2022代写essayMBA Master essay：The role of social entrepreneurship and soc
1.0 Introduction介绍企业家亲社会激励理论的积极意义在当今社会得到普遍认同，它改变了资本家只追求经济利益、企业家亲社会行为和创新能促进社会经济发展的旧观点（Eisenberg等人，2013）。然而，McMullen和Bergman（2017）在他们的论文《社会企业家精神与亲社会动机的发展悖论：一个警示故事》中对这一理论进行了深入的分析，提出了一些不同的有价值的观点。社会企业家精神和社会创新在社会经济发展中的作用值得关注（Benabou和Titole，2003）。本文将分析麦克马伦和伯格曼（2017）的文章，阐述其优点、缺点，并结合一些案例分析结论，提出自己的观点。The positive significance of entrepreneur pro-social motivation theory is generally acknowledged by today's society, and it changes the old view that capitalists only seek economic benefits, entrepreneurial pro-social behavior and innovation can promote social and economic development (Eisenberg et al., 2013). However, McMullen and Bergman (2017) conducted an in-depth analysis on this theory in their thesis named Social Entrepreneurship and the Development Paradox of Pro-social Motivation: a Cautionary Tale to put forward some different valuable opinions. It is worth paying attention to the role of social entrepreneurship and social innovation in social and economic development (Benabou and Titole, 2003). This essay will analyze McMullen and Bergman’s (2017) article, explaining its strengths, weaknesses and combining with some cases to analyze the conclusions to put forward the author’s own views.2.0 Main body主体2.1 Review of McMullen and Bergman (2017)McMullen和Bergman的回顾（2017年）本文的主要优点之一是证实了企业家的亲社会激励理论。企业家的亲社会动机是指企业家为生活在困难、贫困和疾病中的人提供他们所需要的帮助，企业家的这些动机和行为不是出于经济原因，他们没有义务这样做（Batson，1987）。他们的动机只有亲社会。McMullen和Bergman（2017）的研究为这种理论提供了更多实质性证据。在这项研究中，可口可乐、微软和英特尔积极参与为非洲人提供清洁水，这些项目不会给他们带来太多的经济效益，相反，他们需要投入大量的资金和人力。没有这些企业家的亲社会行为，其他企业和政府就没有能力或意愿向非洲人提供他们需要的清洁水。因此，企业家的亲社会行为可以弥补政府和市场的不足。同时，本研究也是企业家亲社会动机理论的一个重要发展，也就是说，企业家的亲社会动机不仅允许企业家做慈善性的生意，而且进一步影响企业的决策行为，这相当于企业的决策行为。认为企业家的亲社会行为不仅在短期内具有积极作用，而且从长远来看也可能具有积极作用，这对实现慈善事业的可持续发展具有积极意义。在这项研究中，SWA努力扩大其需求，为非洲人提供更便宜的纯水，降低生产成本，从而降低水的价格，从而使穷人可以买到便宜的清洁水。One of the major advantages of this article is that it confirms the pro-social motivation theory of entrepreneurs. Entrepreneurial pro-social motivation refers to the fact that entrepreneurs provide those who live in difficult, poor and sick conditions with the help they need, and these motives and behaviors of entrepreneurs are not taken for economic reasons, and they have no obligation to do so (Batson, 1987). They are motivated only by pro-society. McMullen and Bergman’s (2017) research provides more substantive evidence for such a theory. In the research, Coca-Cola, Microsoft, and Intel were actively involved in providing clean water for Africans, and the projects would not bring them much economic benefits, instead, they needed to invest a lot of money and manpower. Without these pro-social behaviors of entrepreneurs, other enterprises and governments lack the capacity or the will to provide Africans with clean water they need. Therefore, the pro-social behavior of entrepreneurs can make up for government and market deficiencies. At the same time, this study is an important development of the theory of pro-social motivation for entrepreneurs, that is, it points out the pro-social motivation of entrepreneurs not only allows entrepreneurs to do business with a charitable nature, but also further influences the decision-making behavior of enterprises, which is equivalent to saying that pro-social behavior of entrepreneurs not only has a positive effect in the short term, but also may have a positive effect in the long run, which is of positive significance for realizing the sustainable development of charities. As in the study, SWA worked hard to expand its demand to provide Africans with cheaper pure water and lower their production costs so as to reduce the price of water, thus the poor could buy cheap clean water.The second advantage of McMullen and Bergman’s (2017) research is that it critically analyzes this theory while affirming pro-social entrepreneurship. They commented that there are differences in pro-social motivation of entrepreneurs. Some entrepreneurs might be able to avoid taking economic interests as their first goal. Some entrepreneurs needed the pursuit of mutual benefits. McMullen and Bergman (2017) believed that this reciprocity and mutual benefit required by entrepreneurs was understandable to some extent. Such mutual benefit and reciprocity may come from the need of sustainable development or the improper expectations of locals for charities. For example: The WHG believed that providing Africans with clean water needed them to pay a lot of money, increasing the water price for their benefit helped them to do this long term; some consumers donated land, money and other resources for philanthropy, and they also wanted better water resources. This also required enterprises to provide them with better or cheaper water resources, so that the enterprises could not fully follow the principle of distributive justice to deal with water production and sales. Of course, they also expressed some concerns about this mutually beneficial phenomenon. For example, water resources are not technical products but hybrid products. They not only meet people's physiological needs but also reflect human needs and rights for survival, through selling water to get income is ethically controversial. In addition, McMullen and Bergman (2017) also pointed out that this reciprocity and mutual benefit prevented new competitors from entering the market, which was unfavorable to the optimal development of philanthropy.One of the drawbacks of this research is that it fails to view the issue in a broader and systematic perspective. For