ბიზნესის კორპორატიულ სოციალურ პასუხისმგებლობასა და სოციალურ მეწარმეობას შორის მსგავსება-განსხვავების ანალიზი

The past decades have seen an increase in studies on social entrepreneurship, yet its theorization remains underdeveloped. This is especially the case for clarifying how the social mission inherent in social enterprises is related to the social responsibility of traditional businesses, usually understood through corporate social responsibility (CSR) activities. The relation between social entrepreneurship and CSR is not unequivocal, as from a theoretical perspective these constructs should be distinct, yet their boundaries both in theory and in practice are still unclear. The literature suggests that it is their social mission that defines social enterprises whereas, for other types of small- and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs), CSR activities would be instrumental and motivated by profit maximization. Until now, it has been unclear what the role of CSR in activities and behavior in social enterprises is, which is a notable research gap since social entrepreneurship is an emerging domain of study in business research and practice. This study contributes by illustrating how CSR manifests through prosocial behavior across different levels in social SMEs, thus shedding light on how social entrepreneurs view their motivations towards others-oriented behavior in SMEs. We study the discourses of entrepreneurs who manage mission-driven businesses and social enterprises in Finland, Sweden, Estonia, and Latvia. The perspective can also have implications for SMEs and their strategic positioning of social entrepreneurship and CSR. Viewing social entrepreneurship, CSR, and prosocial motivation as sociopsychological and contextual, constructivist processes sheds light on the multifaceted nature of these phenomena. This discourse study presents a model of how individual, group, organization and societal prosocial motivations co-exist.

This research discusses the role of social entrepreneurship as an important feature of the moral economy, i.e., a socially responsible business practice. Developing countries, e.g., Georgia, a post-Soviet country, differ from those in the West in this aspect. The author aims to identify peculiarities of social entrepreneurship and corporate social responsibility of Georgian businesses. Desk research provides conceptual analysis of the existing quantitative and qualitative studies, based on prominent scientists’ works in economics and entrepreneurship. A “moral economy” understands business activities as “social services.” Social responsibility is a business’s moral framework, suggesting a company’s obligation to generate social benefit. Social entrepreneurship combines the best practices from the nonprofit and for-profit activities to tackle social needs poorly addressed by businesses and governments. Social entrepreneurship is a relatively new phenomenon in post-Soviet countries, where nongovernmental organizations help in solving many social problems, but their efforts are typically insufficient. Entrepreneurs must find a balance between a company’s success, employees’ needs, and environmental and social stability. These three priorities form the foundations of corporate social responsibility. Economic history provides many examples of moral standards driving the stability of a socio-economic system and profitability of companies with macroeconomic and microeconomic positive impacts. Companies operating in Georgia spend their funds on social projects and charity; moreover, such socially oriented activities are sometimes chaotic. Companies need to implement social responsibility projects as part of their business plans. Strengthening corporate social responsibility could thus support development of social entrepreneurship.

Social Entrepreneurship and COVID‐19

The phenomenon of social entrepreneurship has proliferated in recent times. Concurrently, scholarly interest in and work examining social entrepreneurship has also blossomed. Yet there remains much about social entrepreneurship that we still do not know, whilst authors continue to highlight limitations in the state of theory development within the field of social entrepreneurship research. This chapter contributes towards advancing social entrepreneurship scholarship, and addressing these limitations, by exploring the insights, application, and value of Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) theory for social entrepreneurship research. To do this, two key CSR theories: stakeholder theory and Carroll’s CSR Pyramid, are analysed. We consider how both theories need to be adapted for a social enterprise context, before presenting a revised stakeholder theory of the social enterprise, and introducing the social enterprise responsibility pyramid. Although discussions in this chapter are principally conceptual, illustrative supporting examples are drawn from case study research with small and medium sized social enterprises in Sub-Saharan Africa

