社會企業家的創業動機和歷程–台灣公平貿易咖啡企業的個案研究

全文

(1)國立臺灣師範大學管理學院管理研究所碩士論文 Graduate Institute of Management College of Management National Taiwan Normal University Master Thesis. 社會企業家的創業動機和歷程–台灣公平貿易咖啡企業的個案研究 Start-up Motivation and Entrepreneurial Process of Social Entrepreneurs – Case Studies of Fair Trade Coffee Business in Taiwan. 朱維業 Chee Wee Yek. 指導教授：邱皓政博士 Advisor：Chiou Haw Jeng Ph.D.. 中華民國 104 年 6 月 June, 2015.

(2) Abstract Social entrepreneurs are a very small and mystery group of people in the society. Like many commercial entrepreneurs, social entrepreneurs’ works and impacts somehow influence millions of people’s daily life around the world. The research purpose of this study is trying to get deeper understanding of social entrepreneurs’ start-up motivations and their entrepreneurial process, especially their value-adding activities selection. By applying push and pull motivation framework and through interviewing fair trade coffee social entrepreneurs in Taiwan, we try to identify the key distinctive start-up motivations between commercial and social entrepreneurs.. In this study, we selected fair trade coffee social entrepreneurs as our representative cases for social entrepreneurs. By applying the qualitative phenomenological and triangulation method, we collected data from multiple sources and built up a richness and detail content database about social entrepreneurs’ motivations and entrepreneurial process.. From our research findings, we not only found the differences and similarities of the motivation between commercial and social entrepreneurs, we also built up a new comprehensive social entrepreneurial motivation framework. In our new comprehensive framework, we proposed the idea of “Motivator Trigger” to explain the antecedent of motivators and we also applied the other/self-focus classification method to better illustrate the relationship and roles of startup motivations during the “Social Engagement” process. Keywords: Social Enterprise, Social Entrepreneur, Social Entrepreneurship, Start-up Motivation, Entrepreneurial Process, Fair Trade Coffee. I.

(3) 中文摘要在我們的社會當中，社會企業家是屬於非常小眾且特殊的一群人。雖然如此，和傳統商業型企業家一樣，社會企業家們所做的事其實每天都在影響著世界上許許多多的人們。本研究的主要目的是希望能更深入了解社會企業家的創業動機和創業歷程的價值活動選擇。藉由使用推力(Push)和拉力(Pull)型的動機分類架構和深度訪談的方式，我們希望能從台灣公平貿易咖啡創業家的案例中找出社會企業家和傳統商業型企業家在創業動機上的各種異同點。. 在社會企業的領域當中，由於公平貿易企業屬於具代表性的案例，因此在本研究當中，我們選取了六位台灣公平貿易咖啡企業家作為本研究的社會企業家代表案例。本研究採用的是質性研究法，我們通過多重案例、多面資料蒐集和三角交叉驗證的方式，對於社會企業家的創業歷程和動機，我們建立了一個豐富的研究資料庫然進行分析。. 根據研究結果，我們不只發現社會企業家和傳統商業型企業家在創業動機上的相同之處，如“對於工作的不滿”和“自我實踐的需求”，我們也發現到了他們在創業動機上的一些根本上的不同，如“社會使命感”和“心靈上的匱乏”。除此，基於比較研究的發現成果，我們也建立了一個新的“社會創業動機理論架構”來更清楚地解釋社會企業家的各種創業動機在他們的創業歷程當中所扮演的角色和影響。在我們所提出的新架構之中，我們提出了“動機前因(Motivator Trigger) ”的概念來解釋到底是何種因素挑起了社會企業家們的種種創業動機，而通過使用“他人/個己中心(Other/Self-Focus)”的分類方式，我們也更清楚地描繪出各類不同創業動機對於社會創業歷程所造成的不同的影響。關鍵詞: 社會企業、社會企業家、社會創業、創業動機、創業歷程、公平貿易咖啡 II.

(4) Table of Contents Abstract………………………………………………………………………………………I Table of Contents…………………………………………………………………………...III Chapter 1 – Introduction……………………………………………………………………..1 1.1 Research Background and Motivation……..………………….…………………….1 1.1.1 The Rise of Social Entrepreneurship………………….……………………...1 1.1.2 Fair Trade and Social Enterprise……………………………………………..2 1.1.3 Mission Driven or Money Driven Entrepreneur……………………………..3 1.2 Research Purpose……………………………………………………………………5 Chapter 2 – Literature Review…………………………………………………………….....7 2.1 Entrepreneur………………………………………………………………………....7 2.2 Entrepreneurship…………………………………………………………………...10 2.2.1 Entrepreneurial Process…………………………………………………......12 2.2.2 Value Chain and Value-Adding Activities…………………………………..13 2.3 Social Entrepreneur and Social Entrepreneurship………………………………....14 2.4 Social Enterprise and Social Entrepreneur in Taiwan……………………………...17 2.4.1 Development of SE in Taiwan……………………………………………....17 2.4.2 Types of SE in Taiwan……………………………………………………....18 2.4.3 Social Entrepreneurs in Taiwan……………………………………………..20 2.5 Fair Trade…………………………………………………………………………..20 2.5.1 Background………………………………………………………………....20 2.5.2 Fair Trade Coffee ….……………………………………………………......23 2.5.3 Fair Trade in Taiwan……………………………………………………...…25 2.6 Entrepreneurial Motivation…………………………………………………….…..26 2.6.1 Development of Entrepreneurial Motivation……………………………….26 III.

(5) 2.6.2 Push (Necessity) and Pull (Opportunity) Motivators…………………….....28 2.6.3 Social Entrepreneur’s Motivation…………………………………………...31 2.7 Summary…………………………………………………….……………………..32 Chapter 3 – Research Method………………………………………………………………33 3.1 Method Selection………………………………………………………………..…33 3.1.1 Qualitative Phenomenological Method……………………………………..33 3.1.2 Triangulation …………………………………………………………….....34 3.1.3 Multiple-Case Study………………………………………………………...35 3.1.4 In-Depth Interview……………………………………………………….....36 3.2 Sampling Method and Participants Selection…………………………………..….37 3.2.1 Purposeful Sampling……………………………………………………......37 3.2.2 Participants of This Study…………………………………………………..39 3.3 Interview Procedure and Questionnaire Design……………………………….…..41 3.3.1 Interview Procedure…………………………………………………….…..41 3.3.2 Question Design………………………………………………………….....42 3.4 Analytic Process……………………………………………………………….…...44 Chapter 4 – Cases Analysis……………………………………………………………........45 4.1 Cases Introduction…………………………………………………………………45 4.1.1 Founder A1 (Lightened Café)…………………………………………….....45 4.1.2 Founder B2 (He Ping Café)…………………………………………………46 4.1.3 Founder C3 (Rain Forest Coffee)…………………………………………...48 4.1.4 Founder D4 and E5 (Oko Green)…………………………………………...50 4.1.5 Founder F6 (Hoard In Job)………………………………………………….52 4.2 Descriptive Information………………………………………….………………...53 4.3 The Roles and Activities in FT Value Chain……………………………………....55 4.4 Social Missions………………………………………………………………….....58 IV.

