Survival of Social Enterprises A tale of overcoming scarce resources

Master’s Thesis 30 credits Department of Business Studies Uppsala University Spring Semester of 2017

Date of Submission: 2017-05-30

Ina Sandén Maria Äng Supervisor: Linda Wedlin

Abstract Social enterprises often face initial developmental challenges connected to resource scarcity,

both in their external and internal environment, therefore they often rely on external actors, to

develop, scale up and thrive. Fifteen in-depth interviews with social enterprises were

conducted in order to explore how social enterprises utilise the support from an external actor,

in this case incubators. Pierre Bourdieu's capital theory (1986) was used to facilitate the

understanding of the provided support, and the convertibility of capital was applied to explore

how social enterprises utilise the provided support. The theory of capital and capital

conversion was applied as a lens to analyse and interpret the empirical findings. The study

reveals that social enterprises convert all types of capital with social capital proving to be

convertible into all other forms of capital and economic capital as being a difficult conversion

for social enterprises. Furthermore, social capital was identified as a valuable resource, which

can help social enterprises to address the issue of resource scarcity.

Key words: social enterprises, resource scarcity, capital, capital conversion, external support

2

Acknowledgements

Hereby, we would like to take the opportunity of thanking all of the people who in any way

have been involved in the process of writing this thesis and helping us to finish our final

assignment and complete our years of university studies. We would foremost like to express

our gratitude towards the fifteen social enterprises and entrepreneurs who gave us a few

minutes of their scarce time to provide us with interesting and valuable insights; Anton

Håkansson, Emma Rosman, Laura de Clercq, Lisa Löfgren, Viktor Lidholt, Ebba Åkerman,

Yvonne Malmström Grimme, Elin Lutke, Cecilia Bödker Pedersen, Caroline von Uexküll,

Nicholas Roman, Julia Östfeldt, Micael Gustafsson, Erik Kylén, Hanna Lindquist and Lina

Lagerbäck. Thank you for telling your tale of overcoming scarce resources and the history of

your social enterprise.

Furthermore we would like to thank our very intelligent seminar group and supervisor Linda

Wedlin for supporting us throughout this semester and providing us with interesting, and at

times confusing discussions, but ultimately rendering very valuable comments and feedback.

Lastly we wish to credit Uppsala University for providing us with an extensive education and

for being our home university for the last 5 years.

Stockholm, May 29th, 2017

Ina Sandén and Maria Äng

3

TABLE OF CONTENTS 1. DEALING WITH RESOURCE SCARCITY 4

2. LITERATURE REVIEW 6

2.1SOCIALENTERPRISES 62.2BOURDIEU’SCAPITALTHEORY 82.3BOURDIEUWITHINENTREPRENEURIALLITERATURE 92.4THEFORMSOFCAPITAL 102.4.1ECONOMICCAPITAL 102.4.2SOCIALCAPITAL 112.4.3CULTURALCAPITAL 132.4.4SYMBOLICCAPITAL 152.5THEORETICALAPPROACH 16

3. METHODOLOGY 18

3.1RESEARCHDESIGN 183.2SAMPLESELECTION 183.3THEINTERVIEWS 193.4OPERATIONALIZATION 213.5THEANALYSISPROCESS 23

4. ANALYSIS 25

4.1WHATRESOURCESDIDTHESOCIALENTERPRISESRECEIVE? 254.2HOWSOCIALENTERPRISESDEALWITHRESOURCESCARCITY 274.2.1CONVERSIONOFECONOMICCAPITAL 284.2.2CONVERSIONOFSOCIALCAPITAL 294.2.3CONVERSIONOFCULTURALCAPITAL 344.2.4CONVERSIONOFSYMBOLICCAPITAL 36

5. REFLECTIVE DISCUSSION 41

6. CONCLUSION 43

6.1LIMITATIONS 446.2SUGGESTIONSFORFUTURERESEARCH 44

REFERENCES 46

APPENDIX 1 51

4

1. Dealing with Resource Scarcity During recent years, a new corporate trend has been on the uprise: to tackle global problems

by combining both social and financial value (Suni 2017). Market based models have been

recognised as a promising approach for addressing the social problems of our time and social

enterprises continue to emerge as problems stay unsolved (Lall et al. 2013; Scarlata &

Alemany 2010; Augustinsson 2011). Even though new social enterprises continue to arise,

many of these innovative companies encounter challenges in their early stages and many

initiatives fail to survive (Lall et al. 2013; Mulgan et al. 2007).

Researchers argue that social enterprises face major barriers to success, which is why many

fail to establish ventures sustainability (Noruzi & Rahimi 2010). In addition to the challenges

faced by traditional entrepreneurs, the social aspect of social enterprises implies an added

complexity with additional challenges specific for social enterprises (Kourilsky 1995; Tracey

& Phillips 2007). Furthermore, due to the social mission of social enterprises, investors often

perceive social enterprises as a risky investment as they fear less or slower return on

investment (Kasper & Marcoux 2014). This results in a restrained access to external financing

since there are fewer investors willing to invest in social enterprises, compared to traditional

start-ups. Besides the challenge related to accessing financing, they also encounter a lack of

adequate mechanism able to promote, adapt and scale social enterprises (Mulgan et al. 2007).

Among others, these factors imply that social enterprises often have a limited access to

external resources. However, social enterprises also face scarcity of internal resources. Social

entrepreneurs have trouble in harnessing the limited resources that are available and they

often lack adequate and crucial business competencies needed to manage the organisation

(Leadbeater 1997; (Lall et al. 2013).). The lack of internal resources result in difficulties to

build efficient teams, develop viable business models, raise investments and find appropriate

target groups (Reach for Change 2016; Lall et al 2013).

Due to the specific lack of resources, social enterprises are regarded as an exceptionally

demanding form of entrepreneurship (Habaradas & Aure 2016) and they are generally reliant

on external support in order to survive (Mulgan et al. 2007; Antadze & Westley 2010).

Incubators are one example of actors within the ecosystem of social entrepreneurship that can

provide social enterprises with support and facilitate the development of new enterprises

(Björk et al. 2014). The process of how entrepreneurs utilise and manage resources has

5

attracted increasing academic interest the entrepreneurial field (Baker & Nelson 2005;

Sullivan & Ford 2014). The aspect of how social entrepreneurs and their social enterprises

manage, utilise and leverage resources provided through incubators, has however not

explicitly been explored in contemporary research. Since the trend of the social enterprises is

on the uprise, researchers argue that there is a growing need to understand how they utilise

available resources (Björk et al. 2014). Due to the specific restriction of both external and

internal resources, we argue that it is of interest to explore how they overcome initial

challenges, survive and develop a viable business. Seeing as incubators provide social

enterprises with support, granting access to resources, we further find it interesting to explore

how social enterprises manage and utilise the resources received through incubators.

Hence, the aim of this thesis is to investigate how social enterprises utilise external support

provided by incubators in order to deal with resource scarcity. By applying the social

enterprises’ perspective, this paper will aim to deepen our understanding of social enterprises

and answer the following research question:

How social enterprises utilise resources obtained from incubators?

In order to understand social enterprises’ utilisation of resources, we identify Pierre

Bourdieu’s theory of capital and the notion of conversion of capital (1986) as an appropriate

conceptual lens. Bourdieu's framework has been identified as a valuable tool to study the

utilisation and management of resources by entrepreneurs (Pret et. al 2016), whereby we

argue that capital theory, and particularly conversions, will facilitate our understanding of

how social enterprises can leverage support. On a theoretical level, the thesis seeks to add to

existing empirical research on social enterprises and how they deal with scarce resources.

Furthermore, the study aims to contribute to theory on conversions of capital, by investigating

conversions in relation to social entrepreneurship. For social enterprises, the study can be of

value as it can provide them with insights in how to deal with the challenge of scarce

resources.

6

2. Literature Review This section will draw upon existing research within the field of social entrepreneurship and

relevant academic articles concerning Pierre Bourdieu's theory of capital (1986). Initially, a

conceptualisation of the term social enterprises will be outlined. Secondly, a review of

Bourdieu's work on capital and conversions is presented, followed by a summary of

entrepreneurial literature based on Bourdieu's capital theory and subsequently an outline of

the forms of capital and their conversions. We conclude with a theoretical approach used for

the purpose of this thesis.

2.1 Social Enterprises

Social enterprises are initiatives that cut through sector boundaries and combine business

logics with socially driven goals to create social impact (Augustinsson 2011; Mulgan et al.

2007; Di Domenico et al. 2010). As they fuse entrepreneurial and innovative practices with

commitment to both social and economic goals, social enterprises blur the lines between non-

profit and private sectors and are often considered to be hybrid organisations (Dees 1998;

Canadian Centre for Social Entrepreneurship 2001). Social enterprises have become an

increasingly significant field of enquiry in several academic disciplines and researchers are

keen to understand and explain the contradictory aspects of the organisational form (Di

Domenico et al. 2010). Even though substantial efforts have been made to define the concept

of social enterprises, there is still no universal definition available (Leadbeater 1997; Prabhu

1999; Shaw & Carter 2007). The lack of definition is, according to Shaw and Carter (2007)

due to the social enterprise’s heterogeneity and diversity regarding organisational form,

structure, performed activities and client group. Furthermore, the terms social

entrepreneurship and social innovation can create further confusion since they are often used

interchangeably with social enterprises (Antadze & Westley 2010; Luke & Chu 2013), as a

social enterprise often is driven by a social entrepreneur and aims to create social innovation.

Consistent with Abu-Saifan (2012), we adopt an inclusive definition of social enterprises,

which suggests that social enterprises include both non-profit organisations and for-profit

organisation. Social enterprises operating as non-profit organisations incorporate commercial

methods and adopt business practices in order to achieve both social and commercial activity

(Abu-Saifan 2012; Habaradas & Aure 2016). They differ from traditional non-profits due to

7

their business like approach to address societal issues, whereby generated profits and

revenues are used to improve social benefits (Luke & Chu 2013; Adu-Saifan 2012). For-profit

social enterprises on the other hand are explicitly designed to fulfil a social purpose while

simultaneously achieve sustainability and create financial value (Luke & Chu 2013; Adu-

Saifan 2012).

The social mission of social enterprises implies an added complexity for developing the

organisation and business (Tracey & Phillips 2007; Habaradas & Aure 2016). Due to their

societal focus, social enterprises tend to locate activities and operations in markets

characterised by a scarcity of resources, creating a specific set of challenges for social

enterprises (Di Domenico et al. 2010). As social impact, rather than profit, often is regarded

the primary goal of the social enterprise, the expectations early stage investors have on return

on investment can be misaligned with the actual generated return (Lyons & Kickul 2013). The

degree of risk taking can also be perceived higher, as it involves taking risks on less

established approaches with a potential higher risk of failure (Kasper & Marcoux 2014).

Social enterprises do not only have to deal with external resource scarcity, but they also face

internal scarcities of resources. It is argued that many social enterprises find difficulty in

accessing and harnessing the available resources needed in order to succeed (Lall et al.

2013). Furthermore, the individuals behind social enterprises often lack adequate and crucial

business competencies and need to develop analytical and executive skills to help them

manage the organisation, especially when the organisation grows and becomes more complex

with larger financial commitments (Leadbeater 1997). Moreover, social initiatives tend to

lack internal capabilities and resources to build efficient teams, develop viable business

models, identify an appropriate customer base or raise investments necessary to prosper and

scale up (Reach for Change 2016; Lall et al 2013).