Corporate social responsibility (CSR) is the incorporation of environmental and social responsibilities into the business activity, in line with the economic responsibility that firms have traditionally focused on. The social entrepreneur is a type of entrepreneur who seeks to resolve a social or environmental problem through the application of a business model, motivated by the aim of helping others and pursuing positive social change. A key aspect of social entrepreneurship (SE) is therefore the creation of social wealth. Both concepts pursue positive social change, but unlike social entrepreneurs, the objective of a responsible firm is not to solve social issues created by others, rather to understand and limit the social and environmental impacts of their profit-generating activities. In recent decades, research on CSR has grown considerably, whereas SE has only begun to receive serious academic attention quite recently. Crucially, few studies have tried to link and differentiate the two areas. Due to the increasing interest in both concepts nowadays, the need to clarify the similarities and differences between them is greater than ever, and is the principal aim of this work.

In Europe 160 million people are members of social economy enterprises and mutual societies. Members that work at social enterprises usually are bound with an employee relationship with their organization; on the other hand participating in a social enterprise could be their only chance to find a job, especially for economies that face a long-term recession such as the Greek economy. Social enterprises and entrepreneurs invest in reciprocity which represents that positive actions will inspire reciprocal positive actions. The main objective of this study is to examine the effect of reciprocity on members’ decision either to invest in social enterprises or to work for them acquiring in both cases the necessary shares. For this reason, a survey was conducted among Greek members of social enterprises listed in the Greek Social enterprises directory, to investigate their aspects about reciprocity and if these aspects affect their decision to work in a social enterprise or support financially them. The survey process returned 142 fully completed questionnaires. The analysis identified a sub group (5 over 27 items) of the questions used to measure reciprocity that can be used to classify participants into shareholders - members (investors) and shareholders - workers in social enterprises. It is worth mentioning that sex or other demographic characteristics of the respondents do not affect this classification while there are only aspects of positive reciprocity that have either positive or negative effect on the possibility to work in social enterprises. Social entrepreneurs and the Greek state could use these findings in order to direct and manage their expansion efforts.

Driven by increased consciousness of social, environmental, and ethical issues, the traditional consumer profile is experiencing a major transformation in the current business environment. This evolution is driving organisations to look beyond profit-oriented models and adopt Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) and social entrepreneurship as strategic instruments for innovation and value creation at scale. We develop this line of thought by examining the interactions between changing consumer demands and the potential for innovation through CSR and social enterprise initiatives. This paper examines the evolving dynamics of consumer behaviour, highlighting how organisations may utilise CSR and social entrepreneurship to meet increasing customer expectations and stimulate innovation. As sustainability, social fairness, and environmental responsibility gain prominence, customers are meticulously evaluating business behaviours and choosing products that resonate with their principles. In this setting, CSR has emerged as a strategic instrument that elevates brand reputation, cultivates consumer loyalty, and distinguishes enterprises in a competitive market. Social entrepreneurship, which integrates corporate expertise with social objectives, offers a compelling framework for enterprises to generate both social impact and financial returns. Through the implementation of impactful CSR projects and the adoption of social entrepreneurship, corporations can fulfil the dual objectives of profit generation and resolving global social issues. The document emphasises that digital platforms have intensified this transition by giving customers immediate access to information and enabling them to hold firms accountable. By implementing creative CSR and social entrepreneurship strategies, organisations enhance societal welfare while simultaneously securing a competitive advantage by engaging a growing market of socially conscious consumers. This research underscores the significance of authenticity, openness, and enduring commitment when utilising CSR and social entrepreneurship for sustainable innovation and growth. Businesses that effectively incorporate these principles into their fundamental operations are more likely to prosper in a progressively conscientious and consumer-oriented market.

This introductory article to the special issue, Social Innovation, Social Enterprise, and Social Entrepreneurship (SE/SI) in Social Work and Human Services, positions SE/SI as embedded in the profession’s history as an integral sub-field of practice and research. It advances three arguments: SE/SI has been part of social work practice since the inception of the profession; social work entrepreneurship is globally distributed and contextually responsive; and deliberate engagement with SE/SI is necessary for the field’s future relevance. This article outlines foundational concepts, traces historical developments from settlement houses and early work-integration initiatives to contemporary hybrid models, and situates this legacy within current global challenges. It also introduces the contributions in this issue, grouped into three thematic areas that reflect these arguments. The introduction underscores SE/SI as vital to social work and human services’ capacity to address complex crises in turbulent times while advancing equity, sustainability, and well-being.