(6) 4.5 Start-up Reasons…………………………………………………………………...60 Chapter 5 – Research Findings……………………………………………………………..62 5.1 Push/Pull Motivations……………………………………………………………..62 5.1.1 Push Motivations…………………………………………………...………62 5.1.2 Pull Motivations…………………………………………………………….65 5.1.3 Comparison of Commercial and Social Entrepreneur………………………71 5.2 A Comprehensive Framework of Social Entrepreneurial Motivation………..……73 5.2.1 The Antecedent: “Motivator Trigger”………………………………………74 5.2.2 Other-Focus and Self-Focus Motivators……………………………………74 5.2.3 Complementary Motivators………………………………………………....76 5.3 The Effects of Motivators through the Entrepreneurial Process…………………...76 Chapter 6 – Conclusion and Suggestions…………………………………………………...81 6.1 Conclusion…………………………………………………………………………81 6.2 Implications………………………………………………………………………..82 6.2.1 Theoretical Implications…………………………………………………….82 6.2.2 Managerial Implications…………………………………………………….83 6.3 Limitations…………………………………………………………………………83 6.4 Further Study Recommendations………………………………………………….84 References…………………………………………………………………………………..85 Appendix……………………………………………………………………………………93 A.1 Interview Plan……………………………………………………………………..93 A.2 Interview Consent Form…………………………………………………………..95 A.3 Background Info and Motivation Survey Form…………………………………..97. V.

(7) Chapter 1 – Introduction “Social entrepreneurs are not content just to give a fish or teach how to fish. They will not rest until they have revolutionized the fishing industry.” – Bill Drayton. 1.1 Research Background and Motivation 1.1.1 The Rise of Social Entrepreneurship In 2014, Indian social entrepreneur Kailash Satyarthi was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize for his long term contribution in the global movement against child labor. Mr. Satyarthi is the second social entrepreneur been awarded the Nobel Peace Prize in the last decade since Professor Muhammad Yunus and the Grameen Bank in 2006. Noble Committee awarded two Nobel Peace Prize to social entrepreneurs in the last ten years not only wanted to recognize the contributions of social entrepreneurs, but more importantly also wanted to show the world that the importance of social entrepreneurs and how they changed the world through the social entrepreneurship.. The financial crisis in 2008 marked the failure of capitalism. Through the years, human being had already proved that the glory build upon greedy is just like a mirage that is not sustainable. Although entrepreneurship under capitalism successfully driven the growth of economic and technology innovation in the last century, behind the scenes, it also brought us huge and unthinkable side effects such as environmental pollution and wealth inequalities. Albert Einstein once said that “We can't solve problems by using the same kind of thinking we used when we created them”, and social entrepreneurship delivered a new alternative and solution for us to solve all those problems. 1.

(8) Since Prof Yunus received the Nobel Peace Prize in 2006, the terms “Social Enterprise (SE)” and “Social Entrepreneur” had been fast and widely spread out all over the world, from media, private sector, academics to public sector, these terms had become one of the hottest and most important topics among business leaders, politicians and scholars around the world in the recent years.. Compare with other countries, the concept of social entrepreneurship is still relatively new to both the academics and public of Taiwan, but since 若水國際 successfully organized the first ever SE startup competition in 2008 and collected more than 200 social startup proposals in a very short period, newly founded social enterprises in Taiwan are just springing up like mushroom after the rain in the recent years.. 1.1.2 Fair Trade and Social Enterprise In fact, the origins of the Fair Trade (FT) movement started much early than the recent SE movement, Huybrechts and Defourny (2010) noted that after World War 2, FT has emerged into one of the fastest growing initiatives using or adapting market mechanisms to pursue a social purpose, and it could be found in pioneer non-profit organizations and NGOs that started a commercial activity to support their social mission.. After cross examined the similarities and differences features between SEs and Fair Trade Organizations (FTOs), Huybrechts and Defourny (2008) found that no matter from more NGO-like or business-like configurations, it appeared that the“SE nature” of FTOs just 2.

(9) goes beyond the sole fact that they are involved in FT, and therefore a FTO or FT entrepreneur could well represent or illustrate the common characteristics of SE and social entrepreneur.. Similar with the development of SEs in Taiwan, FT movement within Taiwan also start very late. In 2007, Oko Green became the first organization to get FLO’s FT certification in Taiwan, although the numbers of FTOs did not grow as fast and as many as other SE sectors, the success of FT companies like Oko Green and Rain Forest Coffee still make FTOs became one of the headlines and key figure within Taiwan SE community.. 1.1.3 Mission Driven or Money Driven Entrepreneur In the traditional area of entrepreneurship studies, researchers are mainly focus on the behaviors of commercial entrepreneur. Schumpeter (1934) stated that entrepreneur is an innovator who develops untried technology to drive innovation, technical change, and help generates economic growth. Drucker (1964) also described entrepreneur as an individual who searches for change, responds to it and maximizes opportunities through systematic innovations, but for a social entrepreneur, his/her social mission affects how he/she perceives and assesses the opportunities. Because a social entrepreneur has to combine the passion of a social mission with an image of business-like discipline, innovation, and determination to create value and social impact (Dees, 1998), social entrepreneur somehow differ from commercial entrepreneur in many way. Martin and Osberg (2007) concluded that “the Social Entrepreneur aims for value in the form of large-scale, transformational benefit that accrues either to a significant segment of society or to society at large.” (page. 34) 3.

(10) In the prior studies of the commercial entrepreneur’s start-up motivation, Shapero and Sokol (1982) stated that different types of circumstances may lead to different motivations, Gilad and Levine (1986) later stated that there are two types of entrepreneurial motivations, necessity/push motivations and opportunity/pull motivations. Within these two types of motivations, push motivations included reactive of circumstances, such as unemployment, dissatisfaction with the present self-situation and/or family pressure (Verheul et al., 2010) and pull motivations included proactive of circumstances, such as innovation, independence, recognition, roles, financial success and self-realization (Carter et al., 2003).. McClelland (1961) argued that needs for achievement, need for power, and need for affiliation are three dominant needs that underpin human motivation. From the Robert’s study result (1989) of technological entrepreneur’s motivation also indicated that technological entrepreneur actually has moderate need for achievement, moderate need for power and low need for affiliation. Surprisingly from the cases of Professor Yunus and my prior personal experiences as a commercial and social entrepreneur, those push or pull motivators and needs that been suggested by prior researchers were not found or not so significantly, and from that we can reasonably assume that there must be some other fundamental distinctive motivation differences between the commercial entrepreneurs (monetary driven) and social entrepreneurs (mission driven).. 4.

