emphasises that businesses too must first and foremost serve “integral human development.”38 They do not exist to generate profit but to produce goods and provide services that satisfy human needs. Profit is only an indication that they are working efficiently. Therefore, an enterprise should implement projects not to maximise profits, but to align productivity with the requirements of moral and social responsibility.39 What is more, the motivation of entrepreneurs must not be limited to financial incentives. The Pope believes that people involved in business have a vocation. In his view, business – like any human institution – must transcend the social sphere and become part of God’s plan of salvation. All human institutions should consequently strive to infiltrate their structures – based, after all, on human relationships – with a manner of thinking and acting that is in accordance with God’s Revelation. By doing so, Benedict XVI highlights the transcendent purpose of economic activity. He adds that the economy (and also social entrepreneurship) cannot become ethical “merely by virtue of an external label, but by its respect for requirements intrinsic to its very nature.”40 This theological view has a clear biblical basis. Saint Peter encourages everyone to “participate in the divine nature”41 (2 Pet 1:4). Saint Paul expresses a similar idea, stating that Christians are “no longer foreigners and strangers, but fellow citizens with God’s people and also members of his household” (Eph 2:19). The recognition of God as the Father by one Spirit (Eph 2:18) consequently establishes a universal brotherhood among them. Moreover, it emphasises the importance of social structures fostering fraternity, friendship, solidarity and love, even if humanity is already united and reconciled to God “in one body ... through the cross” (Eph 2:16). For “in Christ we, though many, form one body” (Rom 12:5) and we

34 35 36 37 38 39

Benedict XVI, Caritas in Veritate, no. 34. Benedict XVI, Caritas in Veritate, no. 36. Benedict XVI, Caritas in Veritate, no. 39. Benedict XVI, Caritas in Veritate, no. 68. Benedict XVI, Caritas in Veritate, no. 11, 17–18, 23, 30. Wolfgang Grassl, “Hybrid Forms of Business: The Logic of Gift in the Commercial World,” Journal of Business Ethics 100, no. S1 (March 1, 2011): 109–23, https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-011-1182-5. 40 Benedict XVI, Caritas in Veritate, no. 45. 41 The text of the Bible here and elsewhere in this book is quoted after the New International Version.

Catholic Social Teaching Principles and their Implications for Social Enterprise Management

have been called to “serve one another humbly in love” (Gal 5:13), “build each other up” (1 Thess 5:11) and “strive to do what is good for each other” (1 Thess 5:15).42 As mentioned in the earlier part of this chapter, a well-functioning social enterprise – as a specific form of creating the common good – produces three interdependent sets of goods: good goods, good work, and good wealth. With regard to CST, the “good goods” criterion implies that a good social entrepreneur maintains solidarity with the poor, becoming aware of opportunities to serve those in particular need, as well as the disadvantaged and undervalued in contemporary society. In the case of social entrepreneurs, such solidarity, which often stems from a deep sensitivity to the suffering of the vulnerable, is expressed through a firm and persistent commitment to the common good.43 The second good created by a good social entrepreneur is the organisation of “good work”, in which employees can develop their talents and potential. At the heart of good work lies the principle of cherishing the dignity of human labour and its subjective dimension. A good social enterprise manager recognises that work affects not only their character but also the employees they manage and work with. From the perspective of CST, this recognition should prompt good social entrepreneurs to structure work also according to the principle of subsidiarity. This principle – similarly to the common good – promotes employee development by providing them with opportunities to use their talents and skills that help to achieve the organisation’s mission. In practice, it is necessary to design the work performed by the personnel in such a way as to use their talents and skills; to teach, develop and adequately equip employees by providing them with the right tools, training and experience that allows them to perform their tasks; and to establish strong relationships with employees based on mutual respect and trust.44 Moreover, a good social entrepreneur must be aware that, according to CST, there are two – closely related – dimensions of “good wealth”: creation and distribution. It is not possible to distribute wealth if it has not been created. Simultaneously, it is not possible to create wealth without distributing it fairly to those who have created it. Like the good servants in the Parable of the Talents (Matt 25:14–30), entrepreneurs create wealth by making creative use of the available resources and finding innovative ways to produce more than what they have received. In business, this is referred to as the “added value.” That is why every good entrepreneur (including a social entrepreneur) wishing to ensure the viability of their organisation must use resources efficiently and maintain adequate levels of revenue as well as 42 Grassl, “Hybrid Forms of Business: The Logic of Gift in the Commercial World,” 5–6. 43 McVea and Naughton, “Enriching Social Entrepreneurship from the Perspective of Catholic Social Teaching,” 7–9. 44 McVea and Naughton, “Enriching Social Entrepreneurship from the Perspective of Catholic Social Teaching,” 9–12.

89

90

Catholic Social Teaching and the Moral Dimension of Social Enterprise Management

high levels of productivity and effectiveness. For a social entrepreneur, the creation of wealth entails a moral obligation to distribute it. At the same time, it is necessary to emphasise that this task consist in ensuring that this process is guided by the principle of justice. According to the CST, the principle of equitable distribution requires the allocation of wealth in a way that creates fair and appropriate relationships with those who have participated in its creation. In practice, this rule confronts entrepreneurs with a series of intricate and difficult moral challenges that address fundamental issues of justice and fairness. In fact, the issue of equitable distribution involves the resolution of moral implications related to how to set prices and employee remuneration, how to manage liabilities and receivables, how to pay taxes, and how to allocate benefits and provide support within the framework of a declared social mission.45 With regard to the principle of subsidiarity, it is crucial to respect the nature of social enterprises as grassroots organisations created as part of a civil society initiative. Such a stance should be reflected in the appreciation of their specificity on the part of the entities and communities in their organisational environment, which should take the form of respect for their mission and promotion of their unrestricted freedom and responsibility for the undertaken actions.46 In contrast, a tangible manifestation of the implementation of the subsidiarity principle in the internal management of a social enterprise is an approach in which managers strive for financial independence from external institutions. It is expressed in attitudes and activities focused on raising funds mainly at one’s own risk, as well as through one’s own efforts and resources, i. e. in the form of business activities. This allows shifting away from the “extended hand” attitude, which is the case with many NGOs and leads to almost complete dependence on the preferences of public or private donors. Guided by the principle of subsidiarity, well-managed social enterprises aim to become sovereign entities capable of taking action in the public sphere in line with their own mission and based on their own resources (including financial). In practice, this means that managers have to independently formulate development strategies based on their own resources, exercise true selfgovernance and strive to ensure the well-being of citizens. In this way, the chance of not falling into the trap of becoming an “extension” of public institutions or a

45 McVea and Naughton, “Enriching Social Entrepreneurship from the Perspective of Catholic Social Teaching,” 12–14. 46 Pontifical Council for Justice and Peace, Compendium of the Social Doctrine of the Church, no. 357.

Conclusions

hostage to philanthropic emotions in favour of a real implementation of the notion of empowerment becomes real.47 When referring solidarity to social enterprises, it is crucial to emphasise that CST acknowledges the great potential of private organisations that are not oriented towards profit-generating activities, such as social enterprises, for solving many human problems. It is due to the fact that such organisations are characterised by the courageous pursuit of a harmonious combination of productive efficiency and interpersonal solidarity.48 The Compendium of the Social Doctrine of the Church reads as follows: Civil society, organised into its intermediate groups, is capable of contributing to the attainment of the common good by placing itself in a relationship of collaboration and effective complementarities with respect to the State and the market. It thus encourages the development of a fitting economic democracy. In this context, State intervention should be characterised by genuine solidarity, which as such must never be separated from subsidiarity.49

The development of the social enterprise sector has played an instrumental role in revealing many of the hidden or ignored problems of the capitalist economy, including the marginalisation of those who cannot afford to access the market because of their limited purchasing power or whose dysfunctions do not allow them to compete with others on the open labour market. The inventiveness of social entrepreneurs and the social innovations that they propose are often applied to these types of problems in a manner that is more effective than traditional government or traditional charity solutions. Consequently, there are two main ways in which social entrepreneurs can pursue solidarity with the poor in relation to good goods. The first involves the creation of goods and services that serve the poor, while the second consists in the establishment of conditions that enable empowerment and foster self-respect among those in need.50

4.

Conclusions

Social enterprises perceive social and environmental issues as primary objectives of their hybrid activities. They regard financial stability as a prerequisite, not a 47 Frączak and Wygnański, Polski model ekonomii społecznej. Rekomendacje dla rozwoju. Zaproszenie do dyskusji, 15. 48 Pontifical Council for Justice and Peace, Compendium of the Social Doctrine of the Church, no. 357. 49 Pontifical Council for Justice and Peace, Compendium of the Social Doctrine of the Church, no. 356. 50 Sobocka-Szczapa, Ekonomia społeczna w Polsce, 27–28.

91

92

Catholic Social Teaching and the Moral Dimension of Social Enterprise Management

goal. Such an approach is close to CST. Furthermore, the detailed content of social encyclicals provides a valuable means of deeper exploration and enrichment of the moral dimension of social enterprise management. The foregoing discourse allows concluding that social entrepreneurship, like economic life as a whole, should not be devoid of references to moral principles, and even more – to theological content. This view is supported by the analysis of the fundamental principles of CST. The moral dimension of social enterprise management can be better understood by taking into account the guiding personalistic norm, as well as principles such as the common good, subsidiarity and solidarity. In relation to social entrepreneurship, the personalistic rule, which refers to the dignity of the human person, generally involves focusing on management actions through which the dignity of all those who constitute a social enterprise and are associated with it is respected. One of the key objectives of social entrepreneurship lies in the empowerment of individuals and communities for the benefit of which certain undertakings in the sphere of social transformation are launched. In this context, it is also necessary to apply the principle of subsidiarity as the basic rule determining the division of labour and responsibilities linked to the execution of social and professional reintegration activities. A transition from assistance to self-help must occur. It is important for the managers of social enterprises to be able to act collectively on behalf of people in need of help, as well as demonstrate genuine solidarity with the disadvantaged. Moreover, in order to address social problems effectively, it is necessary to have an understanding of the complex causes of these problems and to think in terms of systems. For this reason, the practical implementation of the principles of solidarity and the common good should involve, among other things, the creation of genuine structures of solidarity and the common good through appropriate legislative and market changes, resulting in an increased number of social enterprises working for the poor and other people at risk of social exclusion. Despite various factors that tend to normally push social enterprises in one of the extreme directions – either towards commercialisation (profit) or social activism – ultimately, only the authentic vocation of Christian love (agape) appears to motivate the activities of social managers strongly enough to ensure that the hybrid organisations can avoid “distorting” their natural mission. This will also allow all the characteristic features of social enterprise management discussed in the chapter to be taken into account. Based on the teaching of Pope Benedict XVI included in Caritas in Veritate, it is worth emphasising that the theological novelty of the approach presented in this book lies in the fact that social institutions (including social enterprises) should not only be seen as flawed human structures, but also as communities in which, thanks

Conclusions

to the Holy Spirit, it is possible to implement the principles of the Kingdom of God and – above all – the commandment of love revealed in the Gospel by Jesus Christ. The adopted research perspective, which is characteristic of CST, naturally has its limitations. The chapter is based on deliberately limited sources that are typical of the Catholic moral tradition. The research results can be further developed by taking into account other moral religious traditions or theories of normative ethics. Furthermore, a future direction of research may include, inter alia, an analysis of selected models of social enterprise management in terms of the implementation of CST principles. Research may also focus on a discourse on the moral dimension of social enterprise management in the context of a selected philosophical theory or religious tradition.

93

V.

Catholic Social Teaching and the Professional Ethics of Social Entrepreneurs*

Entrepreneurship is a concept whose range of meaning should not be limited only to human activity in business. Contrary to popular belief, entrepreneurship – as one of the human attitudes – focuses not only on the “pursuit” of profit, but in a broader sense its essence lies in the inclination and ability to relate actively and creatively to the surrounding reality. Its main goal is to effectively overcome all challenges using the available resources.

1.

Mission and Tasks of Social Entrepreneurs

Despite the immensely impressive civilisational and technological progress in the last decades, today’s world still faces many social challenges, such as poverty or unemployment. Those who try to solve them in an entrepreneurial way are called social entrepreneurs. The organisations they manage use business models to execute a specific social mission. Thus, they offer alternative solutions to traditional charity and philanthropic activities. Social entrepreneurship does not work against or alongside the market but strives to use it as a space and, at the same time, a means of achieving social goals.1 There is increasing evidence that this approach is beneficial for people at risk of marginalisation or social exclusion.2

* To present this issue, I have used excerpts from my previous publications: Adam Zadroga, “Professional Ethics of Social Entrepreneurs: The Perspective of Christian Personalist Ethics,” Verbum Vitae 39, no. 2 (2021): 495–513, https://doi.org/10.31743/vv.11462. Adam Zadroga, “Etyka zawodowa przedsiębiorców społecznych w perspektywie chrześcijańskiej etyki personalistycznej,” in Humanistyczne i społeczne aspekty biznesu i zarządzania, ed. Leszek Karczewski and Henryk A. Kretek (Opole: Oficyna Wydawnicza Politechniki Opolskiej, 2019), 97–104. 1 Such an approach seems to be a practical implementation of what the Catholic Church postulates with regard to economic life: “The development of economic activity and growth in production are meant to provide for the needs of human beings. Economic life is not meant solely to multiply goods produced and increase profit or power; it is ordered first of all to the service of persons, of the whole man, and of the entire human community. Economic activity, conducted according to its own proper methods, is to be exercised within the limits of the moral order, in keeping with social justice so as to correspond to God’s plan for man” (Catechism of the Catholic Church, no. 2426). 2 Anna Karwińska and Dobrosława Wiktor, Przedsiębiorczość i korzyści społeczne: identyfikacja dobrych praktyk w ekonomii społecznej, Ekonomia Społeczna Teksty 2008, vol. 6 (Warszawa: Fundacja Inicjatyw Społeczno-Ekonomicznych, 2008), https://www.academia.edu/4452214/ Przedsi%C4%99biorczo%C5%9B%C4%87_i_korzy%C5%9Bci_spo%C5%82eczne_Identyfikacja_

96

Catholic Social Teaching and the Professional Ethics of Social Entrepreneurs

The social entrepreneur is tasked with combining a social goal, set by a given nonprofit organisation, with an entrepreneurial approach closely linked to business. Therefore, it is a person with a business-like mentality whose actions are oriented toward solving social problems. To this end, they employ a strategy typical of business projects, as well as innovation, creativity, and new technologies. Owing to their business competences and specific projects, they are able to create positive changes in a given community or social group, stimulate people to interact, and build social capital based primarily on trust. In this sense, the social entrepreneur is often a visionary, social leader, political leader, and mentor transferring knowledge, skills, competences, as well as social values to their co-workers, most of whom are people at risk of social exclusion.3 The main tasks of the social entrepreneur include: (1) identifying relatively permanent and inherently unfair conditions that lead to the exclusion or marginalisation of social groups which are not able to solve a given problem or improve the existing situation on their own; (2) identifying opportunities (chances) that can restore a fair balance in relation to the identified problem; (3) undertaking specific projects that will create systemic solutions alleviating or eliminating a specific social problem, and that will provide better conditions for the functioning of a specific group, and even the whole society; (4) basing the process of implementing solutions primarily on the potential of the interested parties.4

2.