Over 250 million people in India currently lack access to basic services needed to live a rudimentary lifestyle. Most of these people reside in rural parts of the country. Lack of employment, economic opportunities, and development in rural areas are foundational to low socio-economic levels in these communities. Added to this are environmental issues such as natural resource depletion, yearlong droughts, climate change. We hypothesize that social enterprises developed at the community level can improve the quality of life of people in rural India. The lack of access to investment and resources to identify and develop social enterprises are major challenges for the creation of social enterprises. We hypothesize that a successful partnership between two major stakeholders, namely, social entrepreneurs and corporate social responsibility (CSR) investors is the key in developing multiple social enterprises to foster rural development. However, CSR and other investors require quantitative information along with impact evaluation of the value proposition before investing. Social entrepreneurs lack tools to develop and present value propositions for the village in a quantitative form. In this paper, we propose a computational framework to fill this gap and to facilitate dialog between CSR investors and social entrepreneurs that may result in a mutually favorable investment.

The emergence of entrepreneurship as an activity which addresses enduring social or environmental challenges has been a source of innovation, promise and insight for practitioners and scholars alike. While researchers have contributed to understandings of social entrepreneurship and social enterprise in many contexts, it is a curious anomaly of social entrepreneurship scholarship that so little consideration has been given to its application within international humanitarian non-government organizations (INGOs) and aid agencies. The lack of research is notable because these development organizations have tremendous potential to realize the benefits of social entrepreneurship due to their capability and capacity that has been developed through the provision of community and economic development programs in the world’s most vulnerable communities. We therefore lack relevant theory to explain and guide action in this sector. As INGOs pursue or facilitate social entrepreneurship to increase their impact and/or make their activities more financially sustainable, they are forced to contend with the competing logics (social and commercial) of this activity itself, but also with the ways in which this conflicts with their own dominant development (social) logic. These logics are based on the institutional parameters of the category in which the organization operates, i.e., private, public or non-profit sector (Doherty et al., 2014). Billis (2010) provides us with the following organizational templates to explicate category logics (Table 20.1). This is a useful framework for illustrating not only how social entrepreneurs and social enterprises combine competing logics but how this can be problematic in terms of governance and resourcing (cf. Doherty et al., 2014; Newth and Woods, 2014). International development agencies are being forced to respond to many geopolitical, economic and technological environment changes. The threats and opportunities these changes create will likely necessitate a degree of hybridization. Hybrid organizations are those that combine institutional logics (Battilana and Dorado, 2010; Doherty et al., 2014; Pache and Santos, 2013). Examples of such organizations include social enterprises which combine commercial and social logics (Doherty et al., 2014); microfinance organizations which combinedevelopment and banking logics (Battilana et al., 2015), public-private partnerships which combine state, market and civil society logics (Jay, 2013), and research centers and education institutions which combine scientific or academic with market logics (cf. Pache and Santos, 2013). These organizations also bridge, or blur, institutional fields (Tracey et al., 2011). Institutional logics are understood to be the “taken for granted social prescriptions that represent shared understandings of what constitutes legitimate goals and how they may be pursued” (Battilana and Dorado, 2010, 1420). Hybrid organization research in social entrepreneurship is particularly concerned with organizations that combine logics that would otherwise be considered incompatible. This chapter uses Shepherd and Patzelt (2011) as an organizing framework to illustrate the opportunities that social entrepreneurship offers INGOs, all of which are relevant to the organization under examination here. The points within an INGO that are challenged by the pursuit of social entrepreneurship are then identified and discussed in terms of how changes at these points force, or require, hybridity. This discussion seeks to contribute to the literature around hybridization in social entrepreneurship and enterprise by drawing out the specific aspects of a particular non-profit that are challenged by the hybrid logic of social entrepreneurship strategies and initiatives. Drawing on Newth and Woods’ (2014) development of Schumpeter’s (1934) notion of resistance as it applies to social entrepreneurship and institutional theory, the micro-level institutional bases for tension and resistance to social entrepreneurship are considered via an in-depth case study. This chapter’s empirical application of Shepherd and Patzelt’s (2011) framework and its combination with institutional theory, specifically institutional logics, contributes to social and sustainable entrepreneurship theory. It also provides specific insight into the application of this theory in the international development sector. This represents an initial step in addressing the lack of research into social entrepreneurship in this sector in general, and towards building theory which explains and informs the contextual bases thatTable 20.1 Organizational templatesInstitutional guideGovernorship Owners Business model/ revenuePrivate Market forces Share of ownershipShareholders SalesPublic Public benefit and collective choiceElected representativesCitizens and stateTaxationNon-profit Social and environmental goalsElected representatives or appointed trusteesMembers Donations, membership fees and legaciesenable and constrain entrepreneurial action in established development organizations.