(11) 1.2 Research Purpose Even though social enterprise and social entrepreneurship had already been developed and studied for more than 40 years, they are still relatively under explored in the academic field. Especially in the Fair Trade Social Enterprises (FTSEs) sector, the discussions around the FTSEs are still mainly focus on the organizations instead of entrepreneurs themselves.. The main purpose of this study is to identify the main start-up motivators of FT social entrepreneur, and to establish the similarities and differences of these start-up motivators between commercial entrepreneur and FT social entrepreneurs, building ground for future empirical study.. Below are the key research goals of this thesis. (1) Identify the key start-up motivators of FT social entrepreneurs in Taiwan, compares the differences between push and pull motivators of FT social entrepreneur and knowing the what and why behind FT social entrepreneurs’ motivations. (2) Compares the differences and similarities between commercial and FT social entrepreneurs, identify the decisive factors which distinct FT social entrepreneurs and commercial entrepreneurs. (3) Understanding the effects of start-up motivators and problems faced by FT social entrepreneurs through their entrepreneurial process, to help them to improve their business.. 5.

(12) Because of lack of SE samples within Taiwan for us to conduct quantitative research, we applied qualitative phenomenological method and case study method to conduct our research in thesis. By answered the research questions stated below, it would help us to achieve our goals mentioned above.. Our main research questions that special focus on FT social entrepreneurs. (1) Why FT social entrepreneurs decided to start-up? What are the push and pull start-up motivators behind FT social entrepreneurs in Taiwan? (2) What is the main difference between FT social entrepreneurs and commercial entrepreneurs in terms of their startup motivations? (3) What is the biggest challenge facing by FT social entrepreneurs and how their motivators affect their success evaluation and decision making?. 6.

(13) Chapter 2 – Literature Review Entrepreneur and entrepreneurship is one of the oldest areas of research in business study, and compares with others branch areas such as commercial entrepreneur and technological entrepreneur, social entrepreneur is relatively new and under explored. In this chapter, we will review the literatures of entrepreneur, entrepreneurship, social entrepreneur, fair trade movement and entrepreneurial motivation, and also explain the terms and definitions which will be stated in this thesis.. 2.1 Entrepreneur “Entrepreneur” is derived from a French word “entreprendre”, which means to do or to undertake (Filion, 2008). Although it has been used for its present and definitive spelling since 1433 (Rey, 1994), its only first been discussed in academic by French economist, Jean-Baptiste Say, in about 1800, later used by John Stuart Mill in his 1848 book, Principles of Political Economy, and based on Say’s definition, Schumpeter developed his theory of entrepreneurship which widely been known and cited today in his 1934 book, The Theory of Economic Development.. Schumpeter (1934) stated that entrepreneur is an innovator who develops untried technology to drive innovation, technical change, and help generates economic growth. Filion (1987; 1988) identified 15 most frequently mentioned entrepreneur elements from literatures (Table 2.1), Misra and Kumar (2000) also summarized different definitions of entrepreneur in their study (Table 2.2).. 7.

(14) Table 2.1 - The elements mentioned most frequently in definitions of the term “entrepreneur” Elements defining the entrepreneur Innovation. Authors Schumpeter (1947); Cochran (1968); Drucker (1985); Julien (1989; 1998).. Risk. Cantillon(1755); Knight (1921); Palmer (1971); Reuters (1982); Rosenberg (1983).. Coordination of resources for production; organizing factor of production or of the management of resources. Ely and Hess (1893); Cole (1942 and in Aitken1965); Belshaw (1955); Chandler (1962); Leibenstein (1968); Wilken (1979); Pearce (1981); Casson (1982).. Value creation. Say (1815, 1996); Bruyat and Julien (2001); Fayolle(2008).. Projective and visionary thinking. Longenecker and Schoen (1975); Filion (1991; 2004).. Focus on action. Baty (1981).. Leadership. Horna day and Aboud (1971).. Dynamo of the economic system. Weber (1947); Baumol (1968); Storey (1982); Moffat (1983). Collins, Moore and Unwalla (1964); Smith. Venture creation. (1967); Collins and Moore (1970); Brereton (1974); Komives (1974); Mancuso (1979); Schwartz (1982); Carland, Hoy, Boulton and Carland (1984); Vesper (1990).. Opportunity recognition. Smith (1967); Meredith, Nelson and Neck (1982);Kirzner (1983); Stevenson and Gumpert (1985);Timmons (1989); Dana (1995);Shane and Venkataraman (2000); Bygrave and Zacharakis (2004); Timmons and Spinelli (2004).. Creativity. Zaleznik and Kets de Vries (1976); Pinchot (1985).. Anxiety. Lynn (1969); Kets de Vries (1977; 1985).. Control. McClelland (1961). Introduction of change. Mintzberg (1973); Shapiro (1975).. Rebellion/Delinquency. Hagen (1960).. Source: Filion (1987; 1988) 8.

(15) Table 2.2 – Definitions of entrepreneur Author. Definitions An entrepreneur is a person making new combinations causing. Schumpeter (1934). Hoselitz (1960). discontinuity. The realization of new combinations may include a new product or a quality of a product, a new method of production, finding a new source of raw materials or reorganization of the industry. An entrepreneur is a person who buys at a price that is certain and sells at a price that is uncertain. An entrepreneur is a person who owns all the necessary resources to. Leibenstein (1968). produce and launch on the market a product which responds to a market deficiency. An entrepreneur is a person who perceived the existence of profit. Kirzner (1985). opportunities and initiated some actions to complete the unsatisfactory current needs.. Bygrave and Hofer (1991). An entrepreneur is a person who perceives an opportunity and creates an organization to follow it.. Source: Misra and Kumar (2000). Filion (2008) concluded that a definition of entrepreneurs should include at least six main elements (Innovation, Risk, Opportunity Recognition, Action, Use of Resources and Added Value), he stated that an entrepreneur is an actor who innovates by recognizing opportunities and makes moderately risky decisions that leads into actions which requiring the efficient use of resources and contributing an added value (Figure 2.1). However as Casson (1982) stated that “the most difficult part of studying entrepreneurship is to define who and what an entrepreneur is”, there is still no one absolute definition for entrepreneur, and each discipline could still have their own definition of entrepreneurs. In this thesis, we will apply Filion’s six elements framework as our definition of entrepreneur.. 9.

(16) Source: Filion (2008) Figure 2.1 – Main elements used to define the term “entrepreneur”. 2.2 Entrepreneurship Entrepreneurship is a field that studies entrepreneurs, entrepreneurial actors and entrepreneurial environments (Filion, 2008). Misra and Kumar (2000) summarized the definitions of entrepreneurship (Table 3), they recognized a great diversity among the definitions of entrepreneurship and they suggested that entrepreneurship is too complex to be explained by any single set of factors. Like the definition of entrepreneur, entrepreneurship is also a multi-dimensional term that is extremely difficult to be defined (Carree and Thurik, 2005).. 10.