Motivation and Vocation of Social Entrepreneurs

The analysis of the literature on the subject and descriptions of good practices in the field of social entrepreneurship have led to the conclusion that social entrepreneurs are characterised by a strong internal motivation to engage in solving perceived social issues. These include problems such as unemployment, homelessness and disability, among others. Their main goal is the social activation and professional reintegration of those who are affected by this type of problem.5 Thus, the image of a social entrepreneur is characterised by “the will to serve” others. It is an approach

dobrych_praktyk_w_Ekonomii_Spo%C5%82ecznej. Praszkier and Nowak, Social Entrepreneurship: Theory and Practice. 3 Martyna Wronka-Pośpiech, “Cechy i kompetencje menedżera społecznego,” Ekonomia Społeczna, no. 1 (January 1, 2014): 30, http://cejsh.icm.edu.pl/cejsh/element/bwmeta1.element.desklight0dba7553-c0ee-4b9a-a0e0-ff0acc2b45ae/c/ZSWES_pol_es9_-_3.pdf. 4 Martin and Osberg, “Social Entrepreneurship: The Case for Definition,” 29–39. 5 Ryszard Praszkier, “Zwykli ludzie czy herosi? Motywacje przedsiębiorców społecznych,” Trzeci Sektor 4 (2005): 35–42.

Motivation and Vocation of Social Entrepreneurs

with clear pro-social motives, which are expressed in practice by serving the poor and protecting the weak.6 The deepest source of this approach can be found in spiritual motives. Hence, social entrepreneurs should also perceive their commitment to other people, most of all, in terms of a spiritual vocation.7 True Christian faith always has social implications. The personal faith of social entrepreneurs should lead them to the development of social leadership skills. This, in turn, in the social dimension, should encourage them to: (1) search for innovative solutions to problems which they notice in the social environment; (2) improve social and economic structures so that every person, even the socially excluded, has the opportunity to participate in the work of creation; (3) take responsibility for creating such an organisation of work that will affirm the dignity of each employee. Specific guidelines of the Church for Christian entrepreneurs and all other business men and women (people of good will) are contained in the document of the Pontifical Council “Iustitia et Pax” entitled Vocation of the Business Leader. A Reflection.8 It is a special guide for entrepreneurs who feel called upon to take up the challenges (opportunities and threats) posed by modern economy, especially the business world. Its addressees are the leaders of market-oriented companies (international corporations, enterprises, family businesses), as well as the leaders of social economy entities (foundations, associations, social cooperatives, social enterprises). In the Foreword, Cardinal Peter K.A. Turkson and Bishop Mario Toso wrote that “business leaders are called to engage with the contemporary economic and financial world in light of the principles of human dignity and the common good.”9 In light of the spiritual and moral message of the above-mentioned document, it should be emphasised that Christian leaders of social entrepreneurship, responding to their vocation, should strive for the inner integration of faith and earthly life. This

6 Patrick Nullens, “The Will to Serve: An Anthropological and Spiritual Foundation for Leadership,” in Servant Leadership, Social Entrepreneurship and the Will to Serve. Spiritual Foundations and Business Applications, ed. Luk Bouckaert and Steven C. Van Den Heuvel (Cham: Palgrave Macmillan Cham, 2019), 3–27, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-29936-1_1. Emilio Di Somma, “Protecting the Weak and Creating Community,” in Servant Leadership, Social Entrepreneurship and the Will to Serve. Spiritual Foundations and Business Applications, ed. Luk Bouckaert and Steven C. Van Den Heuvel (Cham: Palgrave Macmillan, 2019), 143–60, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-29936-1_8. 7 Cf. Robert A. Sirico, The Entrepreneurial Vocation (Grand Rapids: Acton Institute for the Study of Religion & Liberty, 2018). 8 Pontifical Council for Justice and Peace, “Vocation of the Business Leader.” 9 Peter Kodwo Appiah Turkson and Mario Toso, “Foreword,” in The Vocation of the Business Leader. A Reflection, by Pontifical Council for Justice and Peace, 4th ed., 2014, 1, https://www.humandevelopment.va/content/dam/sviluppoumano/pubblicazioni-documenti/archivio/economia-e-finanza/ vocation-of-business-leader/Vocation_ENGLISH_4th%20edition.pdf.

97

98

Catholic Social Teaching and the Professional Ethics of Social Entrepreneurs

will prevent them from leading a “divided life” which separates the requirements stemming from faith from their daily work in the social economy sector. Internally integrated social entrepreneurs will be able (in the spirit of service) to take on the role of a leader in their organisations. They will be willing to share their skills and competences with others, they will foster a work environment imbued with a good atmosphere of mutual kindness and trust, and they will involve their companies in the process of creating the common good. Social entrepreneurs know that profit is essential to the development of any company. However, at the same time, they understand that “once profit becomes the exclusive goal, if it is produced by improper means and without the common good as its ultimate end, it risks destroying wealth and creating poverty.”10 Therefore, it is still necessary to remind that every business leader who assumes that the only criterion for business operation is to maximise profits at all costs runs the risk of committing the sin of idolatry, i. e. making business a sort of a “golden calf.” They are also threatened by the sins of pride and greed, resulting from the illusory sense of their own power (cleverness, intelligence, knowledge) as a source of financial success and the willingness to maintain and increase the achieved results without taking into account other criteria of sustainable socio-economic development.11 Meanwhile, the vocation of business leaders (especially in social enterprises) is not only to multiply and accumulate financial and physical capital but also to develop human talents and moral virtues. Some researchers, for example Sophie Bacq et al., point out that the motives of social entrepreneurs can be “impurely altruistic.”12 As a result, these authors go beyond the – almost taken-for-granted – moral image of social entrepreneurs as ethical persons. They are particularly critical of the assumption that a strong focus on entrepreneurship is the source of an ethical approach. Through their research, they provided evidence that the ethical problems of social entrepreneurs result, among other things, “from a frail entrepreneurial profile.”13 Therefore, in addition to the pro-social internal motivation described above, social entrepreneurs need important professional competencies because even the noblest motives for action will not replace professionalism, necessary in every profession.

10 Benedict XVI, Caritas in Veritate, no. 21. 11 Christ warns us: “Watch out! Be on your guard against all kinds of greed; life does not consist in an abundance of possessions” (Luke 12:15). 12 Sophie Bacq, Chantal Hartog, and Brigitte Hoogendoorn, “Beyond the Moral Portrayal of Social Entrepreneurs: An Empirical Approach to Who They Are and What Drives Them,” Journal of Business Ethics 133, no. 4 (November 19, 2014): 714, https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-014-2446-7. 13 Bacq, Hartog, and Hoogendoorn, “Beyond the Moral Portrayal of Social Entrepreneurs: An Empirical Approach to Who They Are and What Drives Them,” 703.716.

Motivation and Vocation of Social Entrepreneurs

Martyna Wronka-Pośpiech, who has been conducting research on the characteristics and competencies of social entrepreneurs for many years, emphasises that any person managing a social enterprise should be broad-minded, creative and courageous in action, as well as open to innovation. In her opinion, the following competencies seem to be particularly important to social entrepreneurs: (1) building a strategy that allows them to achieve the goals of their social enterprises, (2) managing relations with external stakeholders, (3) managing employees and volunteers, (4) managing finances, and (5) perceiving social economy in the world of social and economic relations.14 Another author, Teresa Piecuch, characterising social entrepreneurs on the basis of the available literature on the subject, states that they are leaders engaged in social initiatives, agents of social changes solving the most sensitive and difficult social problems. They are visionaries – they have good ideas and devote themselves completely (often at the cost of their own lives) to their implementation. They also have an excellent ability to enthuse others with their own initiatives, those who share their views and co-implement their ideas.15

Professionalisation and growing competition in the social enterprise sector means that the managers of these organisations must change from being passive administrators to active leaders. For this reason, as noted by Wronka-Pośpiech, social entrepreneurs must acquire new skills and use new cognitive tools that will enable them to make rational managerial decisions. This is because leaders – on account of their knowledge and position – are expected to make decisions that have a significant impact on the achievements and results of the entire organisation.16

While highlighting the role of leadership competences for social entrepreneurs, it should be noted that numerous traditional studies on business leadership have developed with the assumption that business leadership can only be effective if it is primarily aimed at maximising profits.17 Nowadays, there is a growing belief that

14 Wronka-Pośpiech, “Cechy i kompetencje menedżera społecznego,” 33–35. 15 Teresa Piecuch, “Charakterystyka przedsiębiorców społecznych – przegląd literatury,” Ekonomia Społeczna, no. 2 (January 1, 2014): 67, https://www.ceeol.com/search/article-detail?id=417507. Translated by the author. 16 Wronka-Pośpiech, “Cechy i kompetencje menedżera społecznego,” 36. Translated by the author. 17 Gary A. Yukl, Leadership in Organizations (Harlow: Pearson Education, 2013). Joseph Clarence Rost, Leadership for the Twenty-First Century (New York: Greenwood Publishing Group, 1991).

99

100

Catholic Social Teaching and the Professional Ethics of Social Entrepreneurs

good leadership means moral leadership.18 Moreover, there is a growing interest in spiritual leadership19 . Therefore, the issue of leadership in social enterprises should be described in greater detail, taking into account research trends of this type.

3.

Ethical Aspects of Leadership in Social Enterprises

Given the goals of social entrepreneurship, the theory of “Servant Leadership” (SL) is particularly interesting in this context. The creator of the Servant-Leadership model is Robert K. Greenleaf (1904–1990). His classic work on the subject20 is a collection of lectures and articles delivered over 20 years. Meanwhile his groundbreaking essay on SL, entitled The Servant as Leader, was published in 1970.21 The modern theory of SL draws on the works of Greenleaf, who formulated its basic definition as follows: “The servant-leader is servant first ... It begins with the natural feeling that one wants to serve, to serve first. Then conscious choice brings one to aspire to lead.”22 It is the will to serve that is the key point of the SL theory. Inge Nuijten emphasises that “servant-leadership differs from other types of leadership in that it places the interests of those led above the self-interest of the leader.”23 It should be noted that studies on leadership, which are part of social sciences, are based on a specific interpretation of the human person and social structures.24 Moreover, these anthropological and social assumptions are an inherent part of a given worldview, philosophical thought, or theological doctrine (religion). For example, it has been proved that there is an important relationship between the 18 Joanne B. Ciulla, The Ethics of Leadership (Belmont, CA: Wadsworth/Thomson, 2003). Craig E. Johnson, Meeting the Ethical Challenges of Leadership: Casting Light or Shadow (Los Angeles: SAGE, 2017). 19 Eric B. Dent, M. Eileen Higgins, and Deborah M. Wharff, “Spirituality and Leadership: An Empirical Review of Definitions, Distinctions, and Embedded Assumptions,” Leadership Quarterly 16, no. 5 (October 1, 2005): 625–53, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2005.07.002. Louis W. Fry, “Toward a Theory of Spiritual Leadership,” Leadership Quarterly 14, no. 6 (December 1, 2003): 693–727, https:// doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2003.09.001. Louis W. Fry and Melissa Sadler Nisiewicz, Maximizing the Triple Bottom Line Through Spiritual Leadership (Redwood City: Stanford University Press, 2013). 20 Robert K. Greenleaf, Servant Leadership: A Journey into the Nature of Legitimate Power and Greatness (New York: Paulist Press, 2002). 21 It is worth adding that in 1964, Robert K. Greenleaf founded the Centre for Applied Ethics, which later became the Greenleaf Center for Servant Leadership − www.greenleaf.org. 22 Greenleaf, Servant Leadership: A Journey into the Nature of Legitimate Power and Greatness, 13. 23 Inge Nuijten, Servant-Leadership: Paradox Or Diamond in the Rough? : A Multidimensional Measure and Empirical Evidence (Rotterdam, Netherlands: Diss. Erasmus University Rotterdam, 2009), 134. 24 Christian Smith, What Is a Person?: Rethinking Humanity, Social Life, and the Moral Good from the Person Up (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2011).

Ethical Aspects of Leadership in Social Enterprises

philosophy of personalism and SL.25 Hence, one can assume the existence of an equally important relationship between the Catholic theological thought and the SL theory since personalism – as already mentioned – is one of the most important philosophical sources for contemporary Catholic theology.26 Also, the will to serve – as the foundation for selfless love of neighbour and building a community – is also the main moral imperative for the followers of Christianity (naturally including the Catholic faith). Thus, the available knowledge on the spiritual and moral dimensions of the SL theory as a leadership concept can be effectively applied in the area of social entrepreneurship. SL is a concept that focuses not only on the social performance of entrepreneurial activity but in particular on the inner motivation: to serve in the first place. Therefore, the concepts of social entrepreneurship and SL overlap. Whereas the former corresponds to a specific form of entrepreneurship in which social performance takes precedence over earning profits, the latter additionally highlights the basic motivations of compassion, humility, and selflessness. Serving the common good combines both concepts.27 Naturally, the concept of SL, like any other model, has its limitations. Nevertheless, the explicit emphasis on the priority of the will to serve in this leadership concept can be remarkably inspiring, especially for social entrepreneurs. Another principle of social enterprises is mindful leadership. This leadership style urges leaders to place humanity at the centre of their business activities. Hence, a social entrepreneur as a “mindful” leader should act in accordance with practical wisdom, selflessness and compassion when making managerial decisions. Kevin Jackson notes that, “the moral core of mindful leadership, like that of servant leadership, involves serving others according to their real needs, and is centred on elements of love, caring, and inclusivity of others.”28

25 J. Thomas Whetstone, “Personalism and Moral Leadership: The Servant Leader with a Transforming Vision,” Business Ethics: A European Review 11, no. 4 (October 1, 2002): 385–92, https://doi.org/10. 1111/1467-8608.00298. 26 Karol Wojtyła, The Acting Person (Dordrecht: Springer Netherlands, 1979). Wincenty Granat, Personalizm chrześcijański: teologia osoby ludzkiej (Sandomierz: Wydawnictwo Diecezjalne i Drukarnia, 2018). Bartnik, Studies in Personalist System (Lublin: Wydawnictwo KUL, 2007). 27 Luk Bouckaert and Steven C. Van Den Heuvel, “Preface,” in Servant Leadership, Social Entrepreneurship and the Will to Serve. Spiritual Foundations and Business Applications, ed. Luk Bouckaert and Steven C. Van Den Heuvel (Cham: Palgrave Macmillan, 2009), vii, https://link.springer.com/content/ pdf/bfm:978-3-030-29936-1/1?pdf=chapter%20toc. 28 Kevin T. Jackson, “Mindful Servant Leadership for B-Corps,” in Servant Leadership, Social Entrepreneurship and the Will to Serve. Spiritual Foundations and Business Applications, ed. Luk Bouckaert and Steven C. Van Den Heuvel (Cham: Palgrave Macmillan Cham, 2019), 220, https://doi. org/10.1007/978-3-030-29936-1_11.

101

102

Catholic Social Teaching and the Professional Ethics of Social Entrepreneurs

He also emphasises that, Mindfulness contributes important elements missing from received approaches to servant leadership: first, the inclination of a mindfulness approach to focus on internal states, beliefs, attitudes, and motivations – features which bear on the leader’s inner motivation to care for a wide range of stakeholders beyond just “followers” and to create value for them for non-instrumental reasons; second, the inclination of a mindfulness approach to focus on ethics-in-practice in addition to merely theoretical treatment.29

4.

Ethical Principles and Moral Virtues of Social Entrepreneurs

Various types of professional ethics usually belong to the domain of normative ethics, especially deontology, and are therefore most often concerned with duties, obligations, and strictly defined procedures of conduct. They primarily take the form of ethical codes for a given profession. Their elements can also be found in professional oaths and pledges. Fundamental ethical principles that underpin certain professional ethics should be closely related to the general mission which a given profession pursues in social life. The moral identity of a particular profession is also determined by primary values and moral virtues, which are important from the point of view of its social status.30 Therefore, the presented discourse prompts the question of what principles, values and virtues constitute the profession of a social entrepreneur. Considering the paradigm of Christian personalist ethics, the fundamental moral principle for social entrepreneurs should be concern for respect of the personal dignity of every co-worker and recipient of their entrepreneurial activities. Bearing in mind that the essence of any ethical principle is to protect broadly understood good – your own good and the good of others31  – the ethics of social entrepreneurship should primarily safeguard personal interests and be expressed in selfless help to people threatened by social exclusion. Thus, the source and encapsulation of all moral obligations of social entrepreneurs should be sought in the Gospel commandment to love your neighbour,

29 Jackson, “Mindful Servant Leadership for B-Corps,” 229. 30 Anna Lewicka-Strzałecka, Etyczne Standardy Firm i Pracowników (Warszawa: Wydawnictwo Instytutu Filozofii i Socjologii PAN, 1999), 30–32. 31 The fundamental commandment of Christianity calls upon us to love our neighbour as we do ourselves − see for example Mark 12:29−31.