In the ecosystem of social innovation and entrepreneurship, there are several actors that

support the development of social enterprises; as venture philanthropic organisations, social

innovation networks and incubators (John 2006; Björk et al. 2014). Incubators are

organisations with an overall aim to support the growth of new enterprises by providing a

wide range of resources and services, whereby the label incubator comprises a large range of

different organisations, such as business incubators, accelerators, science parks and other

similar supporting organisational forms (ECEDG 2002). The provided support differs

8

between different incubators, but in general they offer support as counselling, business

advisors, office space and access to networks through incubator programs (Hansen et al.

2000; Hackett & Dilts 2004; Bollingtoft & Ulhoi 2005).

2.2 Bourdieu’s Capital Theory

In Bourdieu's theory of capital (1986), the sociologist identifies four forms of capital,

economic, social, symbolic and cultural. The holding of capital enforces a social structure

where success is dependent on acquired capital, creating a setting where everyone has

different prerequisites for succeeding. Furthermore, Bourdieu (1986) argues the impossibility

to introduce only one form of capital and advocates that all four forms should be introduced,

not solely the one form presented by economic theory. An incomprehensive recitation of all

forms of capital, would fail to encompass the structure and functions of the social world.

According to Bourdieu (1986), it is paramount to understand that social, symbolic and

cultural forms of capital are equally important to economic capital, if not more important, in

explaining social actions.

The accumulation of capital is considered a timely process but once acquired, capital can

function as a powerful mechanism with the capacity to produce profits and the ability to be

exchanged and transformed into other forms of capital, a process referred to as conversions of

capital. In this conversion process, Bourdieu (1986) argues that each form of capital is

convertible into other forms. The sociologist further claims that conversion implicates an

exchange of transactions between agents and that transforming capital is characterised by a

high degree of risk and uncertainty due to the incommensurability of various forms of capital.

The conversion process occurs when one form of capital, that is already a part of an actor's

resources, is utilised in a way that enables access to other forms of resources. Figure 1. below

illustrates the different forms of capital, as outlined by Bourdieu (1986), in relation to

entrepreneurial literature on economic, social, cultural, symbolic capital their conversions.

9

Figure 1. Forms of capital (Pret et al. 2016)

One of Bourdieu's area of interests has focused on the reflection and problematizing of

legitimisation of power relations in social structures and fields (Foster 1986). Bourdieu draws

attention to issues such as social class and structures, and explores these issues in the context

of higher education, strategies in achieving and upholding social ties and having a powerful

social position, and the classificatory power of language (Foster 1986, Jenkins 1992).

However, the framework has also gained attention within adjacent disciplines such as

organisational literature (Everett 2002). Organisational researchers argue that Bourdieu's

research encompasses a critical yet reflexive outline from which to better study organisations,

since it highlights symbolic features of structures and considers them in relation to both

individual and societal structures (Everett 2002). The use of capital theory in organisational

literature exemplifies how the theory can be applied on an organisational level, even though

Bourdieu mainly explores capital on individual levels.

2.3 Bourdieu within Entrepreneurial Literature

Bourdieu’s work on capital has emerged as a significant theoretical theme in entrepreneurship

literature and has been used to explore how entrepreneurs accumulate and utilise various

forms of capital (de Clercq & Voronov 2009; Terjesen & Elam 2009; Shaw et al. 2013;

Harvey et al 2011; Pret et al. 2016). Within the entrepreneurship field, De Clerq and Voronov

(2009) explore Bourdieu's framework in relation to legitimacy and highlight that capital can

function as an exchange mechanism through which powerful relations are legitimised and

10

maintained. Shaw, Gordon, Harvey and MacLean (2013) on the other hand use Bourdieu's

framework as a tool for analysing the forms of capital possessed by entrepreneurs and how

entrepreneurs deploy capital to enter into and become actors embedded within certain

business fields. In this study, the authors apply the notion of capital and its conversions to

understand how entrepreneurs can use existing capital to gain access to additional forms of

capital.

Harvey et al. (2011), highlight the importance of accumulating all forms of capital and the

leveraging of these resources to develop the enterprise and ensure continuous capital

accumulation. The ability to accumulate and convert business significant capital is further

emphasised by several entrepreneurial researchers, who claim that it is a crucial characteristic

for successful entrepreneurs (Shaw et al 2013; Barringer et al. 2005; Finkelstein et al 2007).

Entrepreneurial researchers have also found that the conversion of capital occasionally can

involve multiple forms of capital, whereby two forms together can generate another form

(Pret et al. 2016)

It is argued that the existent body of research combining the notion of Bourdieu’s capital and

entrepreneurship often is disjointed, whereby a majority of preceding studies focus on one or

two forms of capital, and often disregarding their convertibility (Pret et al. 2016; Stam et al.

2014; Bowey & Easton 2007). Pret, Shaw and Drakopoulou Dodd (2016) highlight this gap

and draw on all forms of Bourdieu’s capital to explore how and why entrepreneurs transform

their capital, and emphasise the complex nature of capital conversions. The research by Pret et

al. (2016) addresses the convertibility of capital in an industry specific context, namely that of

craft entrepreneurship, and the authors call for further research on capital conversions in other

contexts as they expect considerable variation between industries (Pret et al. 2016).

2.4 The forms of capital

The four forms of capital will be outlined and explained in the following section, along with a

review of the conversions of capital.

2.4.1 Economic Capital

Bourdieu (1986) defines economic capital as financial asset or institutionalised in the form of

property rights. This is also highlighted by Shaw et al (2013) and Harvey et al. (2011) who

11

describe economic capital as all tangible resources such as factories, manufacturing facilities

and equipment, in addition to all intangible assets such as patents, trademarks and goodwill.

Additionally, Bourdieu (1986) claims economic capital to have particular abilities for

enhancing access to the other forms of capital, which is further emphasised by Shaw et al.,

(2013) who argue that economic capital is the master form of capital. Other researchers have

also claimed that economic capital is the most essential resource for small enterprises

(Brinckmann et al., 2011; Winborg and Landström 2001). However, even though Bourdieu

states that all forms of capital can be derived from economic capital, the sociologist instructs

caution in assuming that economic capital has precedence above the other forms of capital

(Bourdieu 1984).

Conversion of economic capital

As previously mentioned all forms of capital can be derived from economic capital, however

at the cost of a transformation effort (Bourdieu 1986). The possession of economic capital can

facilitate and leverage access to social, cultural and symbolic capital which both individually

and collectively can enhance performance and power of a social enterprise (Maclean et al.

2006). However, even though economic capital can enable immediate access to some

resources without secondary costs, transforming economic capital possessed by a firm into

other forms of capital is often a complex and time-consuming process. It requires extensive

and long-term investments in time, effort, attention, care and concern in order to successfully

convert monetary aspects into other forms of capital (Bourdieu 1986). Therefore, invested

effort could be regarded rather wasteful from an economic viewpoint, but within

entrepreneurial literature, building on logics of social exchange it is seen as a solid investment

which will yield monetary or social returns in a long-term perspective (Bourdieu 1986; Shaw

et al 2013). In general terms, investing in an elite education can facilitate the development of

essential skills (DiMaggio 1979) and financing admission to respected schools or programs

can grant access to valuable networks (Randle et al. 2014).

2.4.2 Social Capital

According to Bourdieu (1986) social capital consists of social obligations, connections,

associations, relationships and networks that are of significant importance in regards to

accessing information, resources and assets (Bourdieu 1986; Shaw et al. 2013; Harvey et al.

2011). Thus, social capital can provide access to collectively owned capital and enables

12

entrepreneurs to benefit from shared capital (Pret et al 2016). Furthermore, Bourdieu argues

that networks of relationships are the product of investment strategies intended to establish

and uphold social relationships that can prove to be useful and important sources of social

capital. The investment strategy is based upon transforming already contingent relationships

with neighbours and colleagues, into relationships that can be of use in the future. The

processes of maintaining and reproducing social capital implies a constant process of social

exchange which implicates a never ending need to invest both time and energy in the

upholding of social relations (Bourdieu 1986).

The quantity of social capital acquired by an agent is dependent on the dimensions of the

network, the larger the network and the more connections that can be utilised effectively, the

greater the volume of social capital (Bourdieu 1986). However, the value of social capital can

never be guaranteed (Burt 1997) considering that the value of social capital is contingent upon

an agent’s willingness to share his network of relations and the fact that social capital is

inextricably associated with a particular agent, it is also contingent upon the fortunes of that

agent (Harvey et al. 2011). Given the complicated and mutually dependent relationship

between an agent and social value, it is advocated to accumulate social capital within a variety

of networks, to ensure a broad intake of available resources and to reduce the risk of a

network collapse (Burt 2000; Maclean 2008).

Conversion of social capital

Social interaction and network ties can, according to existing research, help actors obtain

access to other actors’ resources and capital (Tsai & Ghoshai 1998; Shaw 2006). Hence, Tsai

& Ghoshai (1998) argue that centrality in a network of social interactions can, along with

trustworthiness and a shared vision, facilitate direct or indirect capital exchange between

actors. According to the authors, tacit social arrangement and informal social relations are

additional forms of social capital with potential positive implications on resource and capital

conversion.

Even though the process is quite time-consuming, Karatas-Özkan (2011) argue that social

capital can, through a process of relational learning, be converted into cultural capital. In this

process, actors can acquire skills from other actors within networks or through existing

relations (Pret et al 2016). In turn, social capital can generate symbolic capital through the

spillover effect that can occur through association with reputable actors (Reuber & Fischer

13

2005). Additionally, social connections can be converted to symbolic capital by enabling

access to respected events, media exposure and facilitation of reputation building (Pret et al.

2016). Lastly, membership in networks and strong social ties can allow access to collectively

held assets which can support conversion of social capital into economic capital, as contacts

can provide resources at a lower cost over even for free (Rooks et al. 2014; Pret et al. 2016).

The transformability into economic capital is however dependent on the strength of the ties

and networks, and maintaining these can be a demanding process (Rooks et al. 2014).

2.4.3 Cultural capital

Cultural capital encompasses forms of prominent societal skills and knowledge, which

endows individuals or organisations power and a higher status in society (Bourdieu 1986).

The form of capital derives value from the ability to access and assemble institutions and

cultural products in society or a specific field of business (de Clercq & Voronov 2009). In

short, cultural capital is the personal dispositions, skills, knowledge, know-how and

capabilities of an entrepreneur, key employees and business associates in an organisation or

enterprise (Harvey et al 2011).

According to Bourdieu’s theory of capital (1986), cultural capital exists in three different

forms: an embodied state, an objectified state and an institutionalised state. The embodied

state takes the form of long-lasting personal dispositions and refers to the ability to behave

according to rules and conducts of relevant contexts (Bourdieu 1986; Shaw et al. 2013; de

Clercq & Voronov 2009). Acquisition of the embodied form of capital occurs quite

unconsciously, often in the absence of deliberate action, through socialisation to traditions and

culture (Bourdieu 1986). Objectified cultural capital refers to cultural activities, material

objects and media that represent a symbolic value, such as an artfully designed office space or

a physical location of operations that inherit strategic value (Bourdieu 1986; de Clercq &

Voronov 2009). In addition, Ingram, Hechavarria and Matthews (2014) identify socio

economic status and net worth as proxy measures to estimate objectified cultural capital.