(17) Table 2.3 – Definitions of entrepreneurship Author Cole (1968). Drucker (1985). Definitions The entrepreneurship is an activity dedicated to initiation, maintenance and development of a profit oriented business. The entrepreneurship is an innovation act who presupposes the endowment of the existing resources with the capacity of producing wealth.. Gartner (1985). The entrepreneurship is the creation of new organizations. The entrepreneurship is the process of creating something different,. Hisrich and Peters (1989). Stevenson et al.(1989) Kaish and Gilad (1991) Herron and Robinson (1993). with value, by allotting the necessary time and effort, presupposing the taking of financial, social and physical risks, and obtaining monetary rewards and personal satisfaction. The entrepreneurship is following an opportunity irrespective of the existing resources. The entrepreneurship is first of all a discovery process and secondly is the process of acting on an opportunity of lack of balance. The entrepreneurship is a set of behaviors which initiate and manage the re-allotment of economic resources and whose purpose is the creation of value by these means.. Source: Misra and Kumar (2000). Gedeon (2010) analyzed the different theoretical roots of entrepreneurship and he summarized that entrepreneurship is a multi‐dimensional concept that includes owning a small business, being innovative, acting as a leader, starting up a new company and spotting opportunities to drive the market toward equilibrium or causing disequilibrium through “creative destruction”. In this thesis, we see entrepreneurship as a process of value creation driven by different factors such as innovation, monetary return and social mission.. 11.

(18) 2.2.1 Entrepreneurial Process In the previous studies of the value creation process, Reynold (1991) suggested that extensive of social networks as an important prerequisite for start-up of new business. Sarasvathy (1997) later defined entrepreneurial process as a pre-firm process and entrepreneur transforms an idea into a firm during this process. Shane et al. (2000) also stated that the exploitation of entrepreneurial opportunities as a very important activity in the entrepreneurial process and the choice mode depends on the nature of the industrial organization, the opportunity and the appropriability regime.. In the Shane’s (2003) model, he further enhanced and explained the direction of entrepreneurial process (Figure 2.2), he stated seven activities in the model and in which he included both pre-firm and post-firm activities. Because the focal of our study is the effects of motivations in the entrepreneurial process, based on Shane’s model, we will not cover every activity in the model and our main research focus is only on the discovery of opportunity, decision to exploit opportunity, organizing process and performance activities.. Sources: Shane (2003) Figure 2.2 – The Direction of Entrepreneurial Process. 12.

(19) 2.2.2 Value Chain and Value-Adding Activities In 1985, Porter first described the concept of value chain and value-adding activities in his best-seller book, Competitive Advantage. He stated that the idea of the value chain is based on the process view of organizations and the outcomes of business are depended on the value chain activities selection and execution.. Porter separately discussed value-chain activities into firm-level and industry-level. In firm-level, he stated two types of value-adding activities, which are (i) primary activities such as logistic, operation, marketing and sales and (ii) support activities such as procurement, human resource and technological development. In industry-level, he stated that industry-level value chain is an extended value chain of the synchronized interactions of local value chains and he also termed this larger interconnected system as the "value system".. Because value chain framework could help entrepreneurs to identify opportunities and create improvements in the value system, Aberman (2011) suggested that it is essential for entrepreneurs to have better understanding of the industry, value-chain and value-adding activities that they will operate in.. In our study, because our focus in entrepreneurial process is discovery of opportunity and decision to exploit opportunity, we will apply value chain analysis framework to help us better illustrate the effects of motivations on both of the firm and industry-level value-adding activities selection during the start-up period. 13.

(20) 2.3 Social Entrepreneur and Social Entrepreneurship Social entrepreneurs are entrepreneurs with a social mission. Social entrepreneurs use mission-related impact as their central criterion instead of wealth creation. For social entrepreneurs, wealth is just a means to an end for social entrepreneurs, but for business entrepreneurs, wealth creation is a way of measuring value creation (Dees, 1998), and these are the main distinction between social and business entrepreneurs.. In Dees (1998) study, he gave social entrepreneur an “idealized” definition, he described social entrepreneur as a person who adopting a mission to create and sustain social value, relentlessly pursuing new opportunities for that mission and engaging in continuous innovation.. In the United States, social entrepreneur is promoted as an individual who takes an exceptional, innovative approach to address social problems, regardless of whether generating income or not (Martin and Osberg, 2007). Beside academy, several foundations which working in SE field also give their own definition to social entrepreneur (Table 4), and in this thesis, we will use Dees’s definition as the definition of social entrepreneur and criteria for interviewee selection.. 14.

(21) Table 2.4 – Definitions of social entrepreneur Author. Definitions Social entrepreneurs are individuals with innovative solutions to. Ashoka Foundation http://goo.gl/PGWfz. Schwab Foundation http://goo.gl/GmP9VY. Skoll Foundation http://goo.gl/CAEAuQ. society’s most pressing social problems. They are ambitious and persistent, tackling major social issues and offering new ideas for wide-scale change. Social entrepreneur is a leader or pragmatic visionary who achieves large scale, systemic and sustainable social change through a new invention, a different approach, a more rigorous application of known technologies or strategies, or a combination of these. Social entrepreneurs are those who ambitious to tackle major social issues, they are mission driven to generate social value, strategic to explore opportunity, resourceful and result oriented as business entrepreneurs Social entrepreneurs are entrepreneurial, innovative, and “transformatory” individuals who are also leaders, storytellers,. Leadbeater (1997). Dees (1998). managers, visionary opportunists and alliance builders. They recognize a social problem and organize, create and manage a venture to make social change. Social entrepreneur is a person who adopting a mission to create and sustain social value, relentlessly pursuing new opportunities for that mission and engaging in continuous innovation.. Bornstein (1998). Social entrepreneur is a path breaker with new idea who has strong ethic, combines visionary and creative problem-solving skill to make change. Social entrepreneurs are people who realize the opportunity to. Thompson et al (2000). Brickerhoff (2009). Abu-Saifan (2012). satisfy some unmet need that the welfare system not or cannot meet, and who gather and use resources to make a different. Social entrepreneur is someone who take reasonable risk on behalf of people their organization serves Social entrepreneur is a mission-driven individual who uses a set of entrepreneurial behaviors to deliver a social value to the less privileged, all through an entrepreneurially oriented entity that is financially independent, self-sufficient, or sustainable.. Sources: Abu-Saifan (2012), Mair and Marti (2006). 15.

(22) For social entrepreneurship study, it basically focus on four main sectors, the characteristic of social entrepreneurs, their sphere of operation, the processes and resources used by them, and their mission (Dacin et al. 2011). Because social entrepreneurship research is still in its early day, Mair and Marti (2006) found that social entrepreneurship research is largely phenomenon-driven and most studies are still based mainly on anecdotal evidence or case studies.. From one of the most cited social entrepreneurship model, Mort et al. (2003) argued that social entrepreneurship is a ‘‘multidimensional’’ construct formed by the intersection of a number of defining characteristics which included balanced judgment of interest among multiple stakeholders, recognizing opportunities, risk-tolerance, innovativeness and pro-activeness.. Although many authors emphasized that the not-for-profit nature of social entrepreneurial activities is a distinctive feature of social entrepreneurship (Austin et al., 2003; Boschee, 1998). Mair and Marti (2006) examined various for-profit and not-for-profit initiatives and argued that social entrepreneurship can take place equally well on a not-for-profit basis or on a for-profit basis, and it can be illustrated in entrepreneurship spectrum (Figure 2.3).. Because of various definitions within social entrepreneurship research, Dacin et al. (2010) concluded that it is not possible to apply a definitive set of characteristics to all kinds of social entrepreneurial activity across all contexts.. 16.