Ethical Principles and Moral Virtues of Social Entrepreneurs

especially the poor.32 However, it should be noted that social entrepreneurs should not make managerial decisions that unfavourably affect the enterprise and themselves in order to provide short-term help. In this way, they would not fulfil their basic obligations, i. e. profitable production of goods and services and preservation of workplaces for people from the so-called underprivileged groups in the open labour market. The measure of their professional achievements is not only the positive social effect but also the positive economic effect of the undertaken activities, because the completion of the adopted mission without profit is unfeasible. Therefore, a social entrepreneur should be a responsible person. Goal setting and attainment must be constantly accompanied by a sense of responsibility – not only for the enterprise itself but also for the social outcomes that this form of activity may yield in the community. The role of a leader introducing good changes also requires prudence in making decisions. They should always be aimed at building the common good. These two recommendations (prudence in making decisions and building the common good) constitute other norms that should shape the way in which a social entrepreneur thinks and acts. Moreover, in contributing to the common good, a leader of a social enterprise should also follow the principles of solidarity and subsidiarity, which can be viewed as further elements of the axiological core of social entrepreneurship. Moreover, for a social entrepreneur freedom (independence) of action is certainly important. Of particular significance is the absence of pressure exerted by various types of institutions or interest groups. Such pressure could result in obstructing the proposed innovative solutions, which usually entail making difficult, rather unpopular decisions. Only extensive freedom in the process of implementing specific social projects will create the possibility of fulfilling the mission of a social innovator – or often even a pioneer in the introduction of creative solutions which facilitate positive socio-economic changes. This entails considerable responsibility for the decisions and actions social entrepreneurs make. However, most of them are exceptionally strong personalities; they are brave, prudent individuals aware of the responsibility resting on their shoulders.33 When describing the ethical principles whose observance is an important aspect of social entrepreneurs’ vocation, it is worth turning to the Catholic social teaching. The Church proposes to use the method: see – judge – promote:

32 See Matt 25:31−36, as well as the monograph: Wojciech Surmiak, Opcja preferencyjna na rzecz ubogich wyrazem miłości społecznej: Studium teologicznomoralne w świetle nauczania Jana Pawła II (Katowice: Księgarnia św. Jacka, 2009). 33 Piecuch, “Charakterystyka przedsiębiorców społecznych – przegląd literatury,” 66.

103

104

Catholic Social Teaching and the Professional Ethics of Social Entrepreneurs

Christian business leaders must be able to see this world in a way that allows them to make judgments about it, to build up its good and truth, to promote the common good and to confront evil and falsehood.34

Consequently, it is important to inquire what principles should a social entrepreneur invoke as a Christian business leader regarding the perception of problems and devising ways of solving them. In light of Jesus Christ’s teaching: “From everyone who has been given much, much will be demanded; and from the one who has been entrusted with much, much more will be asked” (Luke 12:48), it becomes obvious that entrepreneurs are especially called upon to undertake exceptionally important tasks not only for the sake of themselves but also for the benefit of others. At the starting point, they should have the conviction that: “Every Christian is called to practise this charity, in a manner corresponding to his vocation and according to the degree of influence he wields.”35 Following their vocation, Christian business leaders (including social entrepreneurs) should strive for the inner integrity of faith and earthly life, thus not slipping into a “divided life” in which the obligations of faith are separated from everyday business activity. Business leaders of the highest personal integrity, showing the spirit of service, are able to effectively take on the role of leaders in their organisations, willingly sharing their skills and competences with others: they create a work environment imbued with mutual kindness and trust and involve their own enterprises in creating the common good. They can become aware of the magnificence and uniqueness of their vocation by “building a productive organisation,” which expresses the continuation of the work of creation. An important part of the vocation of social entrepreneurship leaders is their practice of ethical social principles in the course of their business operations.36 The document of the Pontifical Council “Iustitia et Pax” Vocation of a Business Leader. A Reflection contains references to two fundamental principles of the Church’s social teaching, i. e. respect for human dignity and pursuit of the common good. Moreover, it defines six practical principles of business:37 1) producing goods and services of good quality – truly serving, i. e. providing goods and services that meet genuine human needs and are not based on speculation; 2) showing solidarity with the poor and needy by being alert to opportunities and services at an appropriate level;

34 35 36 37

Pontifical Council for Justice and Peace, “Vocation of the Business Leader,” no. 16. Benedict XVI, Caritas in Veritate, no. 7. Pontifical Council for Justice and Peace, “Vocation of the Business Leader,” no. 8–14. Pontifical Council for Justice and Peace, “Vocation of the Business Leader,” no. 42.

Ethical Principles and Moral Virtues of Social Entrepreneurs

3) fostering the significance and dignity of human work – recognising its subjective character (“work is for man, not man for work”38 ; employees are not only “human resources” or “human capital”); 4) managing people in the spirit of the subsidiarity principle – providing opportunities for employees to contribute to the mission of the organisation; 5) creative and productive management of the resources of the organisation to ensure not only financial profitability, but also broadly understood economic prosperity (care for the natural environment and the good of the organisation’s immediate and wider environment); 6) justice in relations with the stakeholders of the organisation – just wages for employees, just prices for customers, just returns for owners, just rates for suppliers, just tax payments for the community.39 As John Paul II stated, the ultimate purpose of a business company in the light of the indicated principles is not simply to make a profit, but is to be found in its very existence as a community of persons who in various ways are endeavouring to satisfy their basic needs, and who form a particular group at the service of the whole of society.40

When talking about the moral virtues that a social entrepreneur should have, one should first of all recall the cardinal virtues: prudence, justice, courage, and selfcontrol.41 They mainly direct human behaviour toward the implementation of the cardinal values integrally connected with human dignity, which include truth, goodness, justice, and love.42 In order to run a social enterprise, the following virtues are also necessary: creativity, the ease of building community bonds, practical realism, leadership skills, patience, perseverance, self-control, and humility.43 Moreover, the Church encourages entrepreneurs to be grateful for their talents, abilities, and skills and calls upon them to generously share their possessions with others in order to make the world a better place. The Church also requires them to be professional in their approaches to business, but at the same time it encourages them to respond to any doubts or fears that may arise from the perspective provided

38 39 40 41 42

John Paul II, Laborem exercens, no. 6. Adam Zadroga, “Powołanie lidera biznesu,” Pastores 61, no. 4 (2013): 123–29. John Paul II, Centesimus annus, no. 35. See: Wis 8:7. Jarosław Koral, “Znaczenie wartości podstawowych w społeczeństwie obywatelskim,” Resovia Sacra, no. 9–10 (2010): 195–210. 43 Theodore Roosevelt Malloch, Doing Virtuous Business: The Remarkable Success of Spiritual Enterprise (Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 2008).

105

106

Catholic Social Teaching and the Professional Ethics of Social Entrepreneurs

by the power of living faith, the power of supernatural hope, and the power of God’s love.44

5.

Conclusions

The discourse on social entrepreneurship shows that the phenomenon can be examined on the basis of two dimensions. The first one is external and concerns, among other things, activities and/or organisational forms that entrepreneurs give to their projects aimed at achieving social goals. The second dimension is related to the inner sphere and includes mental, moral, and spiritual determinants. It is them, like a root, that grow the specific shape of external initiatives in the field of social entrepreneurship. The development of a scientific theory embracing these two aspects is uneven. The vast majority of research focuses on the external manifestations of social entrepreneurship. In turn, its internal conditions require undertaking scientific research from the point of view of various research perspectives. One of the most important ones is the axiological and ethical-normative perspective. This type of discourse in relation to social entrepreneurship, taking into account different types of normative ethics (and their limitations), has already been undertaken to some extent in the scientific literature, but the perspective of Christian personalist ethics has been used to a marginal extent. The discourse presented in this chapter allows to conclude that Christian personalist ethics makes a valuable and original contribution to the description of the normative determinants of social entrepreneurship. The concept of professional ethics of social entrepreneurs as compared with other ethical theories (e. g. deontonomism or utilitarian ethics) is an attempt to overcome the legalistic and casuistic approach toward professional morality, manifested in the creation of deontological codes of ethics for a given profession. A human act and its evaluation, as well as the moral obligations which are derived from it, should not be separated from the person as the subject of moral action. Therefore, it is not only intended to recognise the right or wrong of a specific act, but also to understand and adequately assess the person performing this act. It is also important to reflect on who the person is, what motivates them to act, what they are called to do and what they become through their actions.45 Inspired by Christian personalist ethics, social entrepreneurs should act in such a way as to ultimately achieve both economic and social success while acting in the spirit of service to the common good. The Parable of the Talents may be a

44 Pontifical Council for Justice and Peace, “Vocation of the Business Leader,” no. 82. 45 John Paul II, Veritatis splendor, no. 29.

Conclusions

biblical inspiration here (Matt 25:14–30). As leaders, they should manage their social enterprises with the conviction that they are fulfilling their principal vocation in life. Their motivation must go deeper than the need to maximise profits and satisfy personal aspirations. Drawing on the fruits of spiritual life and incorporating ethical principles and moral virtues in their lives, social entrepreneurs should not only harmoniously grow as persons, but also responsibly and effectively act for the benefit of other people (especially those at risk of social exclusion), stimulating local development and undertaking pro-ecological activities – in line with the idea of social entrepreneurship.

107

Final Conclusions

In recent decades, social entrepreneurship has seen rapid development and become a social, economic and cultural phenomenon, as well as a subject of wide interest among researchers. The essence of social entrepreneurship is described by four fundamental traits: (1) the social purpose of the activity pursued through the creation of social values for the benefit of people (who are at risk of social exclusion), for the benefit of society (particularly the local community) or for the benefit of the environment; (2) a clearly profit-oriented form of activity utilising business methods and financial profit as a means to fulfil an established mission or social purpose; (3) the innovative nature of the venture; (4) the implementation of a specific venture in the organised form of a social enterprise. The concept of social entrepreneurship as described above is relatively young, although the very idea of using economic resources for social purposes is of course not entirely new. In this sense, social entrepreneurship is an interesting subject of research both for academics who seek to know and understand it better from a theoretical point of view, and for practitioners who seek to help others and build a better world with its help. At this stage in the development of social entrepreneurship, it is difficult to make holistic judgements about it. However, it is certainly worth undertaking various analyses and conceptual work on it. One of the significant factors in the responsible implementation of social entrepreneurship is the appropriate shape of the norms and values that determine it. With this in mind, this book draws on Catholic social teaching (CST) to make an original contribution to understanding and describing the axionormative determinants of social entrepreneurship. The principles of CST and the core values related to social entrepreneurship as a theoretical concept and, at the same time, as a business and managerial practice made it possible to establish a normative framework and subsequently enabled the formulation of more detailed and content-specific moral principles in relation to social entrepreneurship. In the course of analysis and meta-scientific reflection, it was established that the axionormative determinants of social entrepreneurship revolve around three areas: (1) the axiology of (the idea of) social entrepreneurship; (2) the moral principles of social enterprise management; (3) the professional ethics of social entrepreneurs.

110

Final Conclusions

With the help of a substantive selection of literature, the identified research fields were methodically analysed and then approached conceptually from the perspective of the axionormative potential of CST. This approach to research has allowed the original formulation of: (1) the constitutive values of the idea of social entrepreneurship; (2) the concept of the moral dimension of social enterprise management; (3) the concept of professional ethics of social entrepreneurs. The main research results and conclusions are as follows. First, the discussion undertaken allowed for a deeper reinterpretation of the idea of social entrepreneurship in relation to values and principles such as the dignity of the human person, the value of human labour and entrepreneurship, the common good, the universal destination of goods, the preferential option for the poor, solidarity, subsidiarity and participation. This reinforced the notion that engagement in social entrepreneurship is firmly rooted in axiology, hence has the potential, by definition, to truly serve the development of the individual human being as well as the social good. Social entrepreneurship promotes the creation of innovative organisational solutions that effectively affirm the value of each human being and enable their full participation in society, leading to integral development. It is therefore an excellent example of the practical implementation of the personalist norm into socio-economic reality. Second, a detailed analysis of selected documents of the social teaching of the Catholic Church (especially the encyclicals of John Paul II and Benedict XVI) showed that its content is a valuable source contributing to the moral dimension of social enterprise management. It can be better understood by considering the guiding personalistic norm as well as principles such as the common good, subsidiarity and solidarity. The implementation of the personalist norm in social entrepreneurship should involve focusing on management actions that ensure that the dignity of all those who form and are associated with the social enterprise is respected. Indeed, one of the key objectives of social entrepreneurship is the empowerment of individuals and communities for whose benefit certain initiatives are undertaken. In this context, it is also necessary to apply the principle of subsidiarity as the basic principle determining the division of labour and responsibilities linked to the execution of social and professional reintegration activities. Ultimately, a transition from assistance to self-help should occur. It is important for the managers of social enterprises to be able to act collectively on behalf of people in need of help, as well as demonstrate genuine solidarity with the disadvantaged. Moreover, in order to address social problems effectively, it is necessary to have an understanding of the complex causes of these problems and to think in terms of systems. For this reason, the practical implementation of the principles of solidarity and the common good should involve, among other things,

Final Conclusions

the creation of genuine structures of solidarity and the common good through appropriate legislative and market changes, resulting in an increased number of social enterprises working for the poor and other people at risk of social exclusion. Despite various factors that normally push social enterprises in one of the extreme directions – either towards commercialisation (profit) or social activism – ultimately, only the authentic vocation of Christian love (agape) appears to motivate the activities of social managers strongly enough so that the hybrid organisations can avoid “distorting” their natural mission. Third, the discussion undertaken makes it possible to conclude that CST offers a valuable and original contribution to the concept of professional ethics for social entrepreneurs. Social entrepreneurs, inspired in particular by personalist ethics, should act in such a way as to ultimately achieve both economic and social success by acting in the spirit of service to God and the common good. The Parable of the Talents (Matt 25:14–30) may serve as a biblical inspiration here. As leaders, they should manage their social enterprises with the conviction that this is their essential vocation in life, as Christians and professionals. Their motivation must be deeper than the need to maximise profit and satisfy personal aspirations. Drawing on the fruits of spiritual life and embodying ethical principles and moral virtues in their own lives, social entrepreneurs should not only develop harmoniously as persons and Christians, but also act responsibly and at the same time effectively for the benefit of others (especially those at risk of social exclusion), animate local development and undertake pro-environmental activities – in line with the idea of social entrepreneurship. The research perspective adopted in this book naturally has its limitations. The theological sources typical of the Catholic tradition have been intentionally narrowed down. Therefore, what has essentially been used are the axiological and normative premises of CST. It should be noted that CST is, of course, one of many possible perspectives from which the issue of the axionormative determinants of social entrepreneurship might be analysed. For readers who are perhaps less familiar with this type of approach, it is worth clarifying that the proposed approach does not entail a restriction to matters of a spiritual nature only. In fact, CST primarily represents a variety of normative social ethics that stems from a particular religious and moral tradition. Moreover, it is a universal proposal, since its core consists of personalistic ethics emphasising the dignity of every human person above anything else. Therefore, it calls for the affirmation of the subjectivity of every person as a participant in all social, economic and political structures. The research results achieved can be drawn upon in the future by incorporating more extensively the results of ecumenical theological thought in terms of the social mission of Christians and/or the biblical premises of morality inspired by divine Revelation.