Lastly, institutionalised cultural capital involves institutional recognition and refers to

credentials and certifications that exhibit qualities and knowledge deemed valuable in a given

context (Bourdieu 1986; de Clercq & Voronov 2009). It often takes the form of educational

qualifications and the recognition that resides in institutionalised cultural capital can indicate

possession of certain abilities, which can provide the holder with credibility (Bourdieu 1986).

14

Conversion of cultural capital

As cultural capital is an integral part of the individual or organisation embodying it, Bourdieu

(1986) argues that cultural resources and assets are not instantaneously transmitted to others.

The sociologist however claims that converting cultural capital to other entities or into other

forms of capital bears a high risk of capital loss in the process, due to the high level of

disguise and concealment. He argues that institutionalised cultural capital is especially

difficult to convert and that these cultural resources, such as academic qualifications, are

neither transmissible nor negotiable. The other forms of cultural capital however have the

ability to be transmitted to others in the holders surrounding environment (Bourdieu 1986).

Both the transmission and accumulation of cultural capital is continuous and diffuse

processes, which occur unconsciously without deliberate action or control, and through

socialisation (Bourdieu 1986). According to Bourdieu (1986), time is an important factor in

this process and the effectiveness of transforming and converting cultural capital is highly

dependent on the available, usable time. Extant research on capital theory within

entrepreneurship literature emphasise that technical and market knowledge that stems from

cultural capital is essential for entrepreneurs’ to develop a compelling value proposition and

to establish successful ventures (Harvey et al. 2011; Helfat & Lieberman 2002). According to

Davidsson and Honing (2003), possession of large amounts of cultural capital, as relevant

education and especially experience, can have positive implications for an entrepreneur's

ability to acquire and convert other forms of capital.

Pret et al. (2016) have found that cultural capital appears to have high rates of conversion into

both economic and symbolic capital in an entrepreneurial context. The authors claim that

cultural capital can contribute to skills that may enable entrepreneurs to produce cultural

artefacts and resources that hold economical value. Practical experience and skills are in such

a scenario considered to be the most important components of transforming cultural capital

into economic capital (Pret et al. 2016). Cultural capital can also be converted into symbolic

capital, since cultural resources as industry experience can facilitate and promote reputation

building (Beverland 2005; Bitektine 2011). This is further emphasised by Pret et al. (2016),

who suggests that talented entrepreneurs, hence entrepreneurs with high levels of cultural

capital, can be assigned high levels of prestige. Cultural capital can also be converted into

social capital, for instance in the form of high socioeconomic status which can assist

15

entrepreneurs to gain access to wider social networks (Pret et al. 2016; Anderson & Miller

2003).

2.4.4 Symbolic capital

Symbolic capital refers to the legitimacy, credibility and reputation of an actor as perceived

by others and is often associated with the possession of status, prestige, honour and reputation

(Bourdieu 1986; 1993; Terjesen & Elam 2009). According to Bourdieu (1993), symbolic

capital can represent the ability to mediate power through its inherent prestige and to

manipulate symbolic artefacts and resources as writing, myth and language (De Clercq &

Voronov 2009). Harvey et al. (2011) further claim that symbolic capital can be referred to as a

generator of trust to important stakeholders as financiers, partners, employees and customers.

Hence, symbolic resources may have the ability to empower an entrepreneur’s business. As

symbolic capital closely aligns with actor’s reputation or prestige, it can engender beliefs

within specific field that the organisation will deliver performance and provide value along

key dimensions of the given field (De Clercq & Voronov 2009; Harvey et al 2011). Thereby,

symbolic capital is recognised to be a particularly powerful form of capital (Pret et al 2016;

De Clercq & Voronov 2009). The value that symbolic capital can bring to an entrepreneur is

therefore strongly dependent on the importance other actors within the field attribute to

symbolic recognitions (Pret et al 2016; Fuller & Tian 2006).

Conversion of symbolic capital

Symbolic capital is argued to be less liquid than other forms of capital and can thereby be

harder to convert and acquire (Harvey & MacLean 2008). In the context of entrepreneurs,

symbolic resources as reputation and brand, can be converted to the other forms of capital, in

the form of contracts from partners, revenues and support from various key social networks

and ties (Terjseen & Elam 2009). For instance, prestige and reputation can according to

Lawrence (2004) be converted into cultural capital by providing opportunities for

apprenticeships with recognised experts. Similarly, Coulson (2012) and Lawrence (2004)

claim that an entrepreneur's symbolic capital can be converted into social capital as

professional distinction and prestige can facilitate contact building and access to social

networks. By utilising the power gained through credentials and recognition, entrepreneurs

are able to grow their business and to pursue both social and business goals (Pret et al. 2016).

For instance, Zott and Huy (2016) claim that displaying symbols of achievement may

16

establish legitimacy, which can increase sales and thereby result in a conversion of symbolic

capital into economic capital.

2.5 Theoretical approach

As presented in the literature review, the social aspect of social enterprises implies an added

complexity as they face extensive resource scarcity, along with the challenges faced by

traditional entrepreneurs. Due to a higher degree of risk perceived by investors, social

enterprises have more difficulties finding sustainable financing which implies a limited access

to external resources. Furthermore, a lack of internal capabilities such as business acumen,

implies restricted internal resources. Adding to the traditional entrepreneurial challenges of

developing the enterprise and ensure continuous resource accumulation, the limited external

and internal resources create a specific set of challenges for social enterprises: to access new

and manage available resources. Furthermore, they often need to seek support within the

ecosystem of social entrepreneurship, where incubators are one example of an available

supporting function. In order to understand how incubators can enable social enterprises’

development, the aim of this thesis paper is to investigate how social enterprises utilise and

leverage the external support provided by incubators to deal with the challenges connected to

their resource scarce environment.

To fulfil this aim, this thesis will seek to examine and increase the understanding of social

enterprises and their development by applying Bourdieu’s theory of capital (1986). The

theory identifies four forms of capital; economic, social, cultural and symbolic, and describes

how each form of capital is convertible into another form through a transformation processes.

We argue that Bourdieu’s theory of capital is a relevant tool for analysing how social

enterprises utilise resources provided by incubators, as capital and conversions of capital can

be understood as a theoretical translation of the research question. The resources social

enterprises receive from incubators can be understood as the different forms of capital

presented in the aforementioned literature. Moreover, conversion of capital can be understood

as a means for social enterprises to utilise the provided capital, by transforming different

forms of capital into other forms. By applying these theoretical concepts to the studied

phenomena, Bourdieu’s theory of capital will help us understand how social enterprises utilise

provided resources, or if theoretically phrased convert provided capital. In the forthcoming

17

analysis and discussion the theoretical definitions of capital and conversions will be used in

order to address the aim of the study.

In order to answer the research question and investigate conversions of capital in our studied

context, we will initially need to map what forms of capital social enterprises received from

incubators. Using the definitions of the different forms of capital presented in the above

literature review, we will aim to identify and link the provided resources to economic, social,

cultural or symbolic capital. Once the resources have been connected to a form of capital, the

mapping will serve as a ground and enable analysis of how social enterprises convert capital.

The research presented in the above literature on capital conversions, will help us understand

how social enterprises can convert capital. Even though Bourdieu applies capital theory on an

individual level of analysis, the theory has also been used to understand organisational

structures, whereby we argue that it is a valuable theory that can be used to explore

conversions in the context of social enterprises.

18

3. Methodology The following section will outline the chosen methodology and explain how the study was

conducted, and present an argumentation for selected choices. Furthermore, this section

presents limitations with the conducted process and implications for the results.

3.1 Research Design

The aim of this thesis paper is to explore how social enterprises use and leverage support from

incubators. To fulfil this objective and enable a deeper understanding of how social

enterprises utilise received support, a qualitative study is preferred. A qualitative study

enables the analysis of behaviours and experiences more comprehensively and in depth

(Saunders et al., 2009). In addition, qualitative method facilitates the explorative approach to

the empirical findings and allows for an extensive concluding discussion (Saunders et al.,

2009). The primary data of the study consisted of semi-structured interviews whereby

investigations with fifteen social enterprises were conducted. The interviews were further

complemented with secondary sources obtained from the social enterprises, as annual reports,

income statements and information from websites.

In order to better understand the nature of how social enterprises convert received capital, the

study adapts an inductive approach building on existing research in entrepreneurship

literature. The context in which relationships are studied is important within the inductive

approach and it is advocated to use a small sample selection and instead conduct in-depth

investigations, whereby this study examines a sample of fifteen social enterprises.

Furthermore, the inductive approach is preferred when researching a novel phenomenon on

which there is little existing literature (Saunders et al. 2009), such as social enterprises and

their deployment of resources.

3.2 Sample Selection

To enable a deep understanding of the studied phenomena, a similar group of social

enterprises were selected by adopting a judgemental sampling approach (Saunders et al.

2009). The organisations were selected based on a number of criterions considered

particularly important for the specific context. The primary criterion was that the social

enterprise should be a relatively small actor, probable to have limited access to resources and

19

capital. Such enterprises were considered to be reliant on external support in the early years of

operations and thereby suitable to portray how the support was utilised. Hence, large-scale

social businesses or MNCs engaged in social innovation projects were ruled out of the sample

selection. Another main criteria were that the studied social enterprise had received or

currently were receiving support from an incubator. Since incubators are characterised by an

overall aim to support start-up enterprises, we considered it highly plausible that the study

objects had received various forms of capital throughout the incubator program. Therefore,

the study was limited to investigate support received from incubators, and not other types of

investors or supporting functions.

In order to identify suitable enterprises, the websites of some incubators were searched to

ensure that the social enterprise indeed received or had received support. A final criterion was

that the social enterprise both had its origin from Sweden and was based in Sweden, a

criterion chosen to facilitate access to subject companies. In addition, to delimit the study to

social enterprises in one national context was reasoned to contribute to a deeper

understanding of the phenomena in the specific setting. Lastly, to facilitate the data collection,

the judgement sampling was combined with a convenience sampling, based on the ability to

access intended sample. Based on the aforementioned criterion, a number of social enterprises

were identified suitable and were contacted whereby fifteen social enterprises were identified

as suitable to partake in the study.

Furthermore, the respondents representing the social enterprise also needed to hold certain

criteria. To gain a general and comprehensive perspective of provided support, mainly

founders, co-founders, CEO’s or Operating Officers, were asked to participate. As all

participating social enterprises were relatively small organisational entities, in terms of

employees and operations, these participants were deemed to have comprehensive insights

and could therefore provide an overall perspective of the engagement with incubators and

contribute to the understanding of the studied phenomena.

3.3 The Interviews

Throughout this explorative study, Kvale’s (1983, 1996) proposed guide of how to perform

qualitative studies and conduct interviews is applied. Kvale’s four steps of how to conduct

interviews are; thematizing, planning of interviews, conducting the interviews and

20

transcription of interviews (Kvale, 1983, 1996). The initial step of thematizing addresses the

questions of what, how and why the phenomenon is researched. What is investigated: how

social enterprises utilise the resources and support provided by incubators, how; by

conducting interviews with social enterprises previously or currently involved with an

incubator, why; to increase the understanding of the development process of social

enterprises. The interviews were planned and structured using a semi-structured format,

which enables a degree of flexibility and emergence of new issues, concurrently as it ensures

the responses of specific, important questions. The semi-structured format is advocated when

the purpose of the interviews is to gather data that will be analysed qualitatively, answering

the questions of ’what’ and ’how’ but also placing much emphasis on the ’why’ (Saunders et

al. 2009).