(23) Sources: Abu-Saifan (2012) Figure 2.3 – Entrepreneurship Spectrum. 2.4 Social Enterprise and Social Entrepreneur in Taiwan 2.4.1 Development of SE in Taiwan The high economic grew in early 90s boosted the growth of Taiwan NPO sector in last two decades. 官有垣 (2007) stated that the number of NPO in Taiwan had grew from 11,778 in 1996 to 25,138 in 2005, and when the situation became too much people compete for too less resources, NPOs in Taiwan started to try new approach to generate income for their self-sufficiency and some of them evolved into SE.. 17.

(24) According to 官有垣 (2006), the rise of social enterprise in Taiwan can be concluded into five reasons, (1) Increase in social demand, (2) NPO looking for financially self-sustainable, (3) Privatize of social welfare services, (4) New policy and government grants and (5) The rise of corporate social responsible.. Although many of the SEs in Taiwan started and evolved from the transformation of NPOs during the last two decades, but affected by the recent global SE movement, many newly setup SEs in Taiwan after year 2008 are actually incorporated as a for-profit entity which applying social mission driven strategies by young generation entrepreneurs. With the supports from both government and private sector, this new phenomenon is slowly begun to be the new formation type of Taiwan SEs and the focus of this thesis will mainly on these group of for-profit entity entrepreneurs and SEs rather than those transformed from NPOs.. 2.4.2 Types of SE in Taiwan By the formation purposes of SEs, 官有垣 (2007) classify SEs in Taiwan into five types (Table 2.5), but based on the types of setup, 胡哲生 et al. (2012) categorized SEs in Taiwan into ten types, (1) Self-sustaining SE, (2) Social franchise business, (3) NPO and corporate joint venture, (4) Technology transfer, (5) Transform of business model, (6) Corporate outsourcing, (7) Supply partnership, (8) Sales partnership, (9) Authorize venture and (10) Business diversification.. Between these two classification methods, because 官有垣’s classification method are more related with entrepreneurs’ motivations and the goal of this thesis, we will adapt it as our 18.

(25) classification method during sample selection and analysis. In conclusion, because the complexity of SE’s formation, there is still no one absolute and universal way to classify SE in Taiwan or other places in the world, and researchers should therefore base on their own goals and needs to select the most suitable classification method for their research.. Table 2.5 – Type of Taiwan Social Enterprise by setup purpose Type Work integration or affirmation business (積極性就業促進型) Local community development organization (地方社區發展型) Social enterprises providing social products and services (服務提供與產品銷售型) Venture capital business created for the benefits of NPOs (公益創投的獨立企業型) Social cooperatives (社會合作社). Description Work integration SEs focus to help social vulnerable groups such as disable group, through create and provide work opportunity, work integration SEs help people from vulnerable group integrate into labor market and society. Example - 喜憨兒烘培屋 and 勝利加油站. Most of the local community development organization setup in NPO format, and their key function are to be a resource integrator, they organize and integrate external resources to help under developed communities to boost their economy and industry. Example -光源社會企業 and 小鎮文創. These type of SEs generate revenue through selling products and services which direct related to its social mission. Example - 雨林咖啡 and 多扶接送. A for profit business setup by companies or NPOs to generate sustainable income and profit for the usage of NPOs, the business is not necessary direct related to its beneficiary social mission. Example - 大愛感恩科技. Through the involvement for members, social cooperatives could achieve collective interest and is heavy rely on the involvement of members. Example - 主婦聯盟.. Source:官有垣 (2007). 19.

(26) 2.4.3 Social Entrepreneurs in Taiwan For social entrepreneurs, from the case study of, they interviewed three Taiwan social entrepreneurs and stated that Taiwan social entrepreneurs are motivated by their religious belief and previous work experiences. They also found that social entrepreneurs have a very strong persistent characteristic, kind heart and lively but simple image.. From the long term observation and interaction with Taiwanese social entrepreneurs, 胡哲生(2014) also concluded six key Taiwanese social entrepreneurs’ characteristics, (1) Social Compassion (社會關懷), (2) Humanity Orientated (人性導向), (3) Self Confidence and Independent (自信自立), (4) Influential (團隊感染),. (5) Enjoy Busy Life (享受忙碌) and. (6) Passionate (熱情資產).. In summary, according to the prior findings from researchers (高義芳 and 沈怡臻, 2009; 胡哲生, 2014), we knew that Taiwanese social entrepreneurs in fact sharing the common characteristics with the social entrepreneurs from others country, and because FTSEs are the representative sample of Taiwan SEs, we selected FT entrepreneurs as our primary research focus.. 2.5 Fair Trade 2.5.1 Background After War World 2, some of NGOs in the western world started a commercial activity to support their social missions. With experimental import and distribution initiative goods from Third Nations, NGOs try to adapt market mechanisms to pursue their social purpose, 20.

(27) such as poverty alleviation for small-scale producers.. Because of FTOs’ multidimensional mission, which combines economic, social and sometimes political dimensions, FTOs have been quite early taken as examples of "social enterprises" and have contributed to the shaping of the SE concept (Huybrechts and Defourny, 2010). Becchetti and Huybrechts (2008) also noted that because of adopting very heterogeneous organizational strategies to pursue social purposes, making FT a highly diversified organizational landscape.. According to Moore (2004), the FINE’s definition (an informal association created in 1998 of the 4 main Fair Trade networks, FLO1, IFTA2, NEWS3, and EFTA4) of FT is the most agreed and most widely used by the field actors and academics: Fair Trade is a trading partnership, based on dialogue, transparency and respect, that seeks greater equity in international trade. It contributes to sustainable development by offering better trading conditions to, and securing the rights of marginalized producers and workers - especially in the South. Fair Trade organizations (backed by consumers) are engaged actively in supporting producers, awareness raising and in campaigning for changes in the rules and practice of conventional international trade. (FINE, 2001, http://goo.gl/0lgAC4). 1. Fairtrade Labelling Organizations International. 2. International Federation of Alternative Traders, currently The World Fair Trade Organization (WFTO). 3. Network of European Worldshops. 4. European Fair Trade Association. 21.

(28) Huybrechts and Defourny (2010) summarized and combined FT elements under three categories, (1) Fairness, (2) Trade and (3) Education, regulation and advocacy. All these categories can easily be linked to the three types of dimensions identified throughout the different approaches of SE. For better understanding and discriminating between different types of FT social enterprises, Huybrechts and Defourny (2010) also proposed a simple theoretical framework (Figure 2.4) to illustrate the relationship of those three main FT dimensions. Wilkinson (2007) suggested that because in practice most of the FTOs/FTSEs combine these three dimensions in some way, therefore these three dimensions are often interrelated and sometimes undistinguishable, and also vary very much among the priorities.. Source: Huybrechts and Defourny (2010) Figure 2.4 – The Fair Trade Social Enterprise Triangle. The implication of the FTSE Triangle (Huybrechts and Defourny, 2010): Political (Education, Regulation and Advocacy): Such as active in advocacy, through lobbying public authorities and denouncing unethical trading practices and education campaigns directed to the consumers. 22.