The circular economy(CE) is a key player in transforming production systems and consumption habits in Western Balkans (WB) countries to tackle the challenges of climate change in a region that includes some of the most polluted capital cities in the world, such as Skopje and Pristina. The circular economy roadmap is one of the main priorities of the Green Transition in the region. Although circular economy practices in the WB countries are still in the early stages of development, there is potential for growth, primarily through the 5Rs (Reduce, Reuse, Repair, Refurbish, Recycle). The contributions of the circular economy and social entrepreneurship to achieving the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) are well recognised, as they provide solutions to social, environmental, and economic challenges. However, there is a need to pair these two concepts more effectively and integrate them. While the circular economy focuses on financial and environmental solutions, social entrepreneurship compensates by offering social solutions. Social enterprises create an inclusive approach to the circular economy. On the other hand, social enterprises that adopt the principles of the circular economy can reduce their operational costs, add value, and create further opportunities for jobs and training. Social enterprises also offer more inclusive business models that prioritise the needs of local communities. Additionally, the transition to a circular economy presents opportunities for social entrepreneurship and social enterprises, including upskilling and reskilling the workforce, developing collaborative business models that target consumers, fostering innovative partnerships, and promoting advocacy opportunities. In the context of WB countries, social entrepreneurship and the circular economy are often studied separately, although research interest in both fields is increasing. Social entrepreneurship has been a crucial driver of social and economic development in these countries. However, the circular economy ecosystem in the WB region remains fragmented. This paper aims to investigate how social entrepreneurship can contribute to building a circular economy ecosystem in the WB region. The approach of this study is qualitative, based on case study methodology, focusing on one particular WB country, Albania. Eight semi-structured interviews were conducted with various stakeholders, including government representatives, academics, NGOs, and social entrepreneurs, between October and November 2024. The study presents a conceptual framework for the circular economy ecosystem, integrating aspects of social entrepreneurship, including social orientation, market orientation, innovation, opportunity recognition, and community orientation. The main contribution of this study is in linking social entrepreneurship with the circular economy. Received: 27 May 2025 / Accepted: 20 July 2025 / Published: 01 August 2025

Social enterprises have gained attention in recent decades. Many universities, private institutions, and government agencies promote social enterprises to solve social problems and create social value. Social entrepreneurship can be materialized in two ways: one from social issues to entrepreneurship and the other from entrepreneurship to social issues. The process from social issues to entrepreneurship is mainly concerned with assisting individuals, disadvantaged groups, or communities in addressing social issues in relation to establishing social enterprises. The process from entrepreneurship to social issues leads existing enterprises or entrepreneurs to explore social issues that may reveal economic opportunities and create social enterprises. This study focuses on these two types of social entrepreneurship and attempts to determine differences between the entrepreneurship and business model, characteristics and entrepreneurial spirits, and social impact. This study employs comprehensive thinking, collation, and analysis of different management patterns and content patterns of social enterprises to understand the different entrepreneurial styles. This study found that social enterprises created from social issues to entrepreneurship were more concerned with other people's problems. Their funding appeared less reliant on earning and repayment. The resources were more diverse. Such social enterprises might focus their care on people or communities they missioned to help and not practice profit or surplus distribution to shareholders. On the contrary, social enterprises from entrepreneurship to social issues were inspired by their own issues. A large part of such social enterprises' funding might be from earnings or repayment. Such social enterprises might involve fewer volunteers, make less use of free services, focus on exchanges of products or services for repayment, and distribute profit or surplus to shareholders.