Prior to the interviews, each participant was sent a thematic overview of the discussion

subjects, since it is important that respondents are aware of the major topics addressed in an

interview (Cassel, 2015). The thematic overview of subjects was however not used by the

interviewers, who deployed a more thorough and detailed set of questions in order to assure

complete coverage of the theoretical literature and avoid the risk of forgetting a question.

Considering that the respondents only were disclosed with the thematic overview of subjects,

the discussion allowed for a deeper focus on personal reflections instead of being tied to

predetermined, standardised questions.

Both interviewers were present during the interviews, since this facilitated the process of

adding additional questions and asking follow-up questions without any unnecessary

interruption of the interview. As far as manageable, the interviews were conducted in person,

since that facilitates the establishment of a trusting environment and personal connection to be

made without unnecessary misunderstandings of questions. In person interviews also enables

the respondents to reflect on events without necessary preparation and eludes any reluctance

of providing sensitive and confidential information to someone they never met. However, due

to limitations such as geographical location, some interviews had to be conducted over phone

or Skype. Even though interviews conducted by telephone could affect the interpretation of

responses and implicate a loss of nonverbal data, Cassel (2015) argues that they are

favourable since they can overcome obstacles such as distance and lack of time.

21

Considering that this study investigates social enterprises in Sweden, all interviews were

conducted in Swedish since that was the primary language of the respondents. This facilitated

the communication and enabled more open discussions and conversations. The interviews

were concluded with an open ended question, since this provided the interviewee with the

opportunity to add certain aspects that were not discussed or brought up by the interviewers

and sums up the interview and previous discussion in a favourable manner (Cassel 2015).

Probing questions were used when the responses from open questions did not reveal the

underlying reasoning involved or when the response was unclear, this was done in order to

receive a more comprehensive narrative of the phenomena (Saunders et al. 2009).

When conducting semi-structured interviews, interviewers need to be aware that the means of

interaction with the interviewee and how questions are asked can impact the collected data

(Silverman 2007). In order to avoid such interviewer bias, the authors phrased questions

clearly and openly so that the respondent could fully understand them and communicated

them in a neutral tone of voice. In addition, probing questions could encourage significant

responses without imposing own judgements (Saunders et al. 2009).

3. 4 Operationalization

All of the interviews started with open background questions where the respondents were

asked to describe the social enterprise and their role in the organisation. According to Lundahl

and Skärvad (1999), such an approach gives the respondents a chance to become comfortable

in the interview setting and can enable a relaxed discussion between interviewee and

interviewers. The warm-up questions also provided the interviewers with a general

understanding of the social business and gave the opportunity to contextualise the

interviewee’s answers (Bryman & Bell 2007).

In order to secure that the research objectives of the study were answered in a rigorous way,

the rest of the questions were operationalized by transforming the theoretical constructs of

capital into feasible measures (Saunders et al. 2009). By doing this, the interviewers could

avoid theoretical explanations of the forms of capital and their conversions and thereby

facilitate the respondent’s full understanding of the questions, as they may not be familiar

with the theoretical concepts. The measures identified specific factors familiar to the

interviewee, which enabled the authors to create a link between theory and the empirical

22

findings and could facilitate the empirical testing process. Furthermore, conceptual definitions

were presented in relation to the theoretical definitions with the aim to contextualise the

purpose the theoretical constructs fulfilled in the study. Table 2 below illustrates the

operationalization process from theoretical concept and definition into investigative measures

and related questions.

Concept Theoretical Definition Conceptual Definition Investigative Parameters

Economic Capital

Financial assets, other tangible and intangible business assets

To understand how social enterprises utilise financial investments and other business assets

Financing, investment, financial support, investors, free services, ability to employ

Social Capital

Actual and potential resources able to access through a durable network of relationships

To understand how social enterprises utilise social networks and relations

Relationships, networks, contacts, partnerships

Cultural Capital

Personal dispositions, cultural goods, education and skills

To understand how social enterprises utilise expert advice and knowledge

Counselling, expert advice, knowledge, competence

Symbolic Capital

Possession of legitimacy, prestige and reputation

To understand how social enterprises use legitimacy and symbolic resources

Reputation, brand, media presence, PR

Conversion Transform one form of capital to another

To understand how social enterprises utilise received support and resources, and transform it into other resources

Utilise, use, take advantage of, make use of, harness

Table 2. Operationalization process

The questions were constructed to cover the four forms of capital and their conversions and

grouped accordingly. The conceptual definitions and the investigative parameters of the

different forms of capital also served as a basis for operationalization of conversions of

capital, and were combined with the definition and parameters for conversion. Due to the

intangible manner of capital conversions, the questions asked to investigate conversions were

often implicit and the investigative parameters were used to understand how the enterprises

could utilise the resources. In order to grasp how capital could be converted, open questions

were asked to get the respondents to reflect upon how a received resource could generate an

additional resource, which enabled the respondent to elaborate in a liberal and open

discussion.

23

3.5 The analysis process

Shortly after the interviews were conducted and prior to the transcription, notes were taken of

the initial reflections and thoughts. The notes provided a summary of the initial impressions

and observations that were made during the interview. The interviews were transcribed

shortly after they were conducted in order to fully capture what the participants expressed and

how they expressed it (Saunders et al. 2009). Furthermore, it could eliminate risk of

misinterpretation and for valuable insights to be lost (Denzin & Lincoln 2000). Some of the

responses were used as quotes in the discussion, to highlight certain reflections or believes

and were in those cases translated into English. Translation could have resulted in potential

misinterpretation, but the interviewers attempted to translate quotes with highest caution and

carefulness to reduce such risks.

The analysis process, which started while conducting the interviews, was followed by

categorisation and interpretation of the empirical data. The transcribed interviews were used

and the material was coded and categorised into different themes, whereby the themes were

arranged primarily in accordance with Bourdieu’s (1986) four forms of capital and identified

conversions of capital. Initially, the received forms of capital was categorised according to the

themes, which further served as a basis for identifying how one form of capital could be

converted into another form. Conversions were identified when a respondent explained how a

received resource could generate an additional resource. Coding and categorising provided a

clear overview of the empirical material, which facilitated the analysis process as it enabled

the interviewers to more clearly connect findings with the theoretical concepts of capital.

Before the step of coding and categorising, the interviewers ruled out the enterprises’ own

resources or resources that the respondents had received from other supporting functions such

as investors. This distinction was made to make sure only capital from incubators was

investigated.

In order to validate the empirical findings from the interviews a triangulation process was

conducted, where primary data were complemented by secondary data. The secondary

material was used to examine, compare and verify the answers from respondents and to find

additional connections to theory (Saunders et al., 2009). Since some of the investigative

parameters had a high degree of incommensurability, these parameters were more difficult to

validate. However, to ensure a validity in the empirical findings related to intangible and

24

abstract means, we examined whether the incubators’ brand or logo were used on an

enterprises homepage, mail-by-line or in annual reports. This provided a us with a suggestion

of the incommensurable value of an incubators’ trademark, which deemed especially relevant

for analysing symbolic capital.

25

4. Analysis This section presents the empirical findings derived from fifteen interviews while discussing

them in relation to each other and previous research considered in the aforementioned

literature review. Initially, a brief description of Bourdieu’s (1986) forms of capital that were

provided by incubators is presented, followed by a section discussing how capital can be

converted.

4.1 What resources did the social enterprises receive?

The support provided by incubators varied in regards to format, size and durability but the

support also shared several characteristics. Based on the empirical material, the most

commonly identified types of support are presented below and connected to the theoretical

concepts of capital (Bourdieu 1986). Table 3 outlines the support that social enterprises

received by participating in the incubator program.

Social enterprise Economic capital Social capital Cultural capital Symbolic capital

Blue Call Seed investment Free office space

External Networks Internal Connections Community

Advisory Boards Training

Quality Mark Publicity

Challengize No financial investment Free office space

External Networks Expert Coaching Training

Publicity Quality Mark

Cirkus Unik Yearly investment External Networks Internal Connections

Advisory Boards Training

Legitimacy Quality Mark

DayCape Yearly investment External Networks Internal Connections Community

Advisory Boards Training

Quality Mark

Föreningen Storasyster

Yearly investment External Networks Training Quality Mark

Föreningen Tillsammans

Yearly investment External Networks Internal Connections Community

Advisory Boards Training

Credibility Quality Mark Publicity

Invitations- departementet

Yearly investment Alliances Associations

Workshops Prestige Quality Mark

Learning to Sleep

No financial investment External Networks - Quality Mark Publicity

Medfilm No financial investment Subsidised office space

External Networks

External Coaching Training

Prestige

26

Newsvoice Seed investment Free office space

External Networks Internal Connections Community

Expert Coaching Training

Quality Mark Credibility Publicity

Picture my Life

No financial investment Free office space

External Networks Internal Connections

Expert Coaching Training

Quality Mark

Svenska med Baby

Yearly investment

Alliances Associations

Workshops Reputation Prestige

Trine Seed Investment External Networks Workshops Training

Validity

Welcome Investment Subsidised office space

External Networks Internal Connections

Workshops Legitimacy

We Unite Design

Yearly investment Community Advisory Boards Workshops

Publicity

Table 3. Types of support

Bourdieu (1986) defines economic capital as tangible and intangible financial assets, support

and investments. The empirical findings show that the received financial support varied

between the interviewed social enterprises. The majority of the interviewed organisations

received financial support in the form of yearly investments, while three organisations

received smaller seed investments and three of them did not receive any financial support. In

addition to smaller investments, another resource regarded as economic capital was the free or

subsidised office space, a support six of the interviewees received.

The empirical findings indicate that social enterprises benefit from social capital in the form

of networks, connections, associations and relationships by their engagement with the

incubator. All of the interviewed social enterprises claimed that participating in incubator

programs enabled access to the incubators external network, which according to Bourdieu

(1986) translates into social capital. A majority of the respondents highlighted that incubators

also provided internal connections within the incubator program. The general opinion was

that it could open up to and facilitate building of internal relations, as the enterprises had the

opportunity to interact with other social enterprises. In addition, some incubator programs

provided a shared office space with other enterprises, whereby a majority of the respondents

perceived that such an environment further enabled access to connections and facilitated

informal meetings. Furthermore, the empirical material shows that being a part of an

incubator can make entrepreneurs feel included in a context since they can share experiences

with others in the same position, which is especially valuable according to social enterprises

27

with only one, or a few, full-time employees. This is exemplified by Håkansson (Day Cape):

“I think it provides a lot of support, it is nice to know that everyone is more or less in the

same boat, everyone has got their own issues and challenges they struggle with, but you can

share that a little and everyone encourages one another which is nice”.

One prominent feature of all the supporting initiatives was expert advice, workshops, training

and coaching, which is seen as means to develop cultural capital. Cultural capital is regarded

to incorporate the personal dispositions, skills, knowledge and capabilities of individual actors

within an organisation (Harvey et al. 2011). The incubator programs’ training and coaching

was largely connected to the development of specific set of skills or area of knowledge, often

in the form of lectures or workshops. In order to develop the business acumen of social

enterprises, experts within particular business fields were hired to educate them within areas

as business modelling, business development, media and public relations. Löfgren (Blue Call)

exemplifies the educational element when reflecting upon the counselling by coaches: “The

coaches are great, they are all former entrepreneurs who they themselves have made

profitable exists but also failed at managing companies, so they really have a broad

knowledge within enterprise building”. The above-mentioned quote illustrates cultural

capital, exemplified in the forms of expert advice and knowledge. In addition, several

respondents emphasised that incubators contributed with a business mind-set and some

highlight that incubators helped them enforce accountability through the development of

reporting templates and identification of relevant and measurable indicators. This further

demonstrates how social enterprises were provided cultural capital through the support from

incubators.