example, they overlooked the role that governments played in pro-social entrepreneurs’ charity. Entrepreneurship charity is one of the functions of governments, it is simply because governments lack sufficient capacity, so those entrepreneurs do the job, it does not mean that governments can not play a role in corporate philanthropy. Second, they (McMullen and Bergman, 2017) believed that it is understandable that entrepreneurs should seek mutual benefits. However, they did not specify who determines the standard of reciprocity and mutual benefit and if the reciprocity and mutual benefit is unilaterally made by an enterprise, it should obviously not be understood and supported.2.2 The case of Monsanto CompanyThe issue of food has always been a major issue affecting world peace and development (Kraatz, and Block, 2008). Today's rapidly growing population in developing countries makes the problem of food shortages in many countries worse (Khanna and Palepu, 2000). At the same time, agriculture is the economic pillar of many developing countries (Khanna and Palepu, 1997). The backward agricultural technologies have also seriously affected the improvement of the living standards of local people (Kent and Ignatius, 2011). As a result, agricultural enterprises in some developed countries provided agricultural technological support or even free seeds, pesticides to agricultural backward countries (Kautonen, Tornikoski and Kibler, 2011). In the 20th century, for example, Monsanto provided Argentine farmers with genetically modified soybeans, agriculture and other supporting agricultural technology services at affordable prices (Charlebois and Acker, 2016). Since then, Monsanto also continued technological innovation to help Argentina to become the country in the world in which genetically modified technology was most widely used, the application of genetically modified technology has greatly reduced agricultural production costs and increased production, making Argentina's soybean exports have become one of the country's most important foreign exchange earning industries, which has not only brought Argentina huge foreign exchange to alleviate economic problems, but also earnestly raised the incomes of Argentine farmers (Finegold et al., 2005).The pro-social behaviors that agribusiness aids agricultural development in backward regions and achieves good social effects occurs in many parts of the world, for example, in Africa, South America and Asia (Anonymous, 2009). However, the pro-social behavior of agricultural companies and their later innovation activities have also suffered a lot of criticism. For example, Monsanto almost monopolized the supply of seeds in Argentina, 90% of the country's farmers have to buy seeds from Monsanto (Finegold et al., 2005). In addition, Argentine farmers also have to pay a generous fee for seed patents. In addition, there were many reports and studies pointed out that the susceptibility to cancer, deformed children and respiratory diseases of local people was increased, and environmental pollution arose, which was caused by Monsanto's special-purpose pesticides (Charlebois and Acker, 2016; Hoogendoorn, 2016). Monsanto relied on its monopoly in Argentina to earn more than billions of U.S. dollars in Argentina, all of which led to criticisms from local people (Anonymous, 2009).#p#分页标题#e#2.3 DiscussionWhat McMullen and Bergman’s (2017) analyzed has affirmed the pro-social behavior of entrepreneurs, and the pro-social behavior of agricultural enterprises in the world grain industry is equally worthy of affirmation. In many agricultural backward areas in the world, peasants obtained seeds, technology and other support through their help to improved their life, and in the early days, these agricultural enterprises did not get much economic benefits, so these pro-social philanthropic behavior of the agricultural enterprises was worthy of recognition, without their charity, it was very difficult for the local people to get the necessary help, because these local governments often lacked sufficient capacity, coupled with that the economic and social development in these areas is lagging behind, in some places, the natural environment is still very poor, so it is difficult for them to attract enough investment (Ite, 2004).McMullen and Bergman’s (2017) study indicated that pro-social-based enterprises adjusted their strategies and marketing plans according to their own purposes while doing charity. Considering the case discussed in this article, it has also confirmed the existence of such phenomena. Taking Monsanto as an example, they implemented constant innovation in their technologies to help the local agriculture to continue to grow and develop. Naturally, the purpose of technological innovation carried by Monsanto was to achieve a win-win situation, it was also mentioned in McMullen and Bergman’s (2017) study. It is an understandable phenomenon that enterprises achieve a win-win situation by charity, which is beneficial for attracting entrepreneurs to be engaged in charity and ensuring that they can keep charitable behavior for a long time (Karnani, 2014), as Monsanto needs to invest a lot of money for both R & D and promotion of genetically modified technologies. Therefore, Monsanto's pursuit of a win-win outcome is not inappropriate.McMullen and Bergman’s (2017) expressed their concern over the pursuit of win-win results for companies in charitable causes in the study because the pursuit of a win-win situation may lead to many new problems