111

Bibliography

Austin, James, Howard Stevenson, and Jane Wei–Skillern. “Social and Commercial Entrepreneurship: Same, Different, or Both?” Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice 30, no. 1 (January 2006): 1–22. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-6520.2006.00107.x. Bacq, Sophie, Chantal Hartog, and Brigitte Hoogendoorn. “Beyond the Moral Portrayal of Social Entrepreneurs: An Empirical Approach to Who They Are and What Drives Them.” Journal of Business Ethics 133, no. 4 (November 19, 2014): 703–18. https://doi.org/10. 1007/s10551-014-2446-7. Balser, Deborah B., and John V. McClusky. “Managing Stakeholder Relationships and Nonprofit Organization Effectiveness.” Nonprofit Management and Leadership 15, no. 3 (March 2, 2005): 295–315. https://doi.org/10.1002/nml.70. Banks, Joseph Ambrose. The Sociology of Social Movements. New York: Macmillan Publishers, 1972. Bartnik, Czesław Stanisław. Personalizm. Lublin: Wydawnictwo KUL, 2013. Bartnik, Czesław Stanisław. Studies in Personalist System. Lublin: Wydawnictwo KUL, 2007. Beaton, Erynn E., and Elena Dowin Kennedy. “Responding to Failure: The Promise of Market Mending for Social Enterprise.” Public Management Review 23, no. 5 (January 3, 2021): 641–64. https://doi.org/10.1080/14719037.2020.1865438. Benedict XVI. Encyclical Letter Caritas in Veritate (29 June 2009). Benner, Chris, and Manuel Pastor. Solidarity Economics: Why Mutuality and Movements Matter. Cambridge, UK; Medford, MA: Polity Press, 2021. Bornstein, David. “Changing the World on a Shoestring.” The Atlantic Monthly 281, no. 1 (1998): 34–39. https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/1998/01/changing-theworld-on-a-shoestring/377042/. Bornstein, David. How to Change the World: Social Entrepreneurs and the Power of New Ideas. New York: Oxford University Press, 2004. Bornstein, David. “The Barefoot Bank with Cheek.” The Atlantic Monthly 276, no. 6 (December 1995): 40–47. https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/1995/12/the-barefootbank-with-cheek/305324/. Boschee, Jerr, and Jim McClurg. “Towards a Better Understanding of Social Entrepreneurship: Some Important Distinction - Term Paper,” 2003. Accessed February 27, 2023. https://www.termpaperwarehouse.com/essay-on/Towards-A-Better-Understanding-OfSocial/92212. Bouckaert, Luk, and Steven C. Van Den Heuvel. “Preface.” In Servant Leadership, Social Entrepreneurship and the Will to Serve. Spiritual Foundations and Business Applications, edited by Luk Bouckaert and Steven C. Van Den Heuvel, v–viii. Cham: Palgrave Macmillan, 2009. https://link.springer.com/content/pdf/bfm:978-3-030-29936-1/1?pdf=chapter%20toc.

114

Bibliography

Brzuska, Eugeniusz, Iwona Kukulak-Dolata, and Mariusz Nyk. Ekonomia społeczna: teoria i praktyka przedsiębiorczości społecznej. Warszawa: Difin, 2017. Catechism of the Catholic Church. Citta del Vaticano: Libreria Editrice Vaticana, 1994. Chell, Elizabeth. “Social Enterprise and Entrepreneurship.” International Small Business Journal: Researching Entrepreneurship 25, no. 1 (February 2007): 5–26. https://doi.org/10. 1177/0266242607071779. Chell, Elizabeth, Laura J. Spence, Francesco Perrini, and Jared D. Harris. “Social Entrepreneurship and Business Ethics: Does Social Equal Ethical?” Journal of Business Ethics 133, no. 4 (November 20, 2014): 619–25. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-014-2439-6. Chomątowska, Monika. “Nauka społeczna Kościoła a gospodarka społeczna.” Ekonomia Społeczna, 2013, 67–79. Ciepielewska-Kowalik, Anna, Bartosz Pieliński, Marzena Starnawska, and Anna Szymańska. “Social Enterprise in Poland: Institutional and Historical Context.” ICSEM Working Papers 11 (January 1, 2015). Ciulla, Joanne B. The Ethics of Leadership. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth/Thomson, 2003. Clark, Cheryl R., and Linda Brennan. “Entrepreneurship with Social Value: A Conceptual Model for Performance Measurement.” Academy of Entrepreneurship Journal 18, no. 2 (July 1, 2012): 17. https://www.questia.com/library/journal/1G1-321579273/entrepreneurshipwith-social-value-a-conceptual-model. Colom, Enrique. “Principi e valori della DSC.” In Per un umanesimo degno dell’amore. Il “Compendio della Dottrina Sociale della Chiesa,” edited by Paolo Carlotti and Mario Toso, 281–316. Roma: LAS, 2005. Congregation for Catholic Education. Guidelines: For the Study and Teaching of the Church’s Social Doctrine in the Formation of Priests. Washington, D.C.: Office for Publishing and Promotion Services, United States Catholic Conference, 1988. https://www.humandevelopment.va/content/dam/sviluppoumano/pubblicazionidocumenti/archivio/dottrina-sociale-della-chiesa/orientamenti/ODSI_ENG.pdf. Cuda, Jerzy. Praktyczno-społeczne kryterium wiarygodności objawionego sensu historii: analityczno-syntetyczne studium inspirowane paradygmatem nowej teologii politycznej. Katowice: Księgarnia św. Jacka, 1999. Dacin, M. Tina, Peter A. Dacin, and Paul Tracey. “Social Entrepreneurship: A Critique and Future Directions.” Organization Science 22, no. 5 (October 2011): 1203–13. https://doi. org/10.1287/orsc.1100.0620. Dacin, Peter A., M. Tina Dacin, and Margaret Matear. “Social Entrepreneurship: Why We Don’t Need a New Theory and How We Move Forward from Here.” Academy of Management Perspectives 24, no. 3 (August 1, 2010): 37–57. https://doi.org/10.5465/amp. 2010.52842950. Dees, James Gregory. “The Meaning of ‘Social Entrepreneurship,’” October 31, 1998. Accessed February 28, 2023. https://centers.fuqua.duke.edu/case/wp-content/uploads/ sites/7/2015/03/Article_Dees_MeaningofSocialEntrepreneurship_2001.pdf.

Bibliography

Dees, James Gregory, and Beth Battle Anderson. “Framing a Theory of Social Entrepreneurship: Building on Two Schools of Practice and Thought.” In Research on Social Entrepreneurship: Understanding and Contributing to an Emerging Field, 1(3):39–66. Indianapolis: Association for Research on Nonprofit Organizations and Voluntary Action (ARNOVA), 2006. https://centers.fuqua.duke.edu/case/wp-content/uploads/sites/7/ 2015/02/BookChapter_Dees_FramingTheoryofSE_2006.pdf. Defourny, Jacques, and Marthe Nyssens. “Conceptions of Social Enterprise and Social Entrepreneurship in Europe and the United States: Convergences and Divergences.” Journal of Social Entrepreneurship 1, no. 1 (March 2010): 32–53. https://doi.org/10.1080/ 19420670903442053. Defourny, Jacques. “Fundamentals for an International Typology of Social Enterprise Models.” VOLUNTAS: International Journal of Voluntary and Nonprofit Organizations 28, no. 6 (June 8, 2017): 2469–97. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11266-017-9884-7. Defourny, Jacques. “Social Enterprise in Europe: At the Crossroads of Market, Public Policies and Third Sector.” Policy and Society 29, no. 3 (August 1, 2010): 231–42. https://doi.org/10. 1016/j.polsoc.2010.07.002. Defourny, Jacques. “The EMES Approach of Social Enterprise in a Comparative Perspective.” EMES European Research Network, 2013. Accessed March 1, 2023. https://emes.net/ content/uploads/publications/EMES-WP-12-03_Defourny-Nyssens.pdf. Dent, Eric B., M. Eileen Higgins, and Deborah M. Wharff. “Spirituality and Leadership: An Empirical Review of Definitions, Distinctions, and Embedded Assumptions.” Leadership Quarterly 16, no. 5 (October 1, 2005): 625–53. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2005.07. 002. Derdziuk, Andrzej. Teologia moralna w służbie wiary Kościoła. Lublin: Wydawnictwo KUL, 2009. Derdziuk, Andrzej. “The Integrating Function of Virtue.” Journal for Perspectives of Economic Political and Social Integration 27, no. 1 (March 21, 2022): 59–79. https://doi.org/10.18290/ pepsi-2021-0003. Di Somma, Emilio. “Protecting the Weak and Creating Community.” In Servant Leadership, Social Entrepreneurship and the Will to Serve. Spiritual Foundations and Business Applications, edited by Luk Bouckaert and Steven C. Van Den Heuvel, 143–60. Cham: Palgrave Macmillan, 2019. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-29936-1_8. Drucker, Peter F. The Practice of Management. New York: Macmillan Publishers, 1975. Dylus, Aniela. Gospodarka. Moralność. Chrześcijaństwo. Warszawa: Kontrast, Wydawnictwo Fundacji ATK, 1994. Dylus, Aniela. Moralność krańcowa jako problem dla katolickiej nauki społecznej. Warszawa: Pallottinum, 1992. Dylus, Aniela. “Polityka a moralność: typologia stanowisk.” Studia Theologica Varsaviensia 29, no. 1 (1991): 49–64.

115

116

Bibliography

Dziuba, Andrzej Franciszek. “Miłość.” In Jan Paweł II. Encyklopedia nauczania moralnego, edited by Janusz Nagórny and Krzysztof Jeżyna, 327–33. Radom: Polwen Polskie Wydawnictwo Encyklopedyczne, 2005. Fiedler, Fred Edward, ed. A Theory of Leadership Effectiveness. New York: Wiley, 1967. Frączak, Piotr, and Jan Jakub Wygnański, eds. Polski model ekonomii społecznej. Rekomendacje dla rozwoju. Zaproszenie do dyskusji. Warszawa: Fundacja Inicjatyw Społeczno-Ekonomicznych, 2008. https://www.fise.org.pl/wp-content/uploads/2018/09/ Polski-model-ekonomii-spolecznej.pdf. Francis. Encyclical Letter Laudato Si (24 May 2015). Fry, Louis W. “Toward a Theory of Spiritual Leadership.” Leadership Quarterly 14, no. 6 (December 1, 2003): 693–727. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2003.09.001. Fry, Louis W., and Melissa Sadler Nisiewicz. Maximizing the Triple Bottom Line Through Spiritual Leadership. Redwood City: Stanford University Press, 2013. Gawell, Malin. “Soci(et)al Entrepreneurship and Different Forms of Social Enterprise.” In Social Entrepreneurship. Leveraging Economic, Political, and Cultural Dimensions, edited by Anders Lundström, Chunyan Zhou, and Yvonne Von Friedrichs, 29:23–41. Cham: Springer, 2013. Gocko, Jerzy. Ekonomia a moralność. Poszukiwania teologicznomoralne. Lublin: Redakcja Wydawnictw KUL, 1996. Gocko, Jerzy. Kościół obecny w świecie – posłany do świata. Teologiczno-społeczne aspekty posłannictwa Kościoła w świecie po Soborze Watykańskim II. Lublin: Wydawnictwo KUL, 2003. Gocko, Jerzy. “Własność.” In Jan Paweł II. Encyklopedia nauczania moralnego, edited by Janusz Nagórny and Krzysztof Jeżyna, 578–80. Radom: Polwen Polskie Wydawnictwo Encyklopedyczne, 2005. Gocko, Jerzy. “Zasady nauki społecznej Kościoła i wartości podstawowe jako normy moralne życia społecznego. Refleksja na kanwie współczesnych dokumentów społecznych Kościoła.” Roczniki Teologiczne 53, no. 3 (2006): 85–103. Goffi, Tullo. “Valori e norme morali in economia.” Rivista Di Teologia Morale 19, no. 76 (1987): 13–17. Góralczyk, Paweł. “Twierdzenia empiryczne, filozoficzne i teologiczne w katolickiej nauce społecznej.” Studia Theologica Varsaviensia 21, no. 1 (1983): 75–92. Góźdź, Krzysztof. Teologia człowieka: z najnowszej antropologii niemieckiej. Lublin: Wydawnictwo KUL, 2006. Granat, Wincenty. Personalizm chrześcijański: teologia osoby ludzkiej, Sandomierz: Wydawnictwo Diecezjalne i Drukarnia, 2018. Grassl, Wolfgang. “Hybrid Forms of Business: The Logic of Gift in the Commercial World.” Journal of Business Ethics 100, no. S1 (March 1, 2011): 109–23. https://doi.org/10.1007/ s10551-011-1182-5. Gray, Leslie, Alaina Boyle, and Victoria Yu. “Turning on the Lights: Transcending Energy Poverty Through the Power of Women Entrepreneurs.” Santa Clara

Bibliography

University’s Miller Center for Social Entrepreneurship, 2017. Accessed February 27, 2023. https://www.millersocent.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/01/Turning-on-theLights-Miller-Center.FINAL_.03301712.pdf. Greenleaf, Robert K. Servant Leadership: A Journey into the Nature of Legitimate Power and Greatness. New York: Paulist Press, 2002. Guo, Chao, and Wolfgang Bielefeld. Social Entrepreneurship: An Evidence-Based Approach to Creating Social Value (Bryson Series in Public and Nonprofit Management). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, A Wiley Brand, 2014. Gupta, Manish. “Bridging the Gap: Manish Gupta and Matr Boomie Connect Indian Artisans with Western Consumers.” Interview by Cory Ames. Edited by Grow Ensemble, May 28, 2019. Accessed February 27, 2023. https://www.listennotes.com/podcasts/the-social/24bridging-the-gap-manish-vIhPcTZR8Az/. Häring, Bernhard. Frei in Christus: Moraltheologie für die Praxis des christlichen Lebens. Freiburg: Herder, 1989. Hota, Pradeep Kumar, S. Balaji, and Gopalakrishnan Narayanamurthy. “Mapping the Intellectual Structure of Social Entrepreneurship Research: A Citation/Co-Citation Analysis.” Journal of Business Ethics 166, no. 1 (September 1, 2020): 89–114. https://doi.org/10.1007/ s10551-019-04129-4. Jackson, Kevin T. “Mindful Servant Leadership for B-Corps.” In Servant Leadership, Social Entrepreneurship and the Will to Serve. Spiritual Foundations and Business Applications, edited by Luk Bouckaert and Steven C. Van Den Heuvel, 211–33. Cham: Palgrave Macmillan, 2019. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-29936-1_11. Jęczeń, Jarosław, Piotr Guzdek, and Agnieszka Petryk, eds. Personalizm w nauce i kulturze. Lublin: Wydawnictwo KUL, 2020. John Paul II. 21st World Communications Day: Social Communications at the Service of Justice and Peace (23 January 1987). John Paul II. Encyclical Letter Centesimus annus (1 May 1991). John Paul II. Post-synodal Apostolic Exhortation Christifideles laici (30 December 1988). John Paul II. Apostolic Letter Dilecti amici (31 March 1985). John Paul II. Encyclical Letter Dives in misericordia (30 November 1980). John Paul II. Encyclical Letter Dominum et Vivificantem (18 May 1986). John Paul II. Encyclical Letter Fides et ratio (14 September 1998). John Paul II. Encyclical Letter Laborem exercens (14 September 1981). John Paul II. “L’incontro con i lavoratori, con gli imprenditori e con i dirigenti della Provincia Mantovana.” Insegnamenti 14/1 (1991) 1770. Mantova, Italy (23 June 1991). John Paul II. “L’incontro con i rappresentanti del mondo del lavoro.” Insegnamenti 5/3 (1982) 1203. Barcelona, Spain (7 November 1982). John Paul II. “Pellegrinaggio apostolico in Polonia: Celebrazione Mariana di ringraziamento e di implorazione a Katowice.” (20 June 1983). John Paul II. Encyclical Letter Redemptor hominis (4 March 1979). John Paul II. Motu Proprio Socialium scientiarum (1 January 1994).