A general perception was that the association with incubators and participation in the various

programs provided a sense of legitimacy or validity, which can represent symbolic capital

(Bourdieu 1986). All of the respondents considered the provided legitimacy to be a significant

component of the incubators’ support and nine of the respondents directly claimed that the

support from incubators implied a quality mark.

4.2 How social enterprises deal with resource scarcity

As mentioned in the literature review, capital can be converted into other forms of capital and

Harvey et al. (2011) emphasises the importance for entrepreneurs to leverage available

28

resources in order to create a prosperous enterprise. How the studied enterprises converted the

capital gained through the incubator’s support will hereunder be presented and analysed.

4.2.1 Conversion of Economic Capital

As the amount of financial support varied between the studied social enterprises, the

perceived contribution of the support and the ability to utilise it also varied. The empirical

material indicates that financial support mainly contributed to development of competence

and knowledge since the social enterprises were able to hire employees or expert consultants,

which can be seen as economic capital converted into cultural capital.

Social Capital Cultural Capital Symbolic Capital

There is little or no evidence of this conversion in this study

Investments enable employment and salaries to existing employees Investments enable the hiring of expert consultants with needed competence

There is little or no evidence of this conversion in this study

Table 4. Conversion of Economic Capital

The financial support enabled several of the social enterprises to employ for the first time, or

to hire external consultants with the needed capabilities and knowledge. Åkerman

(Invitationsdepartementet) emphasises how they could convert financial support into

capabilities and skills, by employing staff and hiring consultants: ”Salaries really, and to be

able to hire two more people, that is still our largest expense, and of course IT-consultants

and these seminars we arrange, but that's really what the money goes to”. The possibility to

recruit new employees increases the social enterprises’ human capital and internal knowledge.

In addition, new employees or external consultants also provide social enterprises with

additional knowledge or competence, that was unattainable prior to the financial support.

Thereby, it can be argued that provided economic capital is converted into cultural capital,

since it according to Harvey et al. (2013) provides capabilities and skills held by employees.

Another example of a conversion between economic and cultural capital are the costless or

subsidised business services that many of the social enterprises received. These business

services implied access to expert knowledge in certain fields, and are argued to be a

conversion of economic capital to cultural capital. The empirical material presents several

cases where social enterprises acquired valuable insights within fields ranging from law and

29

public relations to patents and trademarks, without having to reimburse their advisor.

Malmström (Picture My Life) reflects upon this: “...when you needed help with something

you could also receive ‘value checks’ for certain agencies that worked with the particular

issues, that's how they helped us get our trademark protection”. The quote illustrates how

economic capital was converted into cultural capital through the use of value checks, which

rendered knowledge concerning trademarks and protection.

The findings did not present any concrete evidence that social enterprises could convert

financial support into social or symbolic capital. The financial support that some of the social

enterprises received, was not used to gain access to memberships, nor did it enable symbolic

value in the form of a prestigious education. Hence, cultural capital was the only form of

capital identified as derived from economic capital, which suggests that it is difficult for

social enterprises to leverage financial support into other types of resources. It is plausible

that the need to invest time, effort and attention towards the transformation of economic

capital into other forms, is one reason as to why cultural capital was the only form identified

as derived from economic capital. The interviewees strongly expressed time as being a scarce

resource, which can explain the single conversion of economic capital into one other form of

capital in the context of social enterprises. In a long-term perspective, the investment effort

could however still yield monetary returns in the future and it is not necessary to regard it as

wasteful (Bourdieu 1986; Shaw 2013).

4.2.2 Conversion of Social Capital

One of the considerable benefits with support from incubators was, according to the social

enterprises, access to increased social capital in the form of networks, associations and

relationships. The use of networks can according to several respondents provide entry to

additional networks and thereby enable contact with new investors. According to previous

research, this suggests that social capital is significant in regards to accessing new resources

(Bourdieu 1986; Shaw et al. 2013; Harvey et al. 2011). In the empirical context, social capital

was the only form detected as convertible to all other forms of capital, which suggest that the

form of capital is a highly valuable resource for social enterprises as it can be leveraged in

various ways.

30

Economic Capital Cultural Capital Symbolic Capital

The large social networks render access to new investors Social contacts provide access to venues or services free of charge

Knowledge, skills and competence are acquired through relations within the network Competent and knowledgeable people are appointed board members

Association with respectable actors create beneficial spill-over effects Contacts provide access to events and media exposure Impact on reputation building, both positive and negative effects

Table 5. Conversion of Social Capital

Conversion of social to economic capital

Throughout the interviews, social capital in the form of networks, relationships and contacts,

was highlighted as a prominent feature of the incubator program. The social enterprises

emphasise the significance of having access to large networks, hence large volume of social

capital, which was enabled by the incubators. Kylén (Medfilm) reflects upon the meaning of

this, in relation to their development process and further investments:

“It is hard to know where we would be today without them, I think the reason as to why

we got the first round of investment was because we were a part of this internal board

formed by [incubator] where business angels also participated, that is how we got in

contact with that investor, if we hadn't been a part of the board, we would never have

met him...”

The fact that the incubators’ large social networks provided access to an additional set of

potential investors was regarded as a highly important aspect of the incubator program.

Several of the respondents stressed the issue of how the social capital of incubators facilitated

the search for new investors and Löfgren explains that they have gained all their current

investors by searching in their incubator’s network. Another respondent emphasises this

conversion of social capital to economic capital even further by stating: “that investment was

actually a recommendation from [incubator] or more of a tip that they [additional investors]

gladly saw that we applied for the investment” (Åkerman, Invitationsdepartementet). The

aforementioned examples illustrate how social support from incubator programs can be

utilised to gain financial support in the form of new investors, thereby confirming the direct

convertibility of social capital into economic capital.

31

The empirical material also presents incidences when conversion of social capital into

economic capital has occurred more indirectly, which can be found in several cases.

According to theory, entry to networks can enable access to collectively owned assets since

contacts sometimes are capable of providing resources at lower economic cost or free of

charge (Pret et al. 2016). Håkansson (Day Cape) describes such a situation, where their

contact could provide access to a location without charging for it.

“We brainstormed a lot with our business advisor, and at one point we were about to

organise an event for children with autism but we didn't have a suitable venue, but these

brainstorming meetings were always held at their office which was kind of a cool office

space, so we just asked, can we use your office? And they made it happen.” (Håkansson,

Day Cape)

This quote illustrates how Day Cape’s business advisor, which in this instance is regarded as

social capital initially granted by the incubator, provided access to a location free of charge,

thereby rendering economic capital. Besides getting access to locations and venues free of

charge, the empirical material also illustrates that social capital, as relations and social ties,

can enable services such as consultants and knowledgeable experts free of charge, resulting in

a conversion into economic capital. Håkansson exhibits how creativity and the courage to ask,

ultimately can result in the conversion of social capital to economic capital. This is supported

by many of the respondents, who claim that even though the incubator provides them with

resources, it is up to the enterprise themselves to utilise the support for it to have effect on

their business. Hence, conversion of social capital to economic capital is a conscious and

determined process for social enterprises, where they must take deliberate action for

conversion to occur.

Conversion of social to cultural capital

Social capital was also found to be convertible into cultural capital, through learning

processes with relations and contacts, as stated by Karatas-Özkan (2011). This conversion

process is described by Pret et al. (2016), who claim that actors acquiring skills from other

actors through existing relations within the same network can be seen as conversion of social

capital to cultural capital. In the context of social enterprises, social capital has been found as

convertible into cultural capital in several examples. The conversion process can occur both

32

informally and formally within the networks that the incubators provide access to. A formal

conversion is exemplified by Rosman (Welcome): “We have some formalised events such as

‘lunch-and-learn’ which is once a month, were an enterprise tells the story of their journey

and what they have done”. Other examples of conversion from social capital to cultural

capital occur more informally with people simply talking and exchanging knowledge within

the network: “All enterprises are in different stages, which we also can benefit from, we can

learn from their mistakes and try to avoid some pitfalls” (Östfeldt, Föreningen Tillsammans).

By gaining access to the incubators’ large social network, the social enterprises can

circumvent the possible lack of resources in the form of knowledge and know-how, since they

instead gain these insights from the other incubated enterprises in the network.

Furthermore, the empirical material highlights another positive effect of converting social

capital to cultural capital, namely the use of contacts obtained through the network as board

members. This is true for many of the social enterprises, and illustrated by the following

quote “[...] otherwise it’s their networks really, through them we have found more people for

our board, who we think contribute with great knowledge and engagement” (Rosman,

Welcome). The example describes how social enterprises utilise their engagement with

incubators and particularly, their social capital, in order to gain access to competent and

relevant people to appoint to a board of directors.

Conversion of social to symbolic capital

According to theoretical researchers, social capital can be transformed into symbolic capital

through spillover effects derived from associating with respectable actors (Reuber & Fischer

2005). In the empirical context, the respect and reputation emanating from incubators was

considered an intrinsic feature since it could generate positive spill-over effects. The

incubators were often portrayed as respectable actors, whereby many respondents illustrated

that they leveraged being associated with the incubators, thereby converting social capital into

symbolic capital. The symbolic value of being connected with a respectable actor was

according to the respondents, important for social enterprises since it can increase their

legitimacy, or as expressed by Åkerman (Invitationsdepartementet): “I would say that it is a

quality stamp, both because they do a lot of interesting things in a variety of different fields,

but mainly because it is so strongly associated with a powerful business woman in charge of a

large corporate group”. The quote illustrates a conversion of social capital to symbolic

capital since the powerful businesswoman in this case was a social contact enabled by the

33

engagement with the incubators, but which also resulted in symbolic capital for the social

enterprise due to her prestigious reputation.

Furthermore, theory states that social connections and networks can be converted to symbolic

capital by providing access to certain events (Pret et al. 2016), which is indicated in the study.

Åkerman (Invitationsdepartementet) exemplifies how their incubator arranged a large

seminar: “[...] where prominent influencers from business sector and academia are invited to

present and lecture [...] to be seen in those contexts enables us to reach out to a very

interesting and influential network that I would never have had access to if I had sent out the

invitations myself”. The quote reflects how social enterprises convert social capital into

symbolic capital, as the context in itself provides social enterprises with a symbolic value

because of the strong association with the respectable actors within the incubators network.

Another conversion that was highlighted throughout the empirical investigation is illustrated

by Östfeldt (Föreningen Tillsammans): “I would never have such an entryway to politicians

and I would never been able to meet and talk to them if it weren’t for the [incubator], which

makes it extremely valuable”. The empirical example aligns with the theoretical argument that

association with an respectable actors, in this case incubators, can have positive spill-over

effects, whereby social capital can be converted into symbolic capital (Reuber & Fischer

2005).

However, a few respondents did not agree that association with start-up incubators was

positive towards all stakeholders. For instance, Löfgren (BlueCall) was unsure whether being

associated with their incubator was positive towards potential partners and media:

“It’s possible it could backlash when it comes to media and partners since our

[incubator] screams start-up, it’s perceived as a school and we could therefor be

perceived as business-rookies. Towards partners that might not be a quality mark since

it becomes apparent that we are a new company, compared to if we would have

positioned us as an established company and push the ‘start-up stamp’ aside”.