(29) Economic (Trade): Included all the economic functions (import, transformation, distribution and etc.) linked to trading initiative. The position of trade can vary among FTSEs, because some considered "trade as a mean" and some considered "trade as a goal".. Social (Producer Support): Providing a better income for producers and also empowering them and leveraging development opportunities for their wider communities.. 2.5.2 Fair Trade Coffee Coffee was the world’s second most valuably traded commodity, second only to oil. Milford (2004) reported that a coffee bean could change hands as many as 150 times along the commodity chain between the producer and the consumer (Figure 2.5), and this multifarious process not only lack of transparency but also exploit the benefit of many small producers.. Sources: Modified from Milford (2004) and Ransom (2006) Figure 2.5 – Commodity Coffee Chain and Revenue Breakdown 23.

(30) According to Locke and et al. (2010), Fair Trade expanded to coffee in 1973. Initially FT coffee were just distributed exclusively through Alternative Trade Organizations (ATOs) which established long-standing relationships with the democratic producer cooperatives from which they purchased coffee, linked producers directly with consumers and typically sold products in specialty shops. For many ATOs, they mostly operated without independent certification, and some of them instead set and monitored their own standards.. Later in 1997, Fairtrade Labeling Organization (FLO) was established to set and monitor Fair Trade standards, FLO connect Fair Trade buyers with suppliers, and promote Fair Trade market share and their own standard based certification. While ATOs continued to market Fair Trade handicrafts, standards-based certification eventually replaced organization-based certification in Fair Trade coffee (Locke and et al., 2010).. Cameron (2007) illustrated two types of FT value chain (Figure 2.6), and from the comparison she stated that ATO model creates shorter social distances between consumers and producers by creating tighter network based on trust and fairness. In another hand, standard-based model rely on independent certification organization establishes standards based on process and production methods (PPMs), and these model makes it possible for any coffee company to purchase fair trade coffee from producers and sell it to consumers with a recognized fair trade label.. 24.

(31) Source: Diane Cameron (2006) Figure 2.6 – Fair Trade Coffee Value Chain Comparison. 2.5.3 Fair Trade in Taiwan During 2000s when FT movement started to boom in western world, in order to catch on the growth, Starbucks started to promote and provide FT coffee in its retail shops in America and around the world. In year 2003, Starbucks Taiwan followed it’s headquarter global strategy also started to provide FT coffee in Taiwan retail shops (only occasionally) and became the first ever company offer certified FT coffee in Taiwan.. In 2006, 地球樹 started to import certified FT handcraft products from Japan and in the same year 馥聚 Foody also started to import FT brand “Equal Exchange” from America. Later in 2007, Oko Green became the first company in Great China Region to get the FLO 25.

(32) certification. Worked together with other FTSEs, the founders of Oko Green also founded the Fairtrade Taiwan Association in 2010 in order to better promote the concept of FT.. In contrast with Oko Green’s model, the founder of Rain Forest Coffee established a FT coffee company in 2008 by adopting a more rarely ATO model, and he also became the first Taiwanese who direct involved in the FT coffee plantation and production community giving back program in Indonesia.. Although FT movement in Taiwan starts relatively late compare with other countries, through the relentless promotion, education and media exposure, those countable pioneer FTSEs in Taiwan have already grown became a steady company. Because of increasing social awareness and public support, the trade volume of FT products in Taiwan has already surpassed South Korea in 2011 and will soon catch up Japan and others western nations.. 2.6 Entrepreneurial Motivation 2.6.1 Development of Entrepreneurial Motivation The topic of motivation evolved from the early psychology works on instincts which drive behavior where the goal is to survive, to succeed, and to avoid failure (Casrund and Brannback, 2011). From the prior motivation studies, Perwin (2003) concluded three important aspect of motivation: activation (what activate a person), selection-direction (what make individual choose to behave over another) and preparedness of response (why people respond differently to the same motivation).. 26.

(33) According to Shane et al.(2003), they argued that human motivation plays a critical role in the entrepreneurial process and motivational differences will also influence the entrepreneurial process, therefore understanding the role of human motivation in the entrepreneurial process is very important.. For the entrepreneurial motivation study, it began with the Maslow’s (1943) hierarchy of needs theory and McClelland’s (1961) human motivation theory. Maslow stated that human needs are arranged in a hierarchy of prepotency, and only when the most prepotent goal is realized, then the next higher need emerges.. McClelland identified three motivators that he believed everyone will have: (1) a need for achievement, (2) a need for affiliation, and (3) a need for power, he argued that a high need for achievement was a personality trait common to entrepreneurs and dependent on their culture and life experiences, one of these motivators will become entrepreneurs’ dominant motivating driver.. In Shapero’s (1982) model of the entrepreneurial events, he stated that individual’s behavioral intentions or motivations are dependent on two factors: perceived credibility (feasibility) and perceived desirability. Shapero and Sokol (1982) later explained perceived credibility as the personal attractiveness of starting a business, and perceived feasibility as a perceptual measure of personal capability with regard to new venture creation.. Based on Shapero’s (1982) study, Ajzen (1985) developed the theory of planned behavior 27.

(34) (TPB), Ajzen (1991) stated that individual’s intention is the immediate antecedent of behavior and is a function of three variables: attitude toward the behavior, subjective norm, and perceived behavioral control. Kolvereid (1996) stated that the Ajzen’s (1991) framework is a very solid model for explaining or predicting entrepreneurial intentions and is arguably one of the most widely and successfully applied theory for predicting behavioral intention.. At present, the concept of self-efficacy that evolved from the Shapero and Ajzen model has become a key antecedent of entrepreneurial intentions and Chen et al. (1998) also found that entrepreneurial self-efficacy is a reliable measure to differentiate between business founders and non-founders.. 2.6.2 Push (Necessity) and Pull (Opportunity) Motivators Shapero and Sokol (1982) first distinct push and pull start-up factors by argued that either negative displacement/circumstance (push or necessity) such as divorce or positive displacement/circumstance (pull or opportunity) such as inheritance would stimulate the act of start-up.. In a later study, Gilad and Levine proposed the push and pull theory in 1986, they suggested that pull and push factors as the explanations of entrepreneurial motivation. In. generally. speaking, the push theory argued that individuals are pushed into entrepreneurship by negative external forces or reactive of circumstances, such as job dissatisfaction, unemployment, dissatisfaction with the present self-situation and/or family pressure 28.