117

118

Bibliography

John Paul II. Encyclical Letter Sollicitudo rei socialis (30 December 1987). John Paul II. Encyclical Letter Veritatis splendor (6 August 1993). John Paul II. XIV World Day for Peace 1981: To Serve Peace, Respect Freedom (7 December 1980). John XXIII. Encyclical Letter Mater et Magistra (15 May 1961). John XXIII. Encyclical Letter Pacem in terris (11 April 1963). Johnson, Craig E. Meeting the Ethical Challenges of Leadership: Casting Light or Shadow. Los Angeles: SAGE, 2017. Kant, Immanuel. Groundwork of the Metaphysics of Morals: A German-English Edition. Translated by Gregor Mary and Jens Timmermann. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2011. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511973741. Karwińska, Anna, and Dobrosława Wiktor. Przedsiębiorczość i korzyści społeczne: identyfikacja dobrych praktyk w ekonomii społecznej. Ekonomia Społeczna Teksty 2008. Vol. 6. Warszawa: Fundacja Inicjatyw Społeczno-Ekonomicznych, 2008. https://www. academia.edu/4452214/Przedsi%C4%99biorczo%C5%9B%C4%87_i_korzy%C5%9Bci_ spo%C5%82eczne_Identyfikacja_dobrych_praktyk_w_Ekonomii_Spo%C5%82ecznej. Kerlin, Janelle A. “Social Enterprise in the United States and Europe: Understanding and Learning from the Differences.” Voluntas 17, no. 3 (September 28, 2006): 246–62. https:// doi.org/10.1007/s11266-006-9016-2. Kieniewicz, Piotr. “Sprawiedliwość.” In Jan Paweł II. Encyklopedia nauczania moralnego, edited by Janusz Nagórny and Krzysztof Jeżyna, 501–4. Radom: Polwen Polskie Wydawnictwo Encyklopedyczne, 2005. Kim, Marina, and Jane Leu. “Foreword. The Field of Social Entrepreneurship Education: From the Second Wave of Growth to a Third Wave of Innovation.” In Social Entrepreneurship Education Resource Handbook, edited by Debbi D. Brock and Marina Kim, 4–5. Arlington, VA: Ashoka U, 2011. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.1872088. Klich, Jacek. “Przedsiębiorczość i społeczna przedsiębiorczość jako przedmiot badań.” Ekonomia Społeczna 6, no. 1 (2013): 20–33. Koral, Jarosław. “Znaczenie wartości podstawowych w społeczeństwie obywatelskim.” Resovia Sacra, no. 9–10 (2010): 195–210. Kowalczyk, Barbara. “Ekonomia społeczna w pomocy społecznej w Polsce w walce z wykluczeniem społecznym.” In Praca socjalna wobec nowych obszarów wykluczenia społecznego. Modele teoretyczne, potrzeby praktyki, edited by Kazimiera Wódz and Sabina Pawlas-Czyż, 33–45. Toruń: AKAPIT, 2008. Lewicka-Strzałecka, Anna. Etyczne standardy firm i pracowników. Warszawa: Wydawnictwo Instytutu Filozofii i Socjologii PAN, 1999. Lorenzetti, Luigi. “Rapporto dialettico tra valori sociali e sistemi socio-economici.” Rivista Di Teologia Morale 13 (1981): 611–15. Lundström, Anders, and Chunyan Zhou. “Introduction.” In Social Entrepreneurship. Leveraging Economic, Political, and Cultural Dimensions, edited by Anders Lundström, Chunyan Zhou, Yvonne Von Friedrichs, and Elisabeth Sundin, 29:3–22. Cham: Springer, 2013.

Bibliography

Mair, Johanna, and Ignasi Martí. “Social Entrepreneurship Research: A Source of Explanation, Prediction, and Delight.” Journal of World Business 41, no. 1 (February 2006): 36–44. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jwb.2005.09.002. Mair, Johanna, Jeffrey Robinson, and Kai Hockerts. Social Entrepreneurship. London: Palgrave Macmillan, 2006. Malloch, Theodore Roosevelt. Doing Virtuous Business: The Remarkable Success of Spiritual Enterprise. Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 2008. Marek, Agnieszka, and Arkadiusz Jabłoński. “Care of the Common Good as a Responsibility of Business Leaders. Catholic Social Teaching Perspective.” Religions 12, no. 2 (February 16, 2021): 125. https://doi.org/10.3390/rel12020125. Martin, Roger L., and Sally Osberg. “Social Entrepreneurship: The Case for Definition.” Stanford Social Innovation Review, season-01 2007, 28–39. http://web.mit.edu/sloan2/ dese/readings/week01/Martin_Osberg_SocialEntrepreneurship.pdf. McVea, John F., and Michael J. Naughton. “Enriching Social Entrepreneurship from the Perspective of Catholic Social Teaching.” Religions 12, no. 3 (March 9, 2021): 173. https:// doi.org/10.3390/rel12030173. Melé, Domènec, and Joan Fontrodona. “Christian Ethics and Spirituality in Leading Business Organizations: Editorial Introduction.” Journal of Business Ethics 145, no. 4 (November 1, 2017): 671–79. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-016-3323-3. Miller, Toyah L., Curtis L Wesley, and Denise Williams. “Educating the Minds of Caring Hearts: Comparing the Views of Practitioners and Educators on the Importance of Social Entrepreneurship Competencies.” Academy of Management Learning and Education 11, no. 3 (September 1, 2012): 349–70. https://doi.org/10.5465/amle.2011.0017. Mirvis, Jonathan. “The Diverse Definitions of Social Entrepreneurship: The Underlying Issues.” International Journal of Science, Engineering and Management 9, no. 10 (October 18, 2022): 45–54. https://doi.org/10.36647/ijsem/09.10.a011. Moss, Todd W., George T. Lumpkin, and Jeremy C. Short. “Social Entrepreneurship: A Historical Review and Research Agenda.” In Historical Foundations of Entrepreneurship Research, edited by Hans Landström and Franz T. Lohrke, 318–40. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing Ltd., 2010. https://doi.org/10.4337/9781849806947.00025. Mroczkowski, Ireneusz. Chrześcijańska tożsamość osoby. Zarys antropologii moralnoteologicznej. Płock: Płocki Instytut Wydawniczy, 2016. Nagórny, Janusz. “Fundamentalne zasady życia chrześcijańskiego.” In Być chrześcijaninem dziś. Teologia dla szkół średnich, edited by Marian Rusecki, 381–87. Lublin: Redakcja Wydawnictw KUL, 1992. Nell-Breuning, Oswald von. Gerechtigkeit und Freiheit: Grundzüge katholischer Soziallehre. Wien: Europaverl, 1980. Neuhold, Leopold. “Soziallehre, Katholische.” In Neues Lexikon der christlichen Moral, edited by Hans Rotter and Günter Virt, 702–10. Innsbruck-Wien: Tyrolia - Verlag, 1990. Nicholls, Alex. “Introduction.” In Social Entrepreneurship: New Models of Sustainable Social Change, edited by Alex Nicholls, 1–35. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2006.

119

120

Bibliography

Nicholls, Alex. “Playing the Field: A New Approach to the Meaning of Social Entrepreneurship.” Social Enterprise Journal 2, no. 1 (January 1, 2006): 1–5. Novak, Michael. Business as a Calling: Work and the Examined Life. New York: Free Press, 1996. Nowosad, Sławomir, and Michał Wyrostkiewicz. “Wolność.” In Jan Paweł II. Encyklopedia nauczania moralnego, edited by Janusz Nagórny and Krzysztof Jeżyna, 582–84. Radom: Polwen Polskie Wydawnictwo Encyklopedyczne, 2005. Nuijten, Inge. Servant-Leadership: Paradox Or Diamond in the Rough? : A Multidimensional Measure and Empirical Evidence. Rotterdam: Diss. Erasmus University Rotterdam, 2009. Nullens, Patrick. “The Will to Serve: An Anthropological and Spiritual Foundation for Leadership.” In Servant Leadership, Social Entrepreneurship and the Will to Serve. Spiritual Foundations and Business Applications, edited by Luk Bouckaert and Steven C. Van Den Heuvel, 3–27. Cham: Palgrave Macmillan, 2019. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-299361_1. Ockenfels, Wolfgang. Zarys katolickiej nauki społecznej: wprowadzenie. Translated by Aniela Dylus. Warszawa: Wydawnictwo Fundacji ATK, 1995. https://ordosocialis.de/wp-content/ uploads/kkspola4neu.pdf. Paul VI. Encyclical Letter Populorum progressio (26 March 1967). Percy, Anthony. Entrepreneurship in the Catholic Tradition (Studies in Ethics and Economics). Lanham: Lexington Books, 2010. Peschke, Karl-Heinz. Social Economy in the Light of Christian Faith. Trier: Paulinus-Verlag, 1991. https://ordosocialis.de/wp-content/uploads/wacsengA4neu.pdf. Piecuch, Teresa. “Charakterystyka przedsiębiorców społecznych – przegląd literatury.” Ekonomia Społeczna, no. 2 (January 1, 2014): 58–68. https://www.ceeol.com/search/articledetail?id=417507. Pierre, Anne, Yvonne Von Friedrichs, and Joakim Wincent. “A Review of Social Entrepreneurship Research.” In Social Entrepreneurship. Leveraging Economic, Political, and Cultural Dimensions, edited by Anders Lundström, Chunyan Zhou, Yvonne Von Friedrichs, and Elisabeth Sundin, 43–69. 2013. Cham: Springer, 2013. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-31901396-1_3. Pirson, Michael, and Reut Livne-Tarandach. “Restoring Dignity with Open Hiring- Greyston Bakery and the Recognition of Value.” SSRN Electronic Journal, 2020. https://doi.org/10. 2139/ssrn.3563835. Pius XI. Encyclical Letter Quadragesimo anno (15 May 1931). Pius XII. Radio Message ‘Benignitas et Humanitas’ for Christmas (24 December 1944). Piwowarski, Władysław. “Katolicka nauka społeczna.” In Słownik katolickiej nauki społecznej, edited by Władysław Piwowarski, 76–77. Warszawa: Instytut Wydawniczy PAX, 1993. Pless, Nicola M. “Social Entrepreneurship in Theory and Practice—An Introduction.” Journal of Business Ethics 111, no. 3 (November 21, 2012): 317–20. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551012-1533-x.

Bibliography

Pokrywka, Marian. “Humanizm chrześcijański.” In Jan Paweł II. Encyklopedia nauczania moralnego, edited by Janusz Nagórny and Krzysztof Jeżyna, 236–37. Radom: Polwen Polskie Wydawnictwo Encyklopedyczne, 2005. Pokrywka, Marian. “Prawda.” In Jan Paweł II. Encyklopedia nauczania moralnego, edited by Janusz Nagórny and Krzysztof Jeżyna, 417–19. Radom: Polwen Polskie Wydawnictwo Encyklopedyczne, 2005. Pokrywka, Marian. “Uczestnictwo.” In Jan Paweł II. Encyklopedia nauczania moralnego, edited by Janusz Nagórny and Krzysztof Jeżyna, 553–55. Radom: Polwen Polskie Wydawnictwo Encyklopedyczne, 2005. Pontifical Council for Justice and Peace. Compendium of the Social Doctrine of the Church. Città Vaticano: Libreria Editrice Vaticana, 2004. Pontifical Council for Justice and Peace. “Vocation of the Business Leader,” November 2014. https://www.humandevelopment.va/content/dam/sviluppoumano/pubblicazionidocumenti/archivio/economia-e-finanza/vocation-of-business-leader/Vocation_ ENGLISH_4th%20edition.pdf. Praszkier, Ryszard. “Zwykli ludzie czy herosi? Motywacje przedsiębiorców społecznych.” Trzeci Sektor 4 (2005): 35–42. Praszkier, Ryszard, and Andrzej Nowak. Social Entrepreneurship: Theory and Practice. Cambidge: Cambridge University Press, 2011. Robinson, Jeffrey. “Navigating Social and Institutional Barriers to Markets: How Social Entrepreneurs Identify and Evaluate Opportunities.” In Social Entrepreneurship, edited by Johanna Mair, Jeffrey Robinson, and Kai Hockerts, 95–120. London: Palgrave Macmillan, 2006. https://doi.org/10.1057/9780230625655_7. Rost, Joseph Clarence. Leadership for the Twenty-First Century. New York: Praeger, 1991. Saebi, Tina, Nicolai J. Foss, and Stefan Linder. “Social Entrepreneurship Research: Past Achievements and Future Promises.” Journal of Management 45, no. 1 (August 14, 2018): 70–95. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206318793196. Scola, Angelo, Gilfredo Marengo, and Javier Prades López. Osoba ludzka: antropologia teologiczna. Translated by Lucjan Balter. Poznań: Pallottinum, 2005. Second Vatican Council. Dogmatic Constitution on Divine Revelation Dei Verbum (18 November 1965). Second Vatican Council. Declaration on Religious Freedom Dignitatis humanae (7 December 1965). Second Vatican Council. Pastoral Constitution on The Church in the Modern World Gaudium et spes (7 December 1965). Second Vatican Council. Dogmatic Constitution on the Church Lumen gentium (21 November 1964). Short, Jeremy C., Todd W. Moss, and George T. Lumpkin. “Research in Social Entrepreneurship: Past Contributions and Future Opportunities.” Strategic Entrepreneurship Journal 3, no. 2 (June 2009): 161–94. https://doi.org/10.1002/sej.69.

121

122

Bibliography

Sirico, Robert A. The Entrepreneurial Vocation. Grand Rapids: Acton Institute for the Study of Religion & Liberty, 2018. Ślipko, Tadeusz. “Tradycyjna etyka społeczna w obliczu współczesnych kontestacji.” Życie Katolickie 5, no. 1 (1985): 77–90. Smith, Christian. What Is a Person?: Rethinking Humanity, Social Life, and the Moral Good from the Person Up. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2011. Sobocka-Szczapa, Halina. Ekonomia społeczna w Polsce. Łódź: Społeczna Wyższa Szkoła Przedsiębiorczości i Zarządzania, 2010. Sodano, Angelo. “Letter of Cardinal Angelo Sodano,” June 29, 2004. https://www.vatican.va/ roman_curia/pontifical_councils/justpeace/documents/rc_pc_justpeace_doc_20060526_ compendio-dott-soc_en.html#SECRETARIAT%20OF%20STATE. Starnawska, Marzena. “Przedsiębiorczość społeczna w społeczeństwie obywatelskim w Polsce.” Studia BAS 44, no. 4 (December 1, 2015): 167–203. http://orka.sejm.gov.pl/ WydBAS.nsf/0/C1F8496B0BDCE0EFC1257F4000426F3F/$file/StronyodStudia_BAS_448.pdf. Starnawska, Marzena. “Przedsiębiorczość społeczna w świetle teorii instytucjonalnej - próba przyczynku teoretycznego.” Przedsiębiorczość i Zarządzanie 18, no. 12 (2017): 149–60. http://piz.san.edu.pl/docs/e-XVIII-12-1.pdf. Starnawska, Marzena. “Social Entrepreneurship Research – Challenges, Explanations and Suggestions for the Field Development.” Problemy Zarządzania 14, no. 3 (61) (July 30, 2016): 13–31. https://doi.org/10.7172/1644-9584.61.1. Starnawska, Marzena, and Agnieszka Brzozowska. “Editorial Paper. Social Entrepreneurship and Social Enterprise Phenomenon: Antecedents, Processes, Impact across Cultures and Contexts.” Journal of Entrepreneurship, Management and Innovation 14, no. 2 (2018): 3–18. https://doi.org/10.7341/20181421. Strzeszewski, Czesław. Ewolucja katolickiej nauki społecznej. Warszawa: Ośrodek Dokumentacji i Studiów Społecznych, 1978. Surmiak, Wojciech. Opcja preferencyjna na rzecz ubogich wyrazem miłości społecznej: studium teologicznomoralne w świetle nauczania Jana Pawła II. Katowice: Księgarnia św. Jacka, 2009. Trivedi, Chitvan. “Towards a Social Ecological Framework for Social Entrepreneurship.” The Journal of Entrepreneurship 19, no. 1 (January 2010): 63–80. https://doi.org/10.1177/ 097135570901900104. Turkson, Peter Kodwo Appiah, and Mario Toso. “Foreword.” In The Vocation of the Business Leader. A Reflection, by Pontifical Council for Justice and Peace, 4th ed., 2014. https://www. humandevelopment.va/content/dam/sviluppoumano/pubblicazioni-documenti/archivio/ economia-e-finanza/vocation-of-business-leader/Vocation_ENGLISH_4th%20edition. pdf. Vidal, Marciano. L’atteggiamento morale. Vol. 3. Assisi: Cittadella, 1981. Vroom, Victor Harold, and Philip W. Yetton, eds. Leadership and Decision-Making. Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh Press, 1973.