The findings imply that conversion of social capital to symbolic capital in the context of

social enterprises is dependent on the reputation and character of the associated actor as

perceived by others. In the example above, social capital is converted into symbolic capital

through the association with incubators focusing on start-ups, rendering an unwanted

34

symbolic reputation for the social enterprise in question. Social enterprises that seek to

establish themselves, as reliable and professional actors might thereby not aim to be

associated with start-up incubators, as they believe some stakeholders will perceive them as

novices. However, the findings show that willingness of association is largely dependent on

context, and that in some contexts and towards other stakeholders, association with start-ups

can also imply positive influences. Moreover, as the social enterprises at times avoid

highlighting association with incubators, the finding also illustrates the active and deliberate

nature of converting social capital.

4.2.3 Conversion of Cultural Capital

According to the literature review, possession of large amounts of cultural assets, as relevant

experience and education, can facilitate the conversion process of cultural capital (Shaw et al

2013; Davidsson & Honing 2003). Cultural capital was a pronounced and valuable

component of the incubator programs and the findings indicate that the social enterprises, to

some extent, have converted their acquired cultural assets into other capital forms.

Economic capital Social Capital Symbolic Capital

Pitch training can help attain new investors Expert advice, counselling and workshops can enhance business development, which can increase income

There is little or no evidence of this conversion in this study

Industry experience can improve reputation building The advice and knowledge received from incubators provide a symbolic value

Table 6. Conversion of Cultural Capital

Conversion of cultural capital to economic capital

Some of the respondents highlighted that the pitch training was very valuable for them when

approaching investors. Roman (Challengize) emphasised that the pitch training was a

determinant factor for him in attaining economic capital, and explained how they utilised

cultural capital in the following quote:

35

“They have definitely helped us get in contact with investors, I have never raised money

in my life so I didn't know at all what I was doing, but we attended pitch trainings,

investor meet-ups, learned how to sell our idea, how to convey a sense of hope and

future and through them [incubator] I have learned, now I could take that with me and

probably use that experience in a future company, which I never could have before [...]”

(Roman, Challengize).

The excerpt describes how the social enterprise learned how to approach investors, how to

talk to them and how to convey the right message at pitch events, which are all components

that can be regarded as cultural capital. Hence, it illustrates how the social enterprise

converted cultural capital into economic capital. Lidholt (Newsvoice), who had only been a

part of the incubator a short period of time, was confident that the pitch training would be

decisive when he was going to raise new capital and pitch to potential investors. These

examples illustrate how social enterprises have (or plan to) utilised cultural capital in the form

of skills and training and converted it into economic capital. Hence, the findings are in

accordance with Pret et al’s (2016) reasoning that practical skills are considered important

components that facilitate an entrepreneurs’ conversion of cultural capital into economic

capital.

In addition, many respondents emphasised the importance of expert advice and counselling in

regards to their organisational and operational development and the empirical findings show

how these were utilised to gain additional forms of capital. Östfeldt (Föreningen

Tillsammans) believes that they were able to generate higher incomes, due to the workshops

and trainings provided in the incubators program, indicating a conversions of cultural capital

into economic capital. Even though many respondents highlighted the positive implications

cultural capital had, the findings did not suggest any other concrete evidence of expert advice

and counselling being converted into financial assets, yet. A potential explanation could be in

accordance with Bourdieu’s (1986) reasoning that conversion of cultural capital is a variable

of time, whereby it is plausible that the social enterprises could yield financial returns in a

longer run.

Conversion of cultural capital to symbolic capital

Research presented in the literature review also highlighted that cultural capital in the form of

industry experience can facilitate and promote reputation building and thereby be transformed

36

into symbolic capital (Beverland 2005; Bitektine 2011). The empirical findings suggest that

the cultural assets such as expert advisors and counselling, received from incubators can be

transformed into symbolic value. For instance, Kylén (Medfilm) described how one of their

subsequent investors had been very positive to the fact that they received advice from experts:

“Surely, I believe it was only favourable that they saw that we could utilise the expert and

competence part, and that they brought in consultants without any costs for us. As business

angels they regarded it as very promising”. The quote illustrates how the expert competencies

provided by incubator, creates a symbolic value within the social enterprise, since other

external actors regarded it as promising feature.

The empirical material indicates that social enterprises were able to convert cultural capital

into both economic and symbolic capital. Although the findings indicate examples of such

conversions, the conversion of cultural capital into symbolic or economic capital was not a

common conversion in the context of social enterprises. The finding thereby indicates a

difference between industries regarding the convertibility of cultural capital since previous

research has found cultural capital to be a natural conversion into economic and symbolic

capital (Pret et al. 2016). Neither does the empirical material find any support for cultural

capital converted into social capital in the case of social enterprises. Despite the importance

attributed to cultural capital by the respondents, the findings suggest that conversion of

knowledge and skills into social capital is a difficult process for social enterprises.

4.2.4 Conversion of Symbolic Capital

As previously mentioned, a majority of the respondents claim that the quality mark received

through incubator participation had positive implications toward several stakeholders. The

empirical findings reveal that symbolic capital, as increased legitimacy and quality markings,

in many cases was converted into economic capital. The study further identifies indications of

social enterprises leveraging symbolic resources into social capital by facilitating entrance

into partnerships.

37

Economic capital Social Capital Cultural Capital

Quality mark creates legitimacy and trustworthiness towards new investors Reduces the perceived risk Incubators brand receive a high degree of media exposure, leading to new investors

Prestige and reputation can facilitate and generate partnerships

There is little or no evidence of this conversion in this study

Table 7. Conversion of Symbolic Capital

Conversion of symbolic capital to economic capital

The general perception was that the quality mark and the prestige it entails ensured social

enterprises with legitimacy and trustworthiness towards new, potential investors as these often

were aware of the brand of the incubator. Thereby, many interviewees claimed that they could

use the incubator’s brand when raising money, as they believed that the legitimacy received

through incubators could, and had, helped them to attain new investors. The effect the

incubator’s brand had on attaining investors is emphasised by Löfgren (BlueCall): “Since it is

only 8 % of the applicants to [incubator] that get accepted, a sort of selection process has

already been made – these are interesting people with an enterprise that is ‘approved’ ”.

Malmström Grimme (Picture My Life) also mentioned that the quality mark has been positive

for them when looking for potential investors. She emphasised the specific challenges for

social enterprises to raise capital, and she believed that the quality mark could help reduce the

risk perceived by investors. In addition, Malmström Grimme also thought that being a part of

the incubator could facilitate the process of receiving a loan from Almi Företagspartner,

which is a public company that offers loans to small-medium enterprises: “[...] and Almi,

there they are well established and it is easier to come to them and say that you are a

[incubator] company” (Malmström, Picture My Life). Hence, the interviews imply that social

enterprises use symbolic capital in the form of legitimacy and quality markings, to reduce risk

and create trustworthiness towards both investors and loan companies, thereby converting

symbolic capital into economic capital.

Besides the brand and reputation of the incubator, many respondents believed that the media

attention, which is regarded as symbolic capital according to Pret et al. (2016), they received

through the incubator had positive effects and as Gustafsson (Learning to Sleep) describes:

38

“We have received quite a lot media space in start-up related medias, as DiDigital and

Breakit because of [incubator] and it has absolutely helped us when raising capital. It has

been good for us – and we want to use it”. This quote illustrates how they utilised symbolic

value inherent in media attention, and how it helped them raise investments by gaining

additional investors, which according to theory can be regarded as a conversion of symbolic

capital into economic capital. Many of the social enterprises agree and claim they have used

their incubator’s name when approaching and interacting with media, as they believe it will

enhance their reach. Löfgren (Bluecall) also shared the perception that media attention has

helped them to attain investors, and explains that their current lead investor contacted them

due to an article in the start-up magazine Breakit. The findings indicate that using the

incubator’s name in relevant media, illustrates an additional method whereby social

enterprises utilise symbolic value and convert it into economic capital.

Nine of the fifteen interviewed social enterprises mention their incubator or have their logo on

the website, which according to Malmström Grimme (Picture my Life) is a way of leveraging

the quality mark. In accordance with Terjseen and Elam (2009), these social enterprises could

potentially utilise the power inherent in the name of the incubator as means to pursue both

business and societal goals. Furthermore, Pret et al (2016) argue that displaying symbols of

achievement can establish legitimacy, which can increase sales and allow entrepreneurs to

convert symbolic capital into economic capital. In that sense, using the logo of the incubator

or displaying their engagement on the website can be seen as an attempt to transform

symbolic value into economic capital through an increase of sales. However, only three

respondents explained how they were able to convert symbolic capital to economic capital in

the form of increased sales or market reach. Håkansson (Day Cape) described that he uses the

symbolic value when pitching to potential clients: “[...] and then it is always good if you are

going to pitch to a school or an organisation to say that we have a good quality mark. That

has been very useful”. The quote illustrates how the symbolic value of being a part of an

incubator facilitates the sales process for social enterprises, and thereby resulting in increased

economic capital.

Besides these respondents, none of the interviewed enterprises believed that the legitimacy

and quality mark could be used to gain more clients or users. For instance, some respondents

believed that their clients were unfamiliar with the incubator’s brand, which is exemplified by

Rosman (Welcome): “Even though it is great being a part of [incubator], no one on the street

39

knows about them [...] it has absolutely created an awareness, but hasn’t generated any new

users”. That the average citizen is unfamiliar with the incubators was a common perception

among the interviewees and they believed that only a small crowd recognises the incubator’s

brand. Since the finding suggests that clients of social enterprises can be unaware of the

incubator’s brand, the symbolic value of the incubators’ brand is argued to be modest in

relation to customers and users. Hence, it is probable that social enterprises have limited

ability to convert symbolic capital into economic when the inherent symbolic value is low.

To conclude, as only three of the fifteen respondents perceived that they could leverage

symbolic value into financial capital, through income generated by increased sales and market

penetration, the empirical support for this type of conversion is weak in the context of social

enterprises.

Conversion of symbolic capital to social capital

The empirical findings also reveal that social enterprises convert symbolic capital into social

capital, as some respondents emphasise the symbolic power of their incubator’s name and that

they have utilised it to expand their possession of social capital in forms of networks and

relations. This is illustrated by von Uexküll (Svenska med Baby) who reflects over the power

their incubator’s name have in enabling access to new connections: “If you talk to politicians

for instance, it is easier for them [incubator] to get a meeting than it would be for us. [...]

they open up for other potential partners”. This conversion of symbolic capital to social

capital emphasises how symbolic value such as brand, can open doors and enable social

enterprises to get in contact with actors they would not be able to access without the support

from their incubator.

Four of the respondents further claim that the reputation and prestige of the incubator have

provided benefits towards collaborative partners and imply that they utilise this symbolic

value to gain new partners. These interviewees emphasise the value of the name towards

collaborative partners, and von Uexküll (Svenska med Baby) expresses how they utilised their

incubator’s name when approaching and trying to set up meetings with potential partners:

“The name. It has more power. It is much more well known than Svenska med Baby for

example, which is unknown for many”. Lutke (Cirkus Unik) further exemplifies how

legitimacy from their incubator helped them secure their biggest collaborative partner and

described what that partner said before entering into their partnership: “If [incubator] believes

40

in you - why shouldn’t we believe in you?”. Lutke also highlights that they could improve

their existing partnerships when becoming part of the incubator, as a result of the inherent

credibility. These examples illustrate the importance of symbolic value for small social

enterprises in attaining partners and how the enterprises leverage the incubators’ support to

achieve these means.

