The role of banks in Viet Nam towards providing social venture capital for social entrepreneurship in Viet Nam: Facilitators and Limitations Limitations
|Faculty of Business, Law and Social Sciences
|Assessment Coversheet and Feedback Form|
Complete the details marked in the coloured text and leave everything else blank. Where appropriate, copy and paste your submission after the first pages as indicated. You are reminded of the University regulations on cheating. Except where the assessment is group-based, the final piece of work which is submitted must be your own work. Close similarity between submissions is likely to lead to an investigation for cheating. You must submit a file in an MSWord or equivalent format as tutors will use MSWord to provide feedback including, where appropriate, annotations in the text.
|Student Name||Dai Hai Le||Reasonable Adjustments|
|Student Number||15117982||Check this box [x] if the Faculty has notified you that you are eligible for a Reasonable Adjustment (including additional time) in relation to the marking of this assessment. Please note that action may be taken under the University’s Student Disciplinary Procedure against any student making a false claim for Reasonable Adjustments.|
|Course and Year||MSc Management scheme Level 7|
|Module Title||Individual Dissertation – Proposal|
|Module Tutor||Francis McGonigal|
|Personal Tutor||Cindy Millman|
|First Marker Name:||Francis McGonigal||First Marker Signature:||Francis McGonigal
|Feedback: General comments on the quality of the work, its successes and where it could be improved|
Clearly define terms such as “Social Entrepreneur”.
State AIM and OBJECTIVES clearly (although these are covered in the Research questions).
Briefly summarize the Literature Review.
Briefly discuss ow you will ANALYZE the data after collecting it.
|Provisional Uncapped Mark Marks will be capped if this was a late submission or resit assessment and may be moderated up or down by the examination board.|
|Feed Forward: How to apply the feedback to future submissions|
|Quality and use of Standard English and Academic Conventions|
|Spelling Errors||Style is Colloquial||Standard is a Cause for Concern|
|Grammatical Errors||Inappropriate Structure||If the box above has been ticked you should arrange a consultation with a member of staff from the Centre for Academic Success via Success@bcu.ac.uk|
|Punctuation Errors||Inadequate Referencing|
|Moderation Comments (Please note that moderation is carried out through ‘sampling’. If this section is left blank, your work is not part of the sample.)|
|Moderation is done via sampling. Your work was not part of the sample.|
|Moderator Name:||Moderator Signature:||Date:|
The importance of banks in providing social venture capital for social entrepreneurship is increasingly important. The role that social entrepreneurship plays in developing wider good for society needs to be established. However, research suggests that banks do not see social entrepreneurs as normal customers, and often unwilling to provide easy finance. This work proposes examining these limitations and possible solutions, using a mixed methods research.
Table of Contents
The importance of banks in providing capital for social venture capital is instrumental in providing financial resources for the social entrepreneur (Cao et al., 2015, Choi and Majumdar, 2014, Dacin et al., 2011). The provision of capital for social entrepreneurship is often difficult as the level of return and the profitability are different as compared to normal enterprise, and therefore this can put on extra pressures on stakeholders (Dacin et al., 2010, Desa and Basu, 2013, Ellis, 2011). This work seeks to examine the factors which can have appositive influence on the relationship between banks and the social entrepreneur, in order to facilitate the social venture capital .
Social venture is increasingly important to consider, as the social entrepreneurship can lead to a positive change in the wider environment (Cao et al., 2015, Choi and Majumdar, 2014, Dacin et al., 2011). Research suggest that social entrepreneurship can be improved with the collaboration between the different organizational actors (Dacin et al., 2010, Desa and Basu, 2013, Ellis, 2011). The lack of confidence that bankers often have in social entrepreneur has been highlighted as one of the main factors which can continue to influence the financing of social venture capital (Choi and Majumdar, 2014, Dacin et al., 2011, Dacin et al., 2010). Banks often cannot examine the risks that they undertake as part of the social venture capital, and therefore it is difficult for the social entrepreneur to collect resources (Estrin et al., 2013, Felicio et al., 2013, Gedajlovic et al., 2013). One of the inhibiting factor is the lack of profitability which can be a major hindrance for the banks to provide the social entrepreneur with capital (Estrin et al., 2013, Felicio et al., 2013, Gedajlovic et al., 2013).
However, the literature highlights that the social entrepreneurs have many other ways of generating capital, and these can be used innovatively in order to ensure long term support for social entrepreneurs (Choi and Majumdar, 2014, Dacin et al., 2011, Dacin et al., 2010). The social entrepreneurs can ensure that venture capital firms are used in collaboration with banks in order to generate low cost financing (Griskevicius et al., 2012, Hall et al., 2012, Lepoutre et al., 2013). The use of innovative capital resources is also needed in order to have as positive impact on the wider community issues, leading to a long term support of the social entrepreneurship. The ability to deliver new changes is also an important issue for management, which leads to positive changes in the way that the new services can be improved (Ellis, 2011, Felicio et al., 2013).