Bibliography

Waddock, Sandra A., and James E. Post. “Social Entrepreneurs and Catalytic Change.” Public Administration Review 51, no. 5 (September 1991): 393–401. https://doi.org/10.2307/ 976408. Whetstone, J. Thomas. “Personalism and Moral Leadership: The Servant Leader with a Transforming Vision.” Business Ethics: A European Review 11, no. 4 (October 1, 2002): 385–92. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-8608.00298. Wojtyła, Karol. Love and Responsibility. Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press, 1993. Wojtyła, Karol. The Acting Person. Dordrecht: Springer Netherlands, 1979. Wronka-Pośpiech, Martyna. “Cechy i kompetencje menedżera społecznego.” Ekonomia Społeczna, no. 1 (January 1, 2014): 29–37. http://cejsh.icm.edu.pl/cejsh/element/bwmeta1. element.desklight-0dba7553-c0ee-4b9a-a0e0-ff0acc2b45ae/c/ZSWES_pol_es9_-_3.pdf. Wronka-Pośpiech, Martyna. “Kulturowe uwarunkowania zarządzania przedsiębiorstwem społecznym.” Studia Ekonomiczne / Uniwersytet Ekonomiczny W Katowicach, January 1, 2017, 90–102. http://yadda.icm.edu.pl/yadda/element/bwmeta1.element.ekon-element000171500110. Wronka-Pośpiech, Martyna, Aldona Frączkiewicz-Wronka, and Małgorzata Dobrowolska. “Osobowościowe wyznaczniki pracy, wpływające na sukces przedsiębiorców społecznych.” Zarządzanie Zasobami Ludzkimi, January 1, 2017, 105–22. http://yadda.icm.edu.pl/yadda/ element/bwmeta1.element.desklight-dfedc298-ae2c-4aed-8f3c-1bfbdd8e09e0. Young, Dennis R. “Entrepreneurship and the Behaviour of Nonprofit Organisations: Elements of a Theory.” In The Economics of Nonprofit Institutions: Studies in Structure and Policy, edited by Susan Rose-Ackerman, 161–84. New York: Oxford University Press, 1986. Yujuico, Emmanuel. “Connecting the Dots in Social Entrepreneurship through the Capabilities Approach.” Socio-Economic Review 6, no. 3 (July 1, 2008): 493–513. https://doi. org/10.1093/ser/mwn003. Yukl, Gary A. Leadership in Organizations. Harlow: Pearson Education, 2013. Zadroga, Adam. “Axionormative Determinants of Social Entrepreneurship in View of the Principles of Catholic Social Teaching.” The Person and the Challenges. The Journal of Theology, Education, Canon Law and Social Studies Inspired by Pope John Paul II 13, no. 1 (2023): 37–49. https://doi.org/10.15633/pch.13103 Zadroga, Adam. “Business Ethics in Poland: A Metatheoretical Analysis.” Annales. Etyka w Życiu Gospodarczym 20, no. 8 (March 1, 2017): 19–32. https://doi.org/10.18778/18992226.20.8.02. Zadroga, Adam. “Catholic Social Teaching as a Source of Enrichment of the Moral Dimension of Social Enterprise Management.” Verbum Vitae 40, no. 4 (2022): 989–1006. https://doi. org/10.31743/vv.14380. Zadroga, Adam. “Ekonomia społeczna i nauczanie społeczne Kościoła. Wzajemne implikacje aksjologiczne.” Roczniki Teologiczne 56, no. 3 (2009): 213–29. Zadroga, Adam. “Etyka zawodowa przedsiębiorców społecznych w perspektywie chrześcijańskiej etyki personalistycznej.” In Humanistyczne i społeczne aspekty biznesu i zarządza-

123

124

Bibliography

nia, edited by Leszek Karczewski and Henryk A. Kretek, 97–104. Opole: Oficyna Wydawnicza Politechniki Opolskiej, 2019. Zadroga, Adam. Katolicka myśl ekonomiczno-społeczna wobec fundamentalnych założeń ekonomii głównego nurtu. Lublin: Wydawnictwo KUL, 2018. Zadroga, Adam. “Powołanie lidera biznesu.” Pastores 61, no. 4 (2013): 123–29. Zadroga, Adam. “Professional Ethics of Social Entrepreneurs: The Perspective of Christian Personalist Ethics.” Verbum Vitae 39, no. 2 (2021): 495–513. https://doi.org/10.31743/vv. 11462. Zadroga, Adam. Współczesne ujęcia etyki biznesu w Polsce. Próba oceny z perspektywy teologii moralnej. Lublin: Wydawnictwo KUL, 2009.

Web Sources

“Agastya International Foundation.” Accessed February 28, 2023. https://www.agastya.org/. Ashoka | Everyone a Changemaker. “Ashoka.” Accessed February 27, 2023. https://www. ashoka.org/en-nl. “Canadian Social Entrepreneurship Foundation.” Accessed February 28, 2023. https://www. csef.ca/. “Civil Society and Youth Directorate,” January 18, 2021. Accessed February 28, 2023. https:// www.gov.uk/government/organisations/office-for-civil-society. “Deontological Ethics | Definition, Meaning, Examples, & Facts,” July 20, 1998. Accessed March 3, 2023. https://www.britannica.com/topic/deontological-ethics. “Department of Social and Solidarity Economy.” Accessed February 28, 2023. https://www. ekonomiaspoleczna.gov.pl. “Impact Economy Foundation.” Accessed February 28, 2023. https://www.impactinstitute. com/. “Innowator społeczny o swojej ciągłej ciekawości.” Accessed February 27, 2023. https://www. ashoka.org/pl-pl/story/innowator-spo%C5%82eczny-o-swojej-ci%C4%85g%C5%82ejciekawo%C5%9Bci. Kramer, Mark R. “Measuring Innovation: Evaluation in the Field of Social Entrepreneurship.” San Francisco, CA: Foundation Strategy Group, April 2005. Accessed February 27, 2023. https://community-wealth.org/sites/clone.community-wealth.org/files/downloads/ report-kramer.pdf. “ManifESt – ekonomii społecznej.” Accessed March 22, 2023. http://www.wsparcie.es/wpcontent/uploads/2018/10/manifest_ekonomii_spolecznej.pdf. Newman’s Own Foundation Partnership. “Our Mission | Newman’s Own Foundation,” October 19, 2022. https://newmansown.org/mission/. “Office for Civil Society.” Accessed February 28, 2023. https://www.civilsociety.co.uk/. “Office of Social Innovation and Civic Participation.” Accessed February 28, 2023. https:// obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/administration/eop/sicp. “Rochdale, Encyklopedia PWN: źródło wiarygodnej i rzetelnej wiedzy.” In PWN. Accessed February 27, 2023. https://encyklopedia.pwn.pl/haslo/;3968198. “School for Social Entrepreneurs.” Accessed February 28, 2023. https://www.the-sse.org/. “Schwab Foundation for Social Entrepreneurship.” Accessed February 27, 2023. https://www. schwabfound.org/our-vision-mission. “Skoll Foundation,” January 18, 2023. Accessed February 27, 2023. https://skoll.org/. “The Ecclesiastical Magisterium and Theology.” Accessed March 1, 2023. https://www. vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/cti_documents/rc_cti_1975_magisteroteologia_en.html.

126

Web Sources

“Treating Persons as Means (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy),” April 13, 2019. Accessed March 3, 2023. https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/persons-means/.

Code of Ethics in Social Entrepreneurship1

1. Recitals 1.1. Social entrepreneurship is a significant alternative to measures taken by the government and business in response to pressing social problems, including poverty, social exclusion, and environmental issues. 1.2. Social entrepreneurship is a conception of economic and social development, which has been implemented in varying degrees by different regions and countries in the world. 1.3. The idea of social entrepreneurship arises from the desire to take responsibility for one’s destiny. It provides a person with the opportunity for getting decent employment and more than that; namely, managing a social enterprise. 1.4. The core of social entrepreneurship is an entrepreneurial attitude to solving social problems and taking action in alignment with one’s own mission, and based on one’s own resources, including financial resources. 1.5. Social entrepreneurship is a form of organising civil society, where the social and ethical components are particularly important and prominent. 1.6. A social entrepreneur, due to the pro-social character of his or her profession, should act ethically, follow specific principles, and be distinguished by relevant moral qualities. 1.6.1. An ethical social entrepreneur can effectively assume the role of the leader in his or her organisation, sharing his or her skills and competencies with others, shaping a working environment distinguished by an atmosphere of mutual kindness and trust, and engaging his or her enterprise in the process of creating the common good. 1.6.2. An ethical social entrepreneur is responsible – not only for the enterprise but also for the social impact that the business has on its environment. 1.6.3. An ethical social entrepreneur is distinguished by moral qualities such as prudence, justice, fortitude, and temperance, as well as creativity, ease in building community bonds, a sense of practical realism, leadership skills, patience, perseverance, discipline, and modesty.

1 This is a draft code developed by the Author, based on the results of the discourse presented in this monograph.

128

Code of Ethics in Social Entrepreneurship

2. Definitions of basic concepts 2.1. Social entrepreneurship Social entrepreneurship is the pursuit of social goals (involving the creation of social value or the making of social change) by individuals or groups of individuals through innovative activity (based on new ideas, methods, and attitudes) within a social mission-oriented for-profit or business-oriented non-profit entity by generating income to support its social mission. 2.2. Social entrepreneur A social entrepreneur is a charismatic leader, agent of social change, a socially involved businessman, who is looking for innovative methods to solve existing social and/or environmental problems. To do this, he or she employs a strategy characteristic of business projects, as well as innovation, creativity, and new technologies. The social entrepreneur’s business skills allow him or her to effect positive change in a community or social group, encourage people to interact, and build social capital based primarily on trust, through specific ventures. 2.3. Social enterprise A social enterprise is a non-profit organisation that engages in commercial activities to fulfil its social mission or solve environmental problems. A social enterprise combines the aspect of social innovation with marketbased activities and the use of management methods characteristic of private enterprises. It can operate in various sectors of the economy, including the private, public, and non-governmental sectors.

3. Status of the social entrepreneur 3.1. Characteristics of the profession A social entrepreneur is a person with an entrepreneurial mindset, whose actions are focused on solving social problems. The social entrepreneur’s business skills allow him or her to effect positive change in a community or social group, encourage people to interact, and build social capital, through specific ventures. A social entrepreneur is a visionary, a social leader, leader, and mentor who passes knowledge, skills, competencies, and social values to his or her colleagues. As a visionary, the social entrepreneur has good ideas and devotes him or herself completely to their implementation (often at the expense of personal life). Moreover, he (she) has an exceptional ability to infect other people with his (her) initiative, engaging them in the implementation of his (her) ideas.

Code of Ethics in Social Entrepreneurship

As a leader, the social entrepreneur is not a passive administrator of organisational processes but actively creates positive change within the organisation and in its environment. The person has an especially strong internal motivation to engage in solving the social problems perceived by him or her, which is due to that person’s willingness to serve others. In practice, this is particularly expressed in serving the poor and protecting the weak. 3.2. The significance and mission of the profession The characteristics and motivation of a social entrepreneur determine the capacity of a social enterprise to achieve its objectives. Social entrepreneurs are faced with the challenge of pursuing a mission that encompasses social and economic goals. They continuously adapt the enterprise’s strategy to external market requirements, other manifestations of the turbulent environment, as well as dynamic changes occurring in the non-profit sector. Moreover, operating at the intersection of business and social sectors means that social entrepreneurs interact with various stakeholder groups and have to manage these relationships skilfully. While ensuring revenue generation, they cannot stop focusing on their social mission and the creation of social impact. 3.3. Professional vocation of the social entrepreneur Social entrepreneurs are called to undertake especially important tasks for the benefit of others. They may interpret this commitment to the service of others in terms of a professional vocation. The fulfilment of this vocation is expected to involve i.a. finding innovative solutions to social problems, and improving social and economic structures, so that all people, even those who are socially excluded, may have the opportunity to participate in social and economic processes. The vocation of the social entrepreneur is also expressed in the responsibility for creating such working arrangements that affirm the dignity of all co-workers. Social entrepreneurs can realise the excellence and uniqueness of their vocation through the experience of effectively bringing the economic and financial reality closer to the principles of human dignity and the common good, through developing people’s talents and moral qualities, through managing effective and efficient social enterprises, as well as through accumulating and enlarging financial and material capital. An important part of the vocation of a social entrepreneurship leader is the practice of ethical social principles in the ongoing business activity, as focusing too strongly on entrepreneurship alone may give rise to an unethical approach.

129

130

Code of Ethics in Social Entrepreneurship

4. General ethical principles in social entrepreneurship The social status that a given profession enjoys in social life is closely linked to fundamental ethical principles that can be found in a specific professional ethic. In the case of social entrepreneurs, these are, above all, the following principles: 4.1. Personalist norm A social entrepreneur affirms the inviolable dignity of every human being and enables every person to participate fully in social and economic life, which results in an integral development of that person. This principle is the foundation on which all other principles are based. 4.2. Common good A social entrepreneur works to promote the common good. The primary means of implementing this principle is through a well-managed social enterprise. It creates three interdependent sets of goods: good goods, good work, and good wealth. When all three types of goods are present, enterprises provide social conditions that increase the likelihood of human development. Behind each of these interrelated goods stand detailed requirements that help the social entrepreneurship leader structure organisational processes in such a way as to create a community that fosters the development of all persons associated with the social enterprise. In achieving the common good, a social entrepreneur should also be guided by the principles of solidarity and subsidiarity. The common good should not be treated as an end in itself. This principle has its deepest significance only in relation to the fulfillment of the ultimate purposes of mankind and the whole of creation. This means that the common good cannot be stripped of its transcendent dimension, as God is the ultimate end of His creatures. 4.3. Subsidiarity The principle of subsidiarity in social entrepreneurship is expressed in respecting the nature of social enterprises as organisations formed ”from the bottom up” as part of civil society initiatives. Hence, other entities and circles in their organisational environment realise this approach by respecting the specific mission of social enterprises. The principle of subsidiarity in the internal management processes of a social enterprise is manifested in the managers’ pursuit of financial independence from external institutions. It is reflected in attitudes and actions focused on acquiring resources primarily at their own risk, with their own efforts and resources, that is, through business activity.