Conversion of symbolic capital to cultural capital

In the aforementioned literature review, Lawrence (2004) argues that reputation and prestige

can enable opportunities for apprenticeships with recognised experts. Even though the

findings show that the social enterprises have received advice, training and apprenticeships

from experts in various formats, the respondents did not imply that this was enabled by

symbolic resources. Neither do the findings suggest that social enterprises utilised their

symbolic capital to gain such opportunities. Hence, the studied social enterprises do not

convert symbolic capital into cultural capital, by leveraging symbolic resources to gain access

to expert advice and training.

According to theory, symbolic capital can be converted into cultural capital in the form of

new employees. Rosman (Welcome) described how they often use the brand of the incubator

in recruitments, which is also supported by secondary data, as she beliefs that it brings them

legitimacy. However, she was although uncertain on how much impact the name could

actually have in attracting new talent and mentioned that they had not seen any effect of it yet.

The symbolic power of generating trust in potential employees appears to be limited in the

context of social enterprises and the study does not find support for social enterprises

converting symbolic value into cultural value in the form of employees and human capital.

Thereby, the studied social enterprises did not appear to be able to convert their symbolic

resources and transform it into cultural capital.

41

5. Reflective Discussion The conversion of capital varied depending on the form of capital, where social capital proved

the most prominent to convert, and economic capital demonstrated a more limited

convertibility. Social capital was the only form of capital that was converted into all the other

forms, thereby rendering access to several forms of economic, cultural and symbolic

resources. The social support provided by incubators enabled access to both formal and

informal networks and contacts, which proved to be very valuable for social enterprises as

they could profit from the social capital in numerous ways. That social capital demonstrated

many incidences of being converted into other forms of capital could be explained by the

characteristics of incubators. According to Burt (1997) the convertibility of social capital is

contingent upon an actor’s willingness to share networks of relations. Considering that

incubators are characterised by their mission to facilitate development of enterprises, this

implies a high willingness to incorporate social enterprises within their network. It is thereby

plausible that their mission is a factor explaining why social capital could frequently be

converted. Furthermore, since our findings suggest that social capital is converted to all other

forms and shows many cases of such conversion, it is arguable to suggest social capital to be

the most important form of capital in regards to conversion of capital for social enterprises.

This correlates with the finding that a clear majority of the respondents perceived access to

networks as the most important component of the incubators’ support. As most social

enterprises were at a young development stage, the high ability to convert social capital in our

studied context could be explained by importance attributed to social networks for start-up’s

development. For instance, a young enterprise might not have been able to build own

networks yet, whereby they draw upon incubator’s network to gain additional resources.

An interesting finding is that all forms of capital could be converted into economic capital.

This finding could suggest that converting resources into economic capital is a relatively

uncomplicated endeavour for social enterprises. Furthermore, the finding could also imply

that economic capital is perceived crucial for the development and survival of social

enterprises, something that is partly supported by the respondents. As claimed by one

respondent, social enterprises have difficulty in finding investors, whereby converting other

forms of capital into financial resources might be a means for them to deal with the scarcity of

economic capital. We also consider it important to highlight the fact that a clear majority of

respondents emphasised symbolic capital as one of the primary features of the incubators

42

support, even though the empirical findings suggest that the form of capital mainly is

convertible into one form. The reason for this can probably be ascribed the legitimacy and

mark of quality that social enterprises received through the incubators, since it provided them

with a value that is perhaps more difficult to attain by other means. Although, social

enterprises in general have difficulties in attaining all resources, the gaining of legitimacy

could be exceptionally difficult as they often are small organisational actors. Furthermore, as

conversion of symbolic capital mainly occurs into economic capital, the importance attributed

to symbolic capital could also be due its ability to attract economic capital, which further

confirms the indication of economic capital as a crucial component for the survival of the

enterprise.

From the empirical material we can acknowledge that the support from incubators provide

development opportunities for social enterprises. However, the findings also suggest that

conversions in general do not occur unconsciously and the respondents emphasise the

importance of creativity and fortitude in order to leverage received support. This suggests that

converting capital is an active process for social enterprises, which requires active

engagement and determination along with a sense of creativity in order to convert one form of

capital into another. Hence, only receiving support from the incubator is plausibly not

sufficient for the resources to have positive implications for their business development.

Instead, it is arguable that it requires creativity for social enterprises to utilise and take

advantage of these opportunities in order to address the issue of resource scarcity.

Furthermore, converting capital to generate more, and additional forms, of capital could

potentially be seen as a crucial component to cope with this challenge. Moreover, since social

enterprises have a particularly restricted access to resources, capital conversions could be

especially important for social enterprises, as they need to make the most of the resources

they have.

43

6. Conclusion The aim of this thesis has been to investigate how social enterprises utilise external support

provided by incubators in order to deal with resource scarcity. To fulfil this aim we have

adopted Bourdieu's theory of capital and the notion of conversions to explore how social

enterprises can utilise capital obtained from incubators. On a theoretical level, the study

contributes by studying capital conversions in the context of social enterprises and thereby

adding further perspectives to the multifaceted nature of capital and their conversions.

We conclude that social enterprises convert all forms of capital, however the extent and

degree of conversions varied. Social capital is identified as the most converted form of

capital, and the only one that can be transformed into all the other forms of capital. Our

findings demonstrate that social enterprises convert social capital in the form of networks and

relationships to render access to new investors, gain additional knowledge and skills and

enable access to respected events. We thereby claim that social capital is a crucial resource for

social enterprises to attain, since it can enable access to additional resources and thereby

address the issue of resource scarcity. For social entrepreneurs, this finding present a possible

way of coping with resource scarcity and we encourage social entrepreneurs to especially

leverage the networks and relations they access through incubators.

The study furthermore shows how social enterprises convert symbolic capital to economic

capital, by leveraging legitimacy and quality marks to attain new investors. The results

present cultural capital as convertible into economic and symbolic capital, as pitch training

rendered access to new investors and coaching was utilised to improve reputation. Economic

capital was a difficult conversion for social enterprises and was only convertible into cultural

capital in the form of employees and consultants. The importance of economic capital in the

development of social enterprises should however not be undermined. The study rather

suggests that all other forms could be converted into economic capital and we thereby argue

that economic capital is crucial for venture sustainability and growth.

As presented above, support from incubators provides social enterprises with opportunities to

deal with resource scarcity, as they can utilise provided resources to generate additional

resources. This study concludes by arguing that social enterprises must be active and creative

in order to be able to utilise these resources. We thereby urge social entrepreneurs to think

44

outside the box and to have courage to fully exploit provided support in order to successfully

operate in their resource scarce environment.

6.1 Limitations

One limitation of this thesis paper is the sample of the study. Since the sample of fifteen

social enterprises is a rather limited number of study objects, it is not possible to generalise

beyond the context of this research. Moreover, as only one interview per enterprise was

performed, the validity of the findings could potentially be limited. As the phenomenon only

is studied in a Swedish context the findings might not be representative for social enterprises

in other countries. Furthermore, as the study only incorporates social enterprises, the result is

neither applicable in other entrepreneurial contexts or industries. Another limitation of the

study is that the empirical data was collected during a limited point of time. Since it can be

time consuming to convert some forms of capital into other forms, it is plausible that some

conversion had not yet occurred, thereby affecting the results of the study. A last potential

limitation is the choice of theory to study how social enterprises utilise resources from

incubators. Even though we recognize it as a useful and valuable theoretical lense, we

acknowledge that it could have affected the results. We are also aware the difficulty of

measuring all aspects of conversions, due to the incommensurability of some capital forms

and recognise that this could have potential implications for the findings.

6.2 Suggestions for Future Research

As the sample of the above study has been limited to fifteen social enterprises, we encourage

future researchers to study capital conversions in a larger scope within the context of social

enterprises. A larger number of research objects would allow for future research to obtain a

certain degree of generalizability of the results and therein increase our understanding of how

social enterprises can convert capital. Furthermore, seeing as capital conversions is a time-

consuming and complex process, we suggest future researchers to adopt a more longitudinal

study that would expand the scope of the study and potentially identify additional

conversions. In addition, a study adopting a more global perspective would also further our

understanding of the studied phenomena and increase the degree of generalizability outside

the Swedish border. This research also recognises the need for future research of capital

45

conversions in other industries, since there is a possibility that the rate of conversions is

context dependent and thereby, one could expect considerable differences between industries.

Lastly, we acknowledge that Bourdieu’s capital theory is not the only relevant theory to

examine our aim and encourage researchers to look into other theories to further understand

how social enterprises can leverage resources from incubators, but also other external actors

within the ecosystem of social entrepreneurship. Such a study could identify alternative ways

to deal with resource scarcity; ways that might have been overlooked do to the chosen

theoretical lens.

46

References Abu-Saifan, S. 2012, "Social Entrepreneurship: Definition and Boundaries", Technology Innovation Management Review, vol. 2, no. 2, pp. 22. Anderson AR and Miller CJ 2003, “‘Class matters’: Human and social capital in the entrepreneurial process”. The Journal of Socio-Economics 32(1): 17–36. Antadze, N & Westley, F. 2010, “Funding Social Innovation: How do we know what to grow?”. The Philanthropist, vol 23, pp. 343-356. Augustinsson, E. 2011, ABC of Social Innovation, Forum for Social Innovation and Social Entrepreneurship Baker, T. & Nelson, R.E. 2005, "Creating Something from Nothing: Resource Construction through Entrepreneurial Bricolage", Administrative Science Quarterly, vol. 50, no. 3, pp. 329-366. Barringer, B.R., Jones, F.F., & Neubaum, D.O. 2005, ”A quantitative content analysis of the characteristics of rapid growth firms and their founders. Journal of Business Venturing, 20(5), 663–687. Beverland MB 2005, “Crafting brand authenticity: The case of luxury wines”. Journal of Management Studies 42(5): 1003–1029. Bitektine A 2011, “Toward a theory of social judgments of organizations: The case of legitimacy, reputation, and status”. Academy of Management Review 36(1): 151–179. Björk, F., Hansson, J., Lundborg, D., Olofsson, L., Malmö University & Faculty of Culture and Society 2014, An Ecosystem for Social Innovation in Sweden : A strategic research and innovation agenda. Brinckmann J, Salomo S and Gemuenden HG 2011, “Financial management competence of founding teams and growth of new technology-based firms”. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice 35(2): 217–243. Bryman, A. B. & Bell, B. E. 2007. Business research methods. New York, NY: Oxford University Press Inc. Bøllingtoft, A. & Ulhøi, J.P. 2005, "The networked business incubator—leveraging entrepreneurial agency?", Journal of Business Venturing, vol. 20, no. 2, pp. 265-290. Bourdieu, P. 1993, Sociology in question. London: Sage. Bourdieu, P 1984, “Distinction: A Social Critique of the Judgement of Taste”. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Bourdieu P 1986, “The forms of capital”. In: Richardson JG (ed.) The Handbook of Theory and Research for the Sociology of Education. Westport, CT: Greenwood, pp. 241-58 Burt, R.S. 1997, "The Contingent Value of Social Capital", Administrative Science Quarterly, vol. 42, no. 2, pp. 339-365. Burt, R.S. 2000, "The network structure of social capital", Research in Organizational Behavior, vol. 22, pp. 345-423.