PurposeIsrael is characterised by economic growth that is accompanied not only by prosperity but also by increasing poverty. This paper aims to conceptualise the role of Israel’s social enterprises in reducing the gap between prosperous and disadvantaged populations.Design/methodology/approachThis qualitative study is based on 23 in-depth interviews. It makes use of a theoretical framework that incorporates two elements: cosmopolitanism and social entrepreneurship. Cosmopolitanism, together with government policies that aim to develop free enterprise and international trade, support entrepreneurship and advance education, accompanies and facilitates prosperity. Whilst prosperity increases inequality, social entrepreneurship develops as a tool to mitigate the side effects of economic growth in the form of the increasing gap between the rich and the poor.FindingsThis paper argues that the principal reason why the gap evolved and is increasing is in the discrepancy between rapidly rising requirements presented by the innovation-focussed economy and the workers’ skills. Based on interviews with social entrepreneurs who are (co)founders or managers of businesses with a social purpose, findings show that the gap between prosperity and social deprivation could be bridged by increasing workers’ capacity to align their skills with employers’ requirements, which is the area to which Israeli social enterprises contribute.Originality/valueThe paper argues that cosmopolitan orientation is one of the contributors to economic growth and innovation, whilst prosperity increases the gap between high- and low-income groups. The paper contributes to the body of knowledge about social entrepreneurs by applying the framework that makes use of cosmopolitanism as an important driver of Israeli social entrepreneurship, which helps to explain the role that social business enterprises play in reducing the gap between prosperous and disadvantaged populations.

Over the past decade, the role of social entrepreneurship has increased rapidly. The driving force of the social enterprises is the succesfull project management and ability to use various tools to further improve the work with stakeholders. Project management, unlike management in general, is a continuous process that has a specific end result that is limited in time and finance and is the key differentiator of project management from management. There are many project management programs and tools available; however, social entrepreneurs are unaware of or reluctant to implement them. It is estimated that there are altogether approximately 300 management tools are availabe in the world (Rudder, 2022). One of such tools is project management stakeholder matrix. The aim of the paper is to determine the awareness of the project management stakeholder matrix in social enterprises in Latvia. To achieve this aim, the following steps are determined: to provide a theoretical explanation of project management in the context of social entrepreneurship and empirically obtained information to identify the awareness about project management stakeholder matrix in social enterprises in Latvia. The paper employed quantitative research - surveying social enterprise project managers in Latvia. One of the tools that helps improve social entrepreneurs project management and achieve project goals is a stakeholder analysis of the project. The knowledge about the project management stakeholder matrix helps social entrepreneurs to increase the security to deal with low use of digital tools capacity in the team and allows better management of the project team.

A social enterprise organisation seeks business solutions to social problems. It identifies social needs and uses the market to address them. Existing literature presents a variety of concepts and frameworks to connect market sector organisations with social amelioration agendas, including corporate social responsibility and stakeholder management. Yet, the demand for such organisations to contribute to resolving social problems remains, and international business and management scholarship in this area needs to be supplemented by literature on governance and regulation. The central objective of this thesis is to examine the potential of the social enterprise as a market sector organisation, to address social problems principally by examining a case study of a market sector organisation dealing directly with the climate crisis. The primary argument of the thesis is that the social enterprise has a unique internal context, which it harnesses