Code of Ethics in Social Entrepreneurship

4.4. Solidarity Authentic structures of solidarity can be developed in the area of social entrepreneurship. This is because social enterprises have a huge potential to solve many human problems. Owing to the commitment of social entrepreneurs, the organisations they manage, i. e. social enterprises, are distinguished by the pursuit of a harmonious combination of productive efficiency and human solidarity. 4.5. Participation Successful implementation of the idea of social entrepreneurship requires beneficiaries of the measures to participate in them directly. In this manner, an engaged participant in management processes in a social enterprise makes his or her contribution to the social and economic life, alone or in cooperation with others. 4.6. Universal destination of goods The implementation of the principle of the universal destination of goods in the field of social entrepreneurship is achieved by demonstrating the social aspect of private property, participation in the ownership of the means of production, and ensuring participation in the wealth produced. 4.7. Truth The morality of the social entrepreneurship sector, which is based on truth, serves not only the social entrepreneur’s growth towards goodness but also a true social progress. 4.8. Freedom In social entrepreneurship, freedom is expressed in the social entrepreneur’s internal ability to choose certain values and to stand for them. Freedom is closely related to truth and goodness, as it stems from truth and is oriented toward goodness. Only the morality of social entrepreneurship that is based on truth can open itself to authentic freedom and lead to good. 4.9. Justice Justice in a general sense is expressed in giving each person what is justly due to him or her by virtue of his or her dignity and belonging to a given community (for example a social enterprise). This value also determines the extent of a person’s (e. g. social entrepreneur’s) duty to other people and the entire community (so-called stakeholders). Therefore, justice in social entrepreneurship will be manifested in paying fair wages to employees, fair prices for customers, fair amounts paid for obligations to suppliers, and fair tax rates paid to society.

131

132

Code of Ethics in Social Entrepreneurship

4.10. Love Love is a force that can awaken social entrepreneurs to new ways of solving social problems. Love inspires deep renewal from the inside of structures, legal systems, and social organisations. Love guarantees correct and just social coexistence in the area of social entrepreneurship. The preferential option or the poor is a special form of preference in the practice of love. Its practical implementation finds a conspicuous place in social entrepreneurship.

5. Specific ethical principles in social entrepreneurship Personalist norm 5.1. Every individual involved in social entrepreneurship initiatives is treated as a subject. 5.2. Social entrepreneurship promotes the creation of innovative organisational solutions that effectively affirm the value of each human being and enable their full participation in society, leading to integral development of the individual. 5.3. All ventures, projects, and specific activities are ultimately intended to promote the activation of participants in the processes that are taking place in the social entrepreneurship sector – to unlock and realise the personal potential of the participants and, eventually, to make them independent. 5.4. Promoting the significance and dignity of human work – emphasising its subjective nature (“work is for man, not man for work”; the workforce is more than just “human resources” or “human capital”). Common good A well-functioning social enterprise builds the common good when it creates three interdependent sets of goods: good goods, good work, and good wealth. 5.5. Good goods mean that the social enterprise produces goods (commodities) that are genuinely good and offers services that are genuinely good. The objective is therefore to produce commodities and services that are truly useful, i.a. ones that serve to satisfy authentic human needs and are not based on mere speculation. As far as “good goods” are concerned, social entrepreneurs also seek to create commodities and services that benefit the poor. 5.6. Good work consists in organising the work environment in such a way that allows employees to develop their potential and talents while providing a benefit for the employer. At the heart of good work lies the principle of cherishing the dignity of human labour and its subjective dimension. It also expresses

Code of Ethics in Social Entrepreneurship

solidarity with the poor by organising production processes in such a way that the poor can contribute their work to these processes. 5.7. Good wealth consists in the creation of wealth (prosperity) in a sustainable manner, and in the fair distribution of that wealth. There are two − closely linked − dimensions of “good wealth”: creation and distribution. 5.7.1. Social entrepreneurs create wealth through the creative use of available resources and innovative methods of producing goods and providing services. This is how they achieve added value. 5.7.2. To a social entrepreneur, wealth creation carries with it the moral obligation to distribute wealth. This task involves making sure that the distribution is based on justice. The principle of fair distribution requires that wealth is allocated in a manner that creates fair and proper relations with those who were involved in the creation of that wealth. In practice, this presents social entrepreneurs with a series of complex and difficult moral challenges, i.a. related to how to set prices, how to compensate employees, how to manage liabilities and receivables, how to pay taxes, and how to allocate benefits and provide support as part of the declared social mission. Subsidiarity 5.8. Following the principle of subsidiarity, well-managed social enterprises are striving to become sovereign entities, able to take action in the public sphere, in accordance with their own mission and resources, including financial resources. What it means in practice for social managers is that they have to independently formulate development strategies based on their own resources, exercising genuine self-governance, and seeking to secure the welfare of citizens. 5.9. Managing people in the spirit of subsidiarity is expressed in giving the employees an opportunity to participate in fulfilling the mission of the organisation. Structuring work according to the principle of subsidiarity promotes the development of employees. Therefore, in practice, the work of the employees should be designed so that it draws on their talents and skills; employees should be educated, developed, and properly equipped, as well as provided with appropriate tools, training, and experience to perform their tasks; strong relationships with employees should be formed and based on mutual respect and trust. Solidarity 5.10. A good social entrepreneur maintains solidarity with the poor. He or she is oriented towards serving those in special need, and those who are disadvantaged and undervalued in society. 5.11. In the case of social entrepreneurs, solidarity is expressed through a firm and persistent attitude of commitment to the common good.

133

134

Code of Ethics in Social Entrepreneurship

5.12. With the principle of solidarity in mind, managers in social enterprises do all they can to, if necessary, improve the living conditions and the quality of life for all those with whom their organisation interacts. This refers to employees, customers, suppliers, shareholders, and local communities in which they operate. Participation 5.13. The implementation of the idea of social entrepreneurship will not be successful without the direct and active participation of individuals and communities for whose benefit the social enterprise in question operates. 5.14. Active participation and cooperation (based on mutual trust), which are indicative of the right attitude of direct beneficiaries, are the prerequisites of the effectiveness of measures taken in the area of social entrepreneurship. These principles are especially significant in relation to local community development ventures. Universal destination of goods 5.15. The activity of social entrepreneurs should lead to the development of a fairer and more solidary world, in which natural resources and all accumulated goods will act as a means of creating prosperity for all people, especially those most vulnerable to exclusion and exploitation. 5.16. Social entrepreneurs should engage in initiatives aimed at caring for the environment and promoting responsible consumer attitudes and behaviour. Truth 5.17. An authentic development of the social entrepreneurship sector requires seeking the truth about its conditions. This truth cannot be reduced to selected socio-economic views, expert opinions, the dominant ideological trend, or a specific social policy model. It has to be a truth about moral good as well. It is especially important to ensure transparency and honesty in business operations and ways of using money − by individuals as well as by the social enterprises they manage. Freedom 5.18. Freedom is realised in social entrepreneurship through the opportunities that engagement in the operations of social enterprises provides to every person. It enables social entrepreneurs to pursue their personal and professional vocation, engage in economic and social initiatives, and make decisions about their work and lives.

Code of Ethics in Social Entrepreneurship

Justice 5.19. The actualisation of distributive justice has special significance in social entrepreneurship. It stipulates the participation of all persons involved in the operation of a social enterprise in the goods produced by the enterprise. 5.20. Social justice, which regulates social relations according to the criterion of compliance with the law, also acquires significance in social entrepreneurship. This type of justice is primarily concerned with the structural dimension of the problems addressed by social entrepreneurs and with solutions that relate to these problems in social, political, and economic terms. 5.21. Justice prepares the ground for love, as only love can secure the fullness of justice. Love 5.22. The love of one’s neighbour is materialised in the social entrepreneurship sector through the application of the business model of fundraising for the purposes of improving the living conditions of individuals and social groups or through the initiation of the process of eradicating factors that contribute to poverty. Various innovative forms of social entrepreneurship are being adopted to i.a. counteract the social exclusion of persons at risk of marginalisation: the unemployed, the homeless, persons with disabilities, and migrants. 5.23. The call for love actualised in social entrepreneurship is related to helping those in need in prudent ways. The obligation to care more for the poor cannot consist in substituting for them in taking responsibility for themselves and for others. We need to look for solutions that will not only help us “pull them out” of the structures of poverty, but also allow them to take full personal responsibility for their lives.

6. Implementing the code 6.1. Implementing the Code in the social entrepreneurship sector should be closely linked to the education of social entrepreneurs on the proposed principles. 6.2. A social enterprise that implements the above Code should monitor the compliance of its decisions and modes of operation with the principles adopted in the Code. 6.3. A social enterprise should aim at creating an organisational culture in which it is possible to openly and honestly clarify all ethical dilemmas related to the operation in the area of social entrepreneurship − on the basis of the principles set forth in this Code.

135

Indexes

Authors A Ames C. 29 Anderson B.B. 25, 37 Austin J. 26, 27 Austin J.E. 26 B Bacq S. 98 Balaji S. 69 Balser D.B. 85 Balter L. 40 Banks J.A. 24, 32, 33 Bartnik C.S. 55, 101 Beaton E. 29 Beaton E.E. 30 Benedict XVI 43, 44, 54, 87, 88, 92, 98, 104, 110 Benner C. 58 Bielefeld W. 24, 25 Bornstein D. 27, 28, 31, 33 Boschee J. 26, 27 Bouckaert L. 97, 101 Boyle A. 30 Brennan L. 84 Brock D.D. 35 Brzozowska A. 23, 24, 28, 32, 33, 35–38 Brzuska E. 83–85 C Carlotti P. 48 Chell E. 13, 16 Chomątowska M. 69, 70 Ciepielewska-Kowalik A. 81 Ciulla J.B. 100

Clark C.R. 84 Colom E. 48 Cuda J. 42 D Dacin M.T. 25, 35 Dacin P.A. 25, 35 Dees J.G. 25, 33, 35, 37 Defourny J. 24, 28, 31, 37, 38, 82, 83 Dent E.B. 100 Derdziuk A. 42, 46, 55 Di Somma E. 97 Dobrowolska M. 83–86 Dowin Kennedy E. 30 Drucker P.F. 24, 33 Dylus A. 45, 50 Dziuba A.F. 66 E Ensemble G.

29

F Fiedler F.E. 84 Fontrodona J. 16, 43, 55 Foss N.J. 33, 34 Frączak P. 13, 69, 72–75, 78, 91 Frączkiewicz-Wronka A. 83–86 Francis 44 Fry L.W. 100 G Gawell M. 23 Gocko J. 16, 17, 41, 46–51, 53, 59, 70 Goffi T. 49

138

Indexes

Góralczyk P. 41 Góźdź K. 40 Granat W. 101 Grassl W. 88, 89 Gray L. 30 Greenleaf R.K. 100 Guo C. 24, 25 Gupta M. 29 Guzdek P. 55 H Häring B. 46 Hartog C. 98 Higgins M.E. 100 Hockerts K. 24, 26 Hoogendoorn B. 98 Hota P.K. 69 J Jabłoński A. 56, 73 Jackson K.T. 101, 102 Jęczeń J. 55 Jeżyna K. 41, 59–62, 64, 66 John Paul II 13, 14, 16–18, 39, 41, 43, 47, 49, 50, 52, 53, 56–67, 72–76, 86, 87, 105, 106, 110 John XXIII 43, 50, 60, 72 Johnson C.E. 100 K Kant I. 54 Karczewski L. 15, 95 Karwińska A. 95 Kennedy E.D. 29 Kerlin J.A. 82 Kieniewicz P. 64 Kim M. 35 Klich J. 69 Koral J. 105 Kowalczyk B. 75 Kramer M.R. 26, 27

Kretek H.A. 15, 95 Kukulak-Dolata I. 83–85 L Landström H. 33 Leon XIII 13, 43 Leu J. 35 Lewicka-Strzałecka A. 102 Linder S. 33, 34 Livne-Tarandach R. 29 Lohrke F.T. 33 Lorenzetti L. 43 Lumpkin G.T. 33, 35 Lundström A. 23, 25, 28, 31–34 M Mair J. 24, 26, 27, 36 Malloch T.R. 105 Marek A. 56, 73 Marengo G. 40 Martí I. 26, 27, 36 Martin R.L. 26, 27, 85, 86, 96 Mary G. 54 Matear M. 25 McClurg J. 26, 27 McClusky J.E. 85 McVea J.F. 15, 56, 57, 70, 89, 90 Melé D. 16, 43, 55 Miller T.L. 85 Mirvis J. 23–25, 28–31, 33–35 Moss T.W. 33, 35 Mroczkowski I. 19, 40 N Nagórny J. 41, 50, 59–62, 64, 66 Narayanamurthy G. 69 Naughton M.J. 15, 56, 57, 70, 89, 90 Nell-Breuning O. von 50 Neuhold L. 46 Nicholls A. 33, 85 Nisiewicz M.S. 100

Authors

Novak M. 19 Nowak A. 72, 96 Nowosad S. 62 Nuijten I. 100 Nullens P. 97 Nyk M. 83–85 Nyssens M. 24, 28, 31, 37, 38, 82, 83 O Ockenfels W. 50 Osberg S. 26, 27, 85, 86, 96 P Pastor M. 58 Paul VI 43 Pawlas-Czyż S. 75 Percy A. 19, 53 Peschke K.-H. 43 Petryk A. 55 Piecuch T. 99, 103 Pierre A. 33 Pirson M. 29 Pius XI 43, 57, 77 Pius XII 71 Piwowarski W. 16 Pless N.M. 35 Pokrywka M. 40, 60, 61 Post J.E. 33 Prades López J. 40 Praszkier R. 72, 96 R Robinson J. 24, 26, 27 Rose-Ackerman S. 33 Rost J.C. 99 Rotter H. 46 Rusecki M. 50 S Saebi T. 33, 34 Scola A. 40

Short J.C. 33, 35 Sirico R.A. 97 Ślipko T. 46 Smith C. 100 Sobocka-Szczapa H. 75, 91 Sodano A. 47 Starnawska M. 23, 24, 28, 32, 33, 35–38, 81 Stevenson H. 26, 27 Stevenson H.H. 26 Strzeszewski C. 45 Surmiak W. 103 T Timmermann J. 54 Toso M. 48, 97 Tracey P. 35 Trivedi C. 25, 31, 32 Turkson P.K.A. 97 V Van Den Heuvel S.C. 97, 101 Vidal M. 50 Virt G. 46 Von Friedrichs Y. 23, 33 Vroom V.H. 84 W Waddock S.A. 33 Wei-Skillern J. 26 Wei–Skillern J. 26, 27 Wesley C.L. 85 Wharff D.M. 100 Whetstone J.T. 101 Wiktor D. 95 Williams D. 85 Wincent J. 33 Wódz K. 75 Wojtyła K. 53, 54, 101 Wronka-Pośpiech M. 83–86, 96, 99 Wygnański J. 13

139

140

Indexes

Wygnański J.J. 69, 72–75, 78, 91 Wyrostkiewicz M. 62

Yujuico E. 85 Yukl G.A. 99

Y Yetton P.W. 84 Young D.R. 33 Yu V. 30

Z Zadroga A. 15, 39, 42, 52, 55–59, 69–71, 75, 77, 81, 85, 95, 105 Zhou C. 23, 25, 28, 31, 32, 34

Subjects

Subjects A act 15, 19, 38, 40, 76, 92, 101, 106, 107, 110, 111 action 14, 19, 23, 29, 40, 45, 49, 56, 60, 61, 66, 69, 77, 84, 86, 90, 92, 96, 98, 99, 103, 106, 110 activity 13, 15, 19, 25, 27, 28, 32, 35, 44, 46, 53, 54, 56, 57, 59, 62, 69, 71, 74, 77, 78, 81–84, 88, 90–92, 95, 102, 103, 106, 107, 109–111 agape 92, 111 Agastya International Foundation 30 allocation 90 anthropology 40, 47 aretalogy 43 Ashoka 24, 30, 31, 33, 36 association 31, 42, 57, 77, 83, 97 autonomy 61, 63, 82 avoidance 60 axiological – model 60 – paradigm 40 axiology 21, 109, 110 axionormative – analyses 14, 32 – assumption 22, 70, 71, 74 – background 21 – criteria 21, 22, 40, 43, 70 – determinants 15, 16, 23, 38, 55, 67, 70, 78, 109, 111 – dimension 39 – foundation 21, 47, 70 – potential 16, 22, 110 – rooting 69 – statements 41 – system 15, 16 – terms 13