47

Bowey JL and Easton G 2007, “Entrepreneurial social capital unplugged: An activity-based analysis”. International Small Business Journal 25(3): 273–306. Canadian Centre for Social Entrepreneurship. 2001, “Social Entrepreneurship Discussion Paper. No. 1”. Cassell, C. 2015, Conducting research interviews for business and management students. Los Angeles, California: SAGE. Coulson S 2012, “Collaborating in a competitive world: Musicians’ working lives and understandings of entrepreneurship”. Work, Employment & Society 26(2): 246–261. Davidsson P and Honig B 2003, “The role of social and human capital among nascent entrepreneurs”. Journal of Business Venturing 18(3): 301–331. De Clercq, D. & Voronov, M. 2009, "Toward a Practice Perspective of Entrepreneurship: Entrepreneurial Legitimacy as Habitus", International Small Business Journal, vol. 27, no. 4, pp. 395-419. Dees, J.G. 1998. “Enterprising non-profits”. Harvard Business Review, 76, 55–67. Denzin, N.Lincoln, Y., 2000. Handbook of qualitative research. Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks, Calif. DiMaggio PJ 1979, “On Pierre Bourdieu”. American Journal of Sociology 84(6): 1460–1474. Domenico, M.D., Haugh, H. & Tracey, P. 2010, "Social Bricolage: Theorizing Social Value Creation in Social Enterprises", Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, vol. 34, no. 4, pp. 681-703. European Commission Enterprise Directorate General (ECEDG) 2002, “Benchmarking of Business Incubators”, Centre for Strategy & Evaluation Services, Kent. Everett, J. 2002, "Organizational Research and the Praxeology of Pierre Bourdieu", Organizational Research Methods, vol. 5, no. 1, pp. 56-80. Finkelstein, S., Harvey, C., & Lawton, T. (2007). Breakout strategy. New York: McGraw-Hill. Foster, S.W. 1986, "Reading Pierre Bourdieu", Cultural Anthropology, vol. 1, no. 1, pp. 103-110. Fuller, T. and Tian, Y. 2006, “Social and symbolic capital and responsible entrepreneurship: An empirical investigation of SME narratives”. Journal of Business Ethics 67(3): 287–304. Habaradas, R.B. & Aure, P.A.H. 2016, "Managing social enterprises in the Philippines: challenges and strategies", Journal of Legal, Ethical and Regulatory Issues, vol. 19, no. 2, pp. 39. Hackett, S.M. & Dilts, D.M. 2004, "A Systematic Review of Business Incubation Research", The Journal ofTechnology Transfer, vol. 29, no. 1, pp. 55-82. Hansen, M.T., Chesbrough, H.W., Nohria, N., Sull, D.N. 2000, “Networked incubators: Hothouses of the new economy”, Harvard Business Review, vol 78, no 74, Harvey, C., Gordon, J., Maclean, M. & Shaw, E. 2011, "Andrew Carnegie and the foundations of contemporary entrepreneurial philanthropy", Business History, vol. 53, no. 3, pp. 425-450. Harvey C and Maclean M 2008, “Capital theory and the dynamics of elite business networks in Britain and France”. Sociological Review 56 (supp. 1): 105–120.

48

Helfat, C.E. and Lieberman M., 2002, "The birth of capabilities: market entry and the importance of pre-history", Industrial and Corporate Change, vol. 11, no. 4, pp. 725-760. Ingram, A.E., Hechavarria, D.M. & Matthews, C.H. 2014, "Does Cultural Capital Matter? Exploring Sources of Funding in New Venture Creation", Small Business Institute Journal, vol. 10, no. 2, pp. 1. Jenkins, R. 1992, Pierre Bourdieu. New York: Routledge. John, R. 2006. “Behind the Check: How Venture Philanthropists Add Value”. Oxford Said Business School, Skoll Centre for Social Entrepreneurship. Oxford, England. Kasper, G. & Marcoux, J. 2014, The Re-Emerging Art of Funding Innovation, Stanford Social Innovation Review, Stanford University, Stanford. Karataş-Özkan M., 2011, “Understanding relational qualities of entrepreneurial learning: Towards a multi- layered approach”. Entrepreneurship and Regional Development 23 (9–10): 877–906. Kourilsky, M. L., 1995. “Entrepreneurship education: Opportunity search of a curriculum” Business Education Forum. 50(1):11-15. Kvale, S. 1983. The qualitative research interview-a phenomenological and a hermeneutical mode of understanding. Journal of Phenomenological Psychology, vol. 14, pp. 171-196. Kvale, S., 1938-2008 1996, Interviews: an introduction to qualitative research interviewing, SAGE, Thousand Oaks. Lall, S., Bowles, L. & Baird, R. 2013, "Bridging the “Pioneer Gap”: The Role of Accelerators in Launching High-Impact Enterprises", Innovations: Technology, Governance, Globalization, vol. 8, no. 3-4, pp. 105-137. Lawrence, T.B. 2004, "Rituals and Resistance: Membership Dynamics in Professional Fields", Human Relations, vol. 57, no. 2, pp. 115-143. Leadbeater, C. 1997, “The Rise of the Social Entrepreneur”, Demos, London. Luke, B. & Chu, V. 2013, "Social enterprise versus social entrepreneurship: An examination of the ‘why’ and ‘how’ in pursuing social change", International Small Business Journal, vol. 31, no. 7, pp. 764-784. Lundahl, U. & Skä rvad, P. 1999, Utredningsmetodik för samhällsvetare och ekonomer. Lund: Studentlitteratur. Lyons, T.S. & Kickul, J.R. 2013, "The Social Enterprise Financing Landscape: The Lay of the Land and New Research on the Horizon", Entrepreneurship Research Journal, vol. 3, no. 2, pp. 147-159. Maclean, M. 2008, "New rules - old games? Social capital and privatisation in France, 1986-1998", Business History, vol. 50, no. 6, pp. 795-810. Maclean M, Harvey C and Press J 2006, “Business Elites and Corporate Governance in France and the UK”. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan. Mulgan, G., Tucker, S., Ali, R., Sanders, B. 2007, “Social innovation what it is, why it matters and how it can be accelerated” Skoll Center for Social Entrepreneurship

49

Noruzi, M.R. & Rahimi, G.R. 2010, "Notice of Retraction An exploration of social entrepreneurship in the entrepreneurship era", IEEE, , pp. 759. Prabhu, G.N. 1999, "Social entrepreneurial leadership", Career Development International, vol. 4, no. 3, pp. 140-145. Pret, T., Shaw, E. & Drakopoulou Dodd, S. 2016, "Painting the full picture: The conversion of economic, cultural, social and symbolic capital", International Small Business Journal, vol. 34, no. 8, pp. 1004-1027. Randle K, Forson C and Calveley M 2014, “Towards a Bourdieusian analysis of the social composition of the UK film and television workforce”. Work, Employment & Society. Epub ahead of print 20 October. DOI: 10.1177/0950017014542498. Reach for Change 2016, “Vår Metod”. http://sweden.reachforchange.org/sv/om-oss/var-metod (Retrieved: 2017-04-03) Reuber AR and Fischer E 2005, “The company you keep: How young firms in different competitive contexts signal reputation through their customers”. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice 29(1): 57–78. Rooks, G., Klyver, K. & Sserwanga, A. 2016, "The Context of Social Capital: A Comparison of Rural and Urban Entrepreneurs in Uganda", Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, vol. 40, no. 1, pp. 111-130. Saunders, M., 1959, Lewis, P., 1945 & Thornhill, A. 2009, Research methods for business students: Elektronisk resurs, 5.th edn, Financial Times Prentice Hall, Harlow. Scarlata, M. & Alemany, L. 2010, "Deal Structuring in Philanthropic Venture Capital Investments: Financing Instrument, Valuation and Covenants", Journal of Business Ethics, vol. 95, no. S2, pp. 121-145. Shaw E., 2006, “Small firm networking: An insight into contents and motivating factors”. International Small Business Journal 24(1): 5–29. Shaw, E. & Carter, S. 2007, "Social entrepreneurship", Journal of Small Business and Enterprise Development, vol. 14, no. 3, pp. 418-434. Shaw, E., Gordon, J., Harvey, C. & Maclean, M. 2013;2011;, "Exploring contemporary entrepreneurial philanthropy", International Small Business Journal, vol. 31, no. 5, pp. 580-599 Silverman, D., 2007. A Very Short, Fairly Interesting and Reasonably Cheap Book about Qualitative Research. London. Sage Stam W, Arzlanian S and Elfring T 2014, “Social capital of entrepreneurs and small firm performance: A meta-analysis of contextual and methodological moderators”. Journal of Business Venturing 29(1): 152–173. Sullivan D.M., and Ford C., M. 2014, “How Entrepreneurs use networks to address changing resource requirements during early venture development”. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice 38(3): 551–574. Suni, A. 2017. “Nya bolagstrenden: Att tackla globala problem”. DiDigital. 19 march 2017. http://digital.di.se/artikel/nya-bolagstrenden-att-tackla-globala-problem (Retrived: 2017-04-03)

50

Terjesen S and Elam AB 2009, “Transnational entrepreneurs’ venture internationalization strategies: A practice theory approach”. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice 33(5): 1093–1120. Tsai, W. & Ghoshal, S. 1998, "Social Capital and Value Creation: The Role of Intrafirm Networks", The Academy of Management Journal, vol. 41, no. 4, pp. 464-476. Tracey, P., & Phillips, N. 2007, “The distinctive challenge of educating social entrepreneurs: A postscript and rejoinder to the special issue on entrepreneurship education.” Academy of Management Learning & Education, 6(2), 264–271. Winborg J and Landström H 2001, “Financial bootstrapping in small businesses: Examining small business managers’ resource acquisition behaviors”. Journal of Business Venturing 16(3): 235–254. Zott C and Huy QN 2007, “How entrepreneurs use symbolic management to acquire resources”. Administrative Science Quarterly 52(1): 70–105.

51

Appendix 1 Table of conducted interviews

Company Name Title Type Duration Date

Day Cape Anton Håkansson Founder In person 45 min 17.02.24

Welcome Emma Rosman & Laura de Clercq

Co-founder/ CEO & Communication

In person 50 min 17.03.09

Blue Call App Lisa Löfgren Co-Founder In person 45 min 17.03.15

Newsvoice Viktor Lidholt Founder In person 40 min 17.03.15

Invitations- departementet

Ebba Åkerman Minister of Dinners Phone 45 min 17.03.15

Picture My Life Yvonne Malmström Grimme

CEO In person 40 min 17.03.16

Cirkus Unik Elin Lutke Co-founder Skype 60 min 17.03.23

Föreningen Storasyster

Cecilia Bödker Pedersen

Operating Officer In person 40 min 17.03.28

Svenska med Baby

Caroline von Uexküll Operating Officer In person 45 min 17.03.29

Challengize Nicholas Roman CEO & Co-founder In person 45 min 17.04.03

Föreningen Tillsammans

Julia Östfeldt Operating Officer Phone 50 min 17.04.03

Learning To Sleep Micael Gustafsson CEO Skype 40 min 17.04.04

Medfilm Erik Kylén CEO Phone 50 min 17.04.06

Trine Hanna Lindquist Communications & Growth Manager

Phone 50 min 17.04.10

We Unite Design Lina Lagerbäck Operating Officer Phone 70 min 17.04.24