The wider benefits that are facilitated due to the increase in social entrepreneurship needs to be facilitated in order to have a positive change in the way services are provided (Lumpkin et al., 2013, Maclean et al., 2013, Nga and Shamuganathan, 2010). The role of the government in providing these factors, and acting as a facilitator of low cost finance can also have significant positive change in the way finances are provided (Phillips et al., 2015, Ruebottom, 2013, Santos, 2012). This will be ensured in order to deliver a positive change, leading to different types of innovations (Griskevicius et al., 2012, Hall et al., 2012, Lepoutre et al., 2013). The role of the government is to ensure that the various types of services which can be understood, and can lead to a wider and positive change in the society (Choi and Majumdar, 2014, Dacin et al., 2011, Dacin et al., 2010). Companies must ensure that they have a better understanding of the wider benefits which social venture capital provides, and therefore examine not just profitability but also the benefits to members of the society (Shaw and de Bruin, 2013, Stam et al., 2014, Zahra et al., 2009).
The literature also highlights that governments and other stakeholders need to work collaboratively with social venture capitalists as well as banking institutions to bring reform for the social entrepreneurs (Choi and Majumdar, 2014, Dacin et al., 2011, Dacin et al., 2010). This is especially needed in order to facilities low cost finance, and to bring in wider benefits for the social sector which is needed for the financing of the social goods in the society (Ellis, 2011, Felicio et al., 2013). Society needs to evolve over a period of time, and the positive role that social entrepreneurs have in the society needs to be highlighted (Shaw and de Bruin, 2013, Stam et al., 2014, Zahra et al., 2009). The literature is widely not clear about the role which governments and other stakeholders can play in facilitating this process, especially in the case of Viet Nam. There is a need to understand these issues which can be undertaken in the most robust manner (Choi and Majumdar, 2014, Dacin et al., 2011, Dacin et al., 2010). The research also needs to understand the perspectives of the social entrepreneur, and the ways in which they are able to develop the sustainability of their operations in collaboration with other stakeholders .
The following research questions have been identified as part of this research:
- What factors influence the banks to provide social venture capital to social entrepreneurs?
- How can the relationship between social entrepreneurs and banks be improved to facilitate social entrepreneurship?
- What should be the role of government in improving availability financing for social entrepreneurship in Viet Nam?
This research attempts to address the ways in which banks provide social venture capital for social entrepreneurs. In order to do so a mixed methods will be deployed by the researcher (John, 2008). Mixed methods technique is a technique where researcher deploys two or more research methods synonymously (Johnson et al., 2007, Sale et al., 2002), in order to investigate the issue at hand. This research will use both quantitative and qualitative methods. In-depth interviews will be used as part of qualitative research, whereas questionnaires will be used as part of quantitative methods (Lingard et al., 2008, Curry et al., 2009). The advantage of using mixed methods is that researcher can triangulate research results. This can be done by comparing the interview results with questionnaire results (Tashakkori and Creswell, 2007, Sharlene, 2010).
Questionnaires are data gathering tools that allow the researcher to gain knowledge with help of a list of questions that is prepares by the researcher (John, 2008, Yang et al., 2008). These list of questions contain a list of answers, for the respondent to choose from. Questionnaires are of different type, depending on their open or close ended nature (Robson, 2011, Bennett and Elman, 2006). Close ended questionnaires are the ones that does not allow respondents to state their opinion and hence such questionnaires are criticized for their authenticity (Patton, 2002, Lingard et al., 2008). Open ended questionnaires allow researcher to give their opinion and hence can be considered more reliable and authentic. This research will use semi-structured questionnaires, which have both close and open ended questions, so that respondents view is taken into account (Denzin and Lincoln, 2005, Curry et al., 2009). This research will distribute a total of 100 questionnaires among the bank managers for gaining insight on the topic area.
The data which is gathered with the help of questionnaires is very quick as compared to other methods. The number of audience that is covered with the help of questionnaires is huge in terms of sample size. (Jones et al., 2008) Data gathered with the help of questionnaires is considered to be much logical (Guldenmund, 2007). Questionnaires are tools that have been criticized for gathering in-depth data and therefore it has been argued that no matter how well structured questionnaires are they still lack an element of in-depth knowledge (Walsh et al., 2010, Yin et al., 2006). The language that is used in questionnaires should be simple so that the intent and scope of a question is easily understood by respondents. Response rate for questionnaires is usually low and is not in the hands of researchers (Martinez-Gomez et al., 2010, Orosa et al., 2008).