B behaviour 54, 75, 105 benefit 30, 57, 64, 71, 72, 75, 78, 82, 86, 90, 92, 104, 107, 109–111 Bible 20, 39 brethren 67 brotherhood 88 bureaucracy 57 business 28, 43, 44, 54, 56, 57, 67, 82, 83, 85, 87–89, 95–98, 104, 105, 109 – activity 20, 43, 77, 90, 101, 104 – company 105 – competences 96 – efficiency 76 – ethicists 55 – ethics 19–21, 43 – firm 86 – leader 98, 104 – leadership 99 – level 84 – methods 109 – model 66, 88, 95 – operation 98, 104 – organisations 55 – project 96 – psychology 21 – social 38 – ventures 29 – world 97 business-like mentality 96 C capital 82, 84, 86, 98 caring 101 Catholic social teaching 15–22, 37, 39, 78, 103, 109 change 23, 26, 27, 38, 49, 60, 76, 85, 92, 96, 99, 103, 111 change agent 81

141

142

Indexes

charity 30, 31, 91, 95 Christian 42, 43, 50, 52, 54, 55, 88, 92, 97, 104, 111 Christian personalist ethics 102, 106 Christian theology 52 Church 17, 18, 38–41, 43, 44, 46, 48, 52, 53, 58–60, 66, 70, 72, 75, 78, 97, 103, 105, 110 Church’s social teaching 48, 67, 72, 104 citizen 28, 82, 88, 90 civil society 28, 77, 82, 90 Civil Society and Youth Directorate 32 collective 72 commandment 55, 58, 93, 102 commercial and social logic 33 commercial enterprise 13, 81, 84 commitment 46, 47, 64, 69, 76, 78, 85, 89, 97 common good 43, 48, 51, 55, 56, 60, 65, 70, 72–74, 76, 78, 79, 89, 92, 98, 101, 103, 104, 106, 110, 111 community 13, 23, 28, 29, 31, 32, 43, 46, 48, 54–58, 64, 71, 78, 82, 90, 92, 96, 101, 103, 105, 109, 110 company 29, 86, 97, 98 compassion 76, 85, 101 competence 18, 19, 21, 28, 44, 96, 98, 99, 104 competition 99 conceptual work 20, 38, 109 condition 13, 20, 21, 58, 62, 66, 73, 83, 87, 91, 96, 106 conformism 60 conscience 40, 50, 55 controlling 85 cooperation 59, 78 cooperative 28, 31, 72, 78 corporate social responsibility 44, 81, 82 corporation 24, 97 costs 86, 98 co-worker 96, 102

creation 19, 22, 26, 27, 52, 56, 59, 73–76, 79, 85, 87, 89–92, 97, 104, 106, 109–111 Creator 54, 74 creature 66 CSR s. Corporate Socal Responsibilty CST s. Catholic social teaching culture 55 customer 58, 105 D decision 101, 103 deed 66 deontology 102 deontonomism 54, 106 Department of Social and Solidarity Economy 32 destiny 73 dialogue 17, 18, 39, 84 disability 58, 96 distribution 82, 89, 90 duty 42, 56, 57, 59, 60, 64, 78, 102 E earth 53, 74 economics 19, 21, 32, 59 economy 23, 38, 53, 59, 62, 88, 91, 97 effectiveness 78, 81, 83, 90 efficiency 58, 83, 87, 91 EMES approach 37 employee 29, 57, 58, 83, 84, 89, 90, 97, 99, 105 employment 28, 29 empowerment 69, 71, 77, 91, 92, 110 entity 27, 28, 76, 77, 84, 87, 90, 97 entrepreneur 14, 20, 37, 81, 89, 96, 101, 103–105 entrepreneurial – activity 101 – venture 23 entrepreneurship 13–16, 19–28, 30–38, 43, 49, 53–56, 58, 59, 64, 66, 67, 69–79,

Subjects

81, 82, 86–88, 92, 95–98, 100–104, 106, 109–111 environment 13, 34, 56, 71, 74, 83, 85, 87, 90, 97, 98, 104, 105, 109 ethical code 14, 15, 102 ethics 20, 21, 43, 54, 55, 102, 106, 111 exploitation 59, 75 F fairness 90 faith 39, 46, 97, 98, 101, 104, 106 family 72, 97 finance 32, 99 for-profit sector 27 fraternity 50, 88 freedom 48, 50, 51, 57, 58, 60, 62, 63, 66, 69, 90, 103 funds 77, 84, 90 G gap 15, 32, 34, 64 gift 54, 66, 67 God 17, 19, 40, 41, 52–54, 56, 61, 63, 64, 66, 67, 74, 88, 93, 106, 111 good – goods 89, 91 – wealth 89 – will 39, 55, 97 – work 89 goodness 62, 105 goods and services 28, 87, 91, 103, 104 Gospel 17, 58, 93, 102 governance 90 government 23, 27, 28, 91 grace 53 greed 98 growth 72 H heart 54, 61, 89 help 61, 64, 92, 102, 103, 109, 110

homeless 29, 71, 75 homelessness 96 honesty 62 hope 106 human – action 15, 41, 42 – being 17, 19, 42, 52–54, 57, 62, 71, 74, 79, 110 – development 41, 43, 72 – dignity 17, 51, 52, 104, 105 – family 57, 72 – needs 88, 104 – person 48, 50–57, 62, 63, 65, 70, 71, 78, 79, 86–88, 92, 100, 110, 111 – race 40, 74 – rights 49 – work 70, 72, 78, 105 humanity 17, 39, 55, 71, 88, 101 humility 101, 105 hybrid business 88 I idea of social entrepreneurship 15, 16, 20, 23, 27, 75, 107, 110, 111 identity 22, 35, 62, 102 ideology 62 Impact Economy Foundation 30 implementation 17, 20, 38, 54, 60, 69–72, 77, 79, 86, 87, 90–93, 105, 109, 110 inclusivity 101 income 27 independence 71, 77, 90, 103 individual 14, 15, 17, 21, 25, 34, 35, 39, 46, 50, 57, 60, 71–73, 88, 110 initiative 14, 23, 28, 29, 31, 57, 71, 72, 74, 77, 78, 81, 82, 84, 90, 106, 110 innovative solutions 13, 81, 97, 103 inspiration 14, 76, 107, 111 institution 88 integrity 87, 104 inventiveness 91

143

144

Indexes

J Jesus Christ 52, 58, 67, 93, 104 Jesus Christ’s teaching 104 job 75 justice 48, 50, 51, 60, 64–66, 90, 105 K kindness 98, 104 knowledge 15, 17, 18, 55, 61, 78, 96, 98, 101 L labour 43, 89, 92, 110 labour market 28, 75, 91, 103 law 53, 65, 72 leader 57, 98, 101, 103 leadership 82, 84, 97, 99–101, 105 leading 61, 79, 85, 98, 110 legal – form 31, 81, 82 – system 83 legislation 76 life 28, 39, 46, 53, 66, 71, 86, 92, 97, 104, 107, 111 limitation 61, 63, 93, 101, 106, 111 literature 14, 19–21, 24, 32–34, 81, 96, 99, 106, 110 local development 107, 111 love 17, 40, 42, 50, 55, 58, 60, 65–67, 92, 93, 101, 111 M Magisterium 20, 41, 48 man 18, 19, 39, 42, 47, 52–56, 59, 61, 63, 67, 71, 105 manage 13, 84, 85, 89, 90, 95, 107, 111 management 16, 32, 72, 82–87, 90, 92, 105, 110 – sciences 21 – theory 19

manager 58, 77, 83–85, 89, 90, 92, 99, 110, 111 managerial practice 67, 109 marginalisation 75, 85, 91, 96 market 29, 43, 72, 76, 82, 85, 91, 92, 95, 111 means 23, 54, 58, 59, 62, 71, 75, 76, 84, 86, 92, 95, 98, 109 media 24 membership 64 mentor 96 mercy 65, 67 method 19, 20, 27, 69, 82 mission 17, 35, 46, 67, 77, 81, 84, 85, 89, 90, 92, 102, 103, 105, 109, 111 money 62 moral – law 53, 63 – order 54 – teaching 52 – theology 17, 19, 21, 52 – values 14, 59, 63, 70 morality 42, 50, 52, 54, 86, 106, 111 motivation 14, 69, 75, 85, 88, 96, 98, 101, 107, 111 motive 97, 98 multidimensionality 69 mutual societies 28, 31 N natural law 41, 42, 44 nature 13, 15, 16, 19, 21, 22, 25, 39–45, 49, 51, 52, 57, 71, 77, 78, 82–84, 88, 90, 109, 111 neighbour 58, 66, 101, 102 network 29, 30, 35, 82 new technologies 96 NGO s. Non-Govermental Organisations non-governmental organisations 13, 77, 90 non-profit entity 27

Subjects

non-profit organisation 38, 81, 96 non-profit sector 26, 33, 83, 85 norm 14, 17, 20, 38, 44, 46, 48, 49, 51, 53–55, 79, 103, 109, 110 normative ethics 16, 52, 93, 102, 106 normative framework 67, 109 normative paradigm 40 not-for-profit organisation 58 O object 40, 71 Office for Civil Society 32 Office of Social Innovation and Civic Participation 32 opinion 34, 62, 76, 99 organisation 13–15, 28, 30, 32, 58, 72, 77, 82, 83, 85, 89–92, 95, 97, 99, 105, 111 organisational culture 84 organisational processes 57 ownership 59, 83 P participant 71, 111 participation 48, 51, 59, 60, 70, 71, 78, 79, 110 partnership 82 peace 50 people at risk of marginalisation 71, 95 person 17, 52–55, 58, 63, 64, 78, 85, 86, 96, 99, 106, 111 personalism 54, 55, 86, 101 personalist ethics 52, 54, 111 personalistic 16, 48, 52, 71, 87, 92, 111 personalistic norm 48, 51, 55, 92, 110 personnel 85, 89 philosophy 21, 55, 101 planning 85 politics 23, 38 Pontifical Council for Justice and Peace 18, 56 poor 64, 75, 89, 91, 92, 97, 103, 104, 111

poverty 28, 58, 64, 66, 95 preferential option for the poor 70, 78, 110 price 28, 90, 105 pride 98 principle 14–16, 19–22, 39–52, 54–60, 67, 70, 71, 74–79, 87, 89, 90, 92, 93, 97, 101–105, 107, 109–111 production 30, 59, 87, 103 productivity 75, 87, 88, 90 products and services 43 profession 20, 102 professional ethics 14, 16, 20–22, 55, 102, 106, 109–111 professionalism 14, 98 profitability 105 progress 95 project 14, 30, 37, 71, 75, 78, 88, 96, 103, 106 property 72 prudence 69, 103, 105 Q quality of life

58

R rationality 19 reason 19, 39, 46, 53, 56, 61, 71, 74 reintegration 75, 92, 96, 110 requirement 77, 85, 86, 88, 98 research 14, 16, 19–22, 24, 25, 32–35, 38–40, 61, 67, 82, 83, 93, 98–100, 106, 109–111 resources 14, 28, 35, 75, 77, 83–85, 89, 90, 95, 105, 109 respect 51, 52, 55, 65, 67, 86–90, 102, 104 Revelation 19, 40, 41, 61, 65, 88, 111 revenue 85, 89 risk 75, 77, 82, 85, 90, 92, 95, 96, 98, 107, 109, 111

145

146

Indexes

S – love 50 salvation 43, 65, 88 – mission 23, 26, 27, 82, 84, 85, 90, 95, School for Social Entrepreneurs 30 111 Schwab Foundation for Social Entrepreneur– objective 81, 82, 84 ship 30 – order 40, 42, 50, 51, 71 Scripture 40, 41 – policy 62 Second Vatican Council 39, 52, 53, 56, 66 – reality 40, 41, 46, 47, 49, 51, 60, 63, selflessness 101 67 self-reliance 69 – responsibility 88 shareholder 58 – sciences 18, 100 sin 98 – sector 28, 31, 85 skill 33, 58, 89, 96–98, 104, 105 – support 78 Skoll Foundation 30 – system 43, 67 social – teaching 17, 38, 41, 43, 66, 79, 110 – affairs 60 social entrepreneurship 13–16, 19–28, – and economic well-being 56 30–38, 54–56, 58, 59, 64, 66, 67, 69–79, – businessman 81 81, 82, 86–88, 92, 95–97, 100–104, 106, – capital 73, 96 107, 109–111 – challenge 28, 95 socialisation 71, 75 – change 26, 27, 32, 84 society 31, 38, 40, 42, 47, 59, 72, 73, 78, 79, – condition 56, 57 89, 96, 109, 110 – cooperative 38, 83, 85, 97 socio-economic order 21, 22 – economy 73, 97–99 solidarity 48, 50, 51, 58, 69, 70, 76, 78, 79, – enterprise 15, 20, 58, 81, 82, 84, 85, 88, 89, 91, 92, 103, 104, 110, 111 87, 89, 90, 92, 99, 103, 110 solution 23, 39, 44, 46, 53, 64, 65, 70, 72, – enterprise management 20–22, 56, 79, 91, 95, 96, 103, 110 83, 92, 93, 109, 110 Spirit 88, 93 – enterprise model 31, 37 state 57, 76, 77 – enterprise sector 62, 72, 76, 83, 91, strategy 85, 86, 90, 96, 99 99 structure 22, 40, 43, 48, 50, 53, 57, 60, 67, – ethics 111 70, 88, 89, 92, 97, 100, 111 – exclusion 13, 28, 59, 71, 75, 92, 95, subjectivity 65, 111 96, 102, 107, 109, 111 subsidiarity 43, 48, 51, 57, 69, 70, 76–79, – goal 13–15, 27, 87, 95, 96, 106 89, 90, 92, 103, 105, 110 – impact 85 supplier 58, 105 – inclination 82 system 48, 56, 70, 92, 110 – innovation 30, 37, 81, 82, 91 – institution 48, 55, 92 T – issues 13, 16, 23, 30, 43, 48, 70, 96 talent 57, 58, 89, 98, 105, 106, 111 – life 17, 45, 46, 48–52, 57, 61, 64, 70, tax 90, 105 71, 73, 75, 102 theological thought 39, 101, 111

Subjects

theology 55, 61, 101 third sector 32 time 28, 43, 58, 69 tradition 16, 31, 56, 93, 111 training 29, 89 transformation 56, 74, 84, 92 transparency 62 trust 78, 89, 96, 98, 104 truth 18, 19, 39, 42, 47, 48, 50–52, 54, 60–62, 66, 74, 105 U unemployment 95, 96 universal destination of goods 48, 59, 70, 74, 78, 110

V venture 14, 29, 78, 109 virtue 14–16, 21, 64, 66, 67, 98, 102, 105, 107, 111 visionary 96 vocation 19, 40, 44, 88, 92, 97, 98, 103, 104, 107, 111 W well-managed enterprise 57 work 30, 34, 57, 72, 74, 75, 82, 85, 87, 89, 95, 97, 98, 100, 104 worker 29 world 18, 28, 31, 38, 39, 42, 46, 47, 53, 59, 60, 75, 81, 95, 97, 99, 105, 109

147

148

Indexes

Sources Old Testament Gen – 1:26–31 52, 74 – 1:27 52 – 2:4–7 52 – 18–25 52 Wis – 8:7 105 New Testament Matt – 5:43–44 44 – 19:17 63 – 25:14–30 89, 107, 111 – 25:31−36 103 Mark – 12:29–31 58, 102 Luke – 12:48 104

John – 13:34 58 – 17:14–16 46 Rom – 12:5 88 Gal – 5:13 89 Eph – 2:16 88 – 2:18 88 – 2:19 88 1 Thess – 5:11 89 – 5:15 89 2 Pet – 1:4 88