(35) (Verheul et al., 2010), and the pull theory suggested that individuals are attracted into entrepreneurial activities by proactive initiatives, such as seek for independence, self-realization, recognition, wealth, and other desirable outcomes (Carter et al. 2003; Casrund and Brannback, 2011).. Although researchers stated that pull and push motivation came in different forms (Table 2.6) and have different impacts, from many research (Keeble et al., 1992; Orhan and Scott, 2001) we knew that, in fact individuals become entrepreneurs primarily due to pull factors rather than push factors, and in general, pull driven entrepreneurs feel more satisfaction than push driven entrepreneurs (Block and Wagner, 2007; Block and Koellinger, 2009; Kautonen and Palmroos, 2010).. Table 2.6 – Different forms of push and pull motivation Push (Necessity). Pull (Opportunity). Job dissatisfaction (Hisrich and Brush, 1986;. Recognition, independence, learning and roles (Shane. Brockhaus, 1980; Cromie and Hayes, 1991). et al. ,1991). Job loss, Job dissatisfaction, "unhireable", e.g., lack of educational or language skills (immigrant) or criminal backgrounds (Sarasvathy, 2004) Autonomy and family pressure (Giacomin et al. ,2007) Unemployment, dissatisfaction with the present situation and/or family pressure (Verheul et al., 2010). innovation, independence, recognition, roles, financial success and self-realization (Carter et al., 2003) Market opportunity, social status and profit (Giacomin et al., 2007) Independence, monetary, lifestyle (Kirkwood, 2009).. Difficult economic conditions (MacDonald,1996;. Professional aspirations articulated in an offensive. Baines and Wheelorks, 1998). posture (Harisson and Hart, 1983). Sources: Verhuel et al. (2010); Robichaud (2010) 29.

(36) In 2002, Reynolds et al. introduced the concept of necessity and opportunity entrepreneurs in the 2001 GEM global report. In that report, they tried to apply necessity-opportunity dichotomy that use push and pull motivation factors to distinguish entrepreneurs.. According to Bhola et al. (2006), necessity entrepreneurs are driven by push motivations and opportunity entrepreneurs are driven by pull motivations, but as Giacomin et al. (2012) suggested, dichotomy is too simplistic and may not correspond to reality, and many recent studies also emphasize the possibility that an individual could be simultaneously driven by both necessity (push) and opportunity (pull) motivations (Williams and Williams, 2011; Caliendo and Kritikos, 2010; Block and Sandner, 2009), therefore researchers should avoid overly rigid classification the two types of entrepreneurs based on their motivations (Giacomin et al. 2012).. Based on the findings from prior researchers, we created the below framework (Table 2.7) to illustrate the similarities and differences of motivations between commercial entrepreneur and social entrepreneur. We hope this simple framework could help us have a better understanding of social entrepreneur and build some ground for future study.. 30.

(37) Source: By this study Table 2.7 – Motivators Comparison between Commercial and Social Entrepreneur. 2.6.3 Social Entrepreneur’s Motivation For social entrepreneurial motivation studies, due to lack of study materials, there are very limited literatures can be referenced in this area. From the study of Miller et al.(2012), they indicated that compassion is a key motivator for social entrepreneur.. Germak et al. (2014) (Figure 2.7) suggested that the engagement in SE is a blend of motivational factors, and they listed out five main motivators in their recent study of nascent social entrepreneurs: (1) personal fulfillment, (2) helping society, (3) nonmonetary focus, (4) achievement orientation, and (5) closeness to social problem. In summary, the start-up motivation factors of social entrepreneurs are fundamentally different with traditional commercial entrepreneurs, and enhancing the understanding of motivational distinction between social entrepreneurs and commercial entrepreneurs is the main goal of this study.. 31.

(38) Source: Germak et al.(2014) Figure 2.7 – Social Entrepreneurship Motivational Framework. 2.7 Summary In summary, all the theories of entrepreneurship and entrepreneurial motivation discussed in this chapter have already been empirically long and far applied to the commercial entrepreneurs. Compare with commercial entrepreneurs, the area of SE is still relatively under explored, and there is insufficient of empirical literature specifically pertaining to social entrepreneurs and their motivations. Therefore there is much room for theoretical and empirical researches to be explored and conducted in this area (Germak et al., 2014).. 32.

(39) Chapter 3 – Research Method This thesis is conducted in qualitative phenomenological method and support with multiple-case studies. The goal of this chapter is to explain the reasons behind the method selection and introduce the methods which been selected. Beside research method selection, in this chapter we will also explain the criteria of sample/participant selection and the procedure to conduct qualitative in-depth interview and data analyzing.. 3.1 Method Selection Researchers based on their requirements and needs to select the research method they want to use. The quantitative method and qualitative method use different way to collect and analyze data that provide advantages and/or disadvantages. Because the goal of this study is to enhance the understanding of start-up motivations of social entrepreneur and to identify the different start-up motivators between social entrepreneur and commercial entrepreneur, and the goal of qualitative research is to develop concepts that enhance the understanding of social phenomena (Helle Neergaard and John Parm Ulhøi, 2006), therefore this study is conducted in a phenomenological qualitative approach instead of quantitative approach, by using data collected from in-depth interviews as primary source and other secondary data in multiple case study as support.. 3.1.1 Qualitative Phenomenological Method Phenomenological method focus on what all participants have in common as they experience a phenomenon, such as start-up experiences in this thesis. A qualitative phenomenological study could provide a deeper understanding of a phenomenon as 33.

(40) experienced. by. individuals. than. a. quantitative. survey. study,. and. qualitative. phenomenological method also provides the researcher with greater flexibility in attaining richer data and provides a better opportunity for the researcher to develop substantial research conclusions based on real world entrepreneurial experiences (Lowder, 2009).. Berglund. (2014). stated. that. traditional. cognitive. and. discursive. approach. in. entrepreneurship study either focus on intra-individual cognition or extra-individual discourses, and both of them downplay entrepreneur as an active and reflexive subject. By apply phenomenological approach, researchers focus on individuals as being-in-the-world, which provides rich understanding of entrepreneurs’ lived experiences, not least under uncertainly.. In generally speaking, phenomenological approach can theorize human experience in ways that retain its complexity, ambiguity and emotionality (Weick, 1999; Sandberg, 2005), and provide ‘thicker’ descriptions both of cognitive concepts and of how entrepreneurs engage influential discourses (Berglund, 2014).. 3.1.2 Triangulation Triangulation refers to the use of more than one approach to the investigation of a research question in order to enhance confidence in the ensuing findings (Bryman 2003). Denzin (1970) distinguished four forms of triangulation: (1) Data triangulation, which entails gathering data through several sampling strategies so that slices of data at different times and in different social situations, as well as on a variety 34.

(41) of people, are gathered. (2) Investigator triangulation, which refers to the use of more than one researcher in the field to gather and interpret data (3) Theoretical triangulation, which refers to the use of more than one theoretical position in interpreting data. (4) Methodological triangulation, which refers to the use of more than one method for gathering data.. In order to enhance the quality of our findings, in this thesis, we will apply both data and methodological triangulation to gather data from different sources and methods, such as in-depth interview, questionnaire, public speech, media interview and report.. 3.1.3 Multiple-Case Study Similar with phenomenological method, case study method is preferred when focus on contemporary phenomenon and explaining the causal link within the real-life context (Yin, 2003). Unlike qualitative approach with interview, case study use multiple data sources such as direct observation, archival record, documents and physical artifacts, and case study could also base on mix of quantitative and qualitative evidence.. In general, multiple-case study preferred over single case study, because when looking at a range of similar and contrasting cases, we can strengthen the precision, the validity and the stability of the findings (Miles and Huberman, 1994), therefore in this thesis, we will use 35.