such as monopolies. The case of Monsanto Company reflected what McMullen and Bergman’s (2017) were concerned about. In the case, Monsanto brought environmental pollution problems, monopoly problems and other problems affecting local people’ health, which caused the Argentineans to question the originally pro-social behavior of the company in Argentina, the locals thought that Argentina was trapped by Monsanto. However, it should be noted that the problems brought by Monsanto today should not be pre-designed by it in advance because, after all, Monsanto's actions have brought huge profits to the local peasants and the country. Without Monsanto, they could not have today's results, if Monsanto's original pro-social behavior was a conspiracy, they could take more favorable ways to get more profits. Therefore, most of the problems caused by Monsanto today came from the process of its pursuit of a win-win result, which was consistent with McMullen and Bergman’s (2017) assertion.2.4 RecommendationTo deal with the unfavorable influence brought by the process of social entrepreneurship and social innovation, the author of this essay thought that it should be solved from the following three aspects. First, it must clarify the meaning of reciprocity and mutual benefit and what kind of mutual benefit is fair, just, equal and sustainable. Enterprises can not invade the interests of locals in the name of mutual benefit and they can not hinder the economic and social development of the locals. The definition and standard of mutual benefit should be more determined by enterprises, local governments, residents and other relevant stakeholders. Second, governments should play an important role in the process of entrepreneurs’ implementation of charity. On the one hand, governments should actively encourage entrepreneurs’ pro-social and innovative behaviors, safeguarding the reasonable interests of the enterprises. On the other hand, governments should have a strategic vision, guiding and participating in corporate philanthropy of enterprises to find the best balance between entrepreneurial philanthropy and business interests, so as to find the best way for local development. Finally, both McMullen and Bergman’s (2017) study and the case of Monsanto Company have mentioned that the problems generating during enterprises’ pursuit of mutual benefit were partly due to the incorrect expectations of locals for philanthropy or the failure of the Argentine government to lead to that the domestic agricultural policies were to a large extent affected by Monsanto and it lacked autonomy. Therefore, it is necessary to guide local residents to form a correct view on the pro-social behavior of enterprises and put an end to possible government dereliction of duty and corruption so as to avoid damaging the public interests by satisfying the private interests of some people.3.0 ConclusionAs McMullen and Bergman’s (2017) study and the case of Monsanto Company illustrate, entrepreneur pro-social motivation and social innovation are beneficial to economic and social development. Such behavior is worthy of recognition, entrepreneurs’ pursuing reciprocity and mutual benefit is understandable. However, the problems arising in the process of pursuit of reciprocity and mutual benefit should be valued and resolved.ReferenceAnonymous. (2009). Air products to build world-scale hydrogen plant for Monsanto. Pump Industry Analyst, 10, 4.Batson, C. D. (1987). Pro-social motivation: is it ever truly altruistic? Advances in experimental social psychology, 20, 65-122.Benabou, R. and Titole, J. (2003).Incentives and prosocial behavior. The American Economic Review, 96, 1652-1687.Charlebois, S. and Acker, R. V. (2016). In the belly of the “beast”: A look at Monsanto’s public engagement awakening. Public Relations Review, 42(1), 223-225Eisenberg, N. et al. (2013). Moral cognitions and prosocial responding in adolescence. Handbook of adolescent psychology. New York: Wiley, 155-188.Finegold, D. L. et al. (2005). Monsanto Company: bio-agriculture pioneer. BioIndustry Ethics, 267-300.Hoogendoorn, B. (2016). The prevalence and determinants of social entrepreneurship at the macro level. Journal of Small Business Management, 54(S1), 278–296.Ite, U. (2004). Multinationals and corporate social responsibility in developing countries: a case study of Nigeria. Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, 11(1), 1–11.Karnani, A. (2014). Corporate social responsibility does not avert the tragedy of the commons. Case study: Coca-Cola India. Economics, Management, and Financial Markets, 9(3), 11–23.Kautonen, T., Tornikoski, E. T., & Kibler, E. (2011). Entrepreneurial intentions in the third age: the impact of perceived age norms. Small Business Economics, 37(2), 219–234.Kent, M. and Ignatius, A. (2011). Shaking things up at Coca-Cola. Harvard Business Review, 89(10), 94–99.Khanna, T.and Palepu, K. (2000). The future of business groups in emerging markets: long-run evidence from Chile. Academy of Management Journal, 43(3), 268–285.Khanna, T. and Palepu, K. (1997). Why focused strategies may be wrong for emerging markets. Harvard Business Review, 75(4), 41–48.Kraatz, M. S. and Block, E. S. (2008). Organizational implications of institutional pluralism. London, U.K.: The Sage Handbook of Organizational Institutionalism, 840, 243–275.McMullen, J. S. and Bergman, B. J. (2017). Social entrepreneurship and the development paradox of prosocial motivation: a cautionary tale. Strategic Entrepreneurship Journal, 11, 243–270.