These are data gathering tools which allow the researcher to collect in-depth knowledge on the topic area. Interview gather useful information with the help of question and answer session held between researcher and respondent (Plesner, 2011, Oatey, 1999). Interviews are also of many types such as structured, unstructured and semi-structured (McClemont, 2011, Kvale and Brinkmann, 2009). This research will use open ended interviews, where the most important themes are identified by respondents themselves, which will contribute towards results (Gleadle, 2011, Verweij et al., 2011). One of the most important elements of in-depth interviews is element of tryst, so that honest and unbiased exchange of information takes place between both the parties (Bourquin et al., 2011, Frey and Oishi, 1995). In-depth interviews will be carried out both with social entrepreneurs and bank managers. 5 interviews will be conducted with social entrepreneurs and 5 with bank managers (Foddy, 1993, Atkin, 2001).
This table shows a dissertation project schedule that extends from 1st December 2016 to 30th March 2017. There are 4 major planned tasks as shown in this table above.
Cao, Q., Simsek, Z. & Jansen, J. J. P. 2015. Ceo social capital and entrepreneurial orientation of the firm: Bonding and bridging effects. Journal of Management, 41, 1957-1981.
Choi, N. & Majumdar, S. 2014. Social entrepreneurship as an essentially contested concept: Opening a new avenue for systematic future research. Journal of Business Venturing, 29, 363-376.
Dacin, M. T., Dacin, P. A. & Tracey, P. 2011. Social entrepreneurship: A critique and future directions. Organization Science, 22, 1203-1213.
Dacin, P. A., Dacin, M. T. & Matear, M. 2010. Social entrepreneurship: Why we don’t need a new theory and how we move forward from here. Academy of Management Perspectives, 24, 37-57.
Desa, G. & Basu, S. 2013. Optimization or bricolage? Overcoming resource constraints in global social entrepreneurship. Strategic Entrepreneurship Journal, 7, 26-49.
Ellis, P. D. 2011. Social ties and international entrepreneurship: Opportunities and constraints affecting firm internationalization. Journal of International Business Studies, 42, 99-127.
Estrin, S., Mickiewicz, T. & Stephan, U. 2013. Entrepreneurship, social capital, and institutions: Social and commercial entrepreneurship across nations. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 37, 479-504.
Felicio, J. A., Goncalves, H. M. & Goncalves, V. D. 2013. Social value and organizational performance in non-profit social organizations: Social entrepreneurship, leadership, and socioeconomic context effects. Journal of Business Research, 66, 2139-2146.
Gedajlovic, E., Honig, B., Moore, C. B., Payne, G. T. & Wright, M. 2013. Social capital and entrepreneurship: A schema and research agenda. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 37, 455-478.
Griskevicius, V., Cantu, S. M. & Van Vugt, M. 2012. The evolutionary bases for sustainable behavior: Implications for marketing, policy, and social entrepreneurship. Journal of Public Policy & Marketing, 31, 115-128.
Hall, J., Matos, S., Sheehan, L. & Silvestre, B. 2012. Entrepreneurship and innovation at the base of the pyramid: A recipe for inclusive growth or social exclusion? Journal of Management Studies, 49, 785-812.
Lepoutre, J., Justo, R., Terjesen, S. & Bosma, N. 2013. Designing a global standardized methodology for measuring social entrepreneurship activity: The global entrepreneurship monitor social entrepreneurship study. Small Business Economics, 40, 693-714.
Lumpkin, G. T., Moss, T. W., Gras, D. M., Kato, S. & Amezcua, A. S. 2013. Entrepreneurial processes in social contexts: How are they different, if at all? Small Business Economics, 40, 761-783.
Maclean, M., Harvey, C. & Gordon, J. 2013. Social innovation, social entrepreneurship and the practice of contemporary entrepreneurial philanthropy. International Small Business Journal, 31, 747-763.
Nga, J. K. H. & Shamuganathan, G. 2010. The influence of personality traits and demographic factors on social entrepreneurship start up intentions. Journal of Business Ethics, 95, 259-282.
Phillips, W., Lee, H., Ghobadian, A., O’regan, N. & James, P. 2015. Social innovation and social entrepreneurship: A systematic review. Group & Organization Management, 40, 428-461.
Ruebottom, T. 2013. The microstructures of rhetorical strategy in social entrepreneurship: Building legitimacy through heroes and villains. Journal of Business Venturing, 28, 98-116.
Santos, F. M. 2012. A positive theory of social entrepreneurship. Journal of Business Ethics, 111, 335-351.
Shaw, E. & De Bruin, A. 2013. Reconsidering capitalism: The promise of social innovation and social entrepreneurship? Introduction. International Small Business Journal, 31, 737-746.
Stam, W., Arzlanian, S. & Elfring, T. 2014. Social capital of entrepreneurs and small firm performance: A meta-analysis of contextual and methodological moderators. Journal of Business Venturing, 29, 152-173.
Zahra, S. A., Gedajlovic, E., Neubaum, D. O. & Shulman, J. M. 2009. A typology of social entrepreneurs: Motives, search processes and ethical challenges. Journal of Business Venturing, 24, 519-532.