(42) multiple-case study as a support to the primary qualitative phenomenological approach with the pre-defined necessity and opportunity entrepreneurship framework.. 3.1.4 In-Depth Interviews In-depth interviews are one of the main data collection methods used in qualitative research. Because in-depth interviews always been conducted in the form of conversation, Sidney and Beatrice Webb (1932) described in-depth interview as being “conversation with a purpose”. Although in-depth interview is look similar to daily normal conversation, there are actually some obvious fundamental different between them, such as its objectives and the role of participant and researcher.. According to 范麗娟 (2005), in-depth interview is a research method which focus on the interviewee’s point of view, feelings and perspectives. During the interview, researcher not only asking questions but also systematic recording and documenting responses of interviewee to couple for deeper meaning and understanding of interviewee.. In this thesis, semi-structured interview is the interview format used by the researcher. Because unlike structured interview, semi-structured interview has more flexible and fluid structure which allow researcher could adjust in how and in what sequence questions are asked, and also in whether and how particular areas might be followed up and developed with different interviewees (Mason, 2004).. 36.

(43) 3.2 Sampling Method and Participants Selection Sampling, participants or samples selection are one of the most important steps when conducting qualitative research. Stake (1994) suggested that if qualitative research requires cases to be chosen then nothing is more important than making a proper selection. In most cases, bad sample selection always lead to bias result, thus decisions of sampling are very important. In this part of chapter 3, we will introduce the sampling method and participant selection procedure which will be used in this thesis.. 3.2.1 Purposeful Sampling Purposeful sampling also known as judgment sampling is a nonprobability sampling method which based on research requirement purposively select samples from population. Because different researcher might have different research objectives, Given (2008) stated 10 most common strategies of purposeful sampling (Table 3.1). Although there are more alternatives can be used by researcher, the general principal of purposeful sampling remains that researcher should always think of the person or place or situation that has the largest potential for advancing his/her understanding (Given, 2008).. The goal of this study is to enhance the understanding of social entrepreneur’s start-up motivations and we would like to see that whether there is any typical or unique characteristic among social entrepreneur’s start-up motivation. In this case, by adapting maximum variation sampling strategy, it would enable us to gain deeper understanding of a wide range of possible motivations for starting SE, therefore we decide to adapt maximum variation sampling strategy with each research participants from different line of social business, gender, age group and founding formation (individual or team). 37.

(44) Table 3.1 – Common Purposeful Sampling Strategies. Type. Description Particularly useful in the context of evaluation research and policy. Stakeholder Sampling. analysis, this strategy involves identifying who the major stakeholders are.. Extreme or Deviant Case Extreme cases represent the purest or most clear cut instance of a Sampling phenomenon we are interested in. Typical Case Sampling. Typical subjects are selected because who are likely to behave as most of their counterparts would. (Bamberger et al., 2006). Paradigmatic Case. A case is paradigmatic when it is considered the exemplar for a. Sampling. certain class, like New York Yankee for baseball.. Maximum Variation Sampling. Criterion Sampling. Searching for cases or individuals who cover the spectrum of positions and perspectives in relation to the phenomenon one is studying, and would include both of the previous categories, i.e., both extreme and typical cases plus any other positions that can be identified. This involves searching for cases or individuals who meet a certain criterion, e.g., that they have a particular life experience like start-up. Researchers who are following a more deductive or theory ‐ testing. Theory-guided Sampling. Critical Case Sampling. approach would be interested in finding individuals or cases that embody theoretical constructs. As this could be considered a particular type of criterion sampling. A critical case is identified by asking the question "if it happens here, it can happen anywhere" or opposite. (Patton, 1990). Disconfirming or With this strategy the researcher is looking to extend his or her Negative Case Sampling analysis by looking for cases that will disconfirm it.. Expert Sampling. Researcher collects the samples by taking interviews from a panel of individuals known to be experts in a field.. Sources: Given (2008), Bamberger et al. (2006), Patton (1990). 38.

(45) 3.2.2 Participants of This Study The participants of this study were selected via three steps. (1) Conducting sample pool, (2) Categorize cases and (3) Purposive selection.. In order to conduct Taiwan FTSEs sample pool, we collect information from multiple sources which included (1) Newspaper, internet and social media, such as Udn Vision Project (聯合報願景工程), SE insights (社企流), Green House (綠園), SEIETW (台灣社會企業創新創業協會), Fairtrade Taiwan Association (台灣公平貿易協會). (2) Books and academic publications, such as 「我們, 創愛的業 (We Leverage for Good)」 (林芳盈, 2014), 「社企力 (Power of Good)」(社企流, 2014), 「我們的小幸福、小經濟 (Social Enterprise)」(胡哲生 et al., 2013),(官有垣, 2007, 2013; 胡哲生 et al., 2012). (3) Events and forums, such as TIC100 SE competition, KPMG Taiwan SE Summit Forum and 社企咖啡館.. Through the samples collection process and among all the FTSEs which we founded, we collect total 10 FTSE cases (Table 3.2) in our sample pool. By using purposeful sampling strategy, we later select 6 FT participants (Table 3.3) who mainly dealing focus on FT coffee business from 5 cases in our sample pool. Beside conduct in-depth interview with some of the selected participants, we also conduct case studies for deeper discussion.. 39.

(46) Table 3.2 – Fair Trade SE Sample Pool No Company Name. Product. No. Company Name. Product. 1 Lightened Café. Coffee. 6 Hoard in Job. Coffee. 2 He Ping Café. Coffee. 7 Foody. Food. 3 Rain Forest Coffee Coffee. 8 Earth Tree. Clothes & Accessories.. 4 Oko Green. Coffee & Food. 9 Younga. Accessories. 5 Twine. Designer Product. 10 Hope Market. Online Market Place. Source: by this study. Before conduct our surveys and interviews, we approach all of the participants either in person or by phone to ask for their willingness to participate. After getting their verbal confirmation, we later send out our formal interview invitations by email. All interviews and data collection are conducted during February to April 2015 at Taipei, Taichung and Changhua, and every interview takes about 30-60 min to complete the interview.. Table 3.3 – Selected Cases and Data Sources. Code Company Name. Participants. In-depth. Survey. Interview Questionnaire. Public. Media. Speech. Report. A1 Lightened Café. Ms Huang S Q. v. v. v. B2 He Ping Café. Mr Jiang Y D. v. v. v. v. v. v. v. v. v. v. C3 Rain Forest Coffee Mr Wu Z Y D4 Oko Green. Mr Yu W R. E5 Oko Green. Ms Xu W Y. v. v. F6 Hoard In Job. Mr Zhu K P. v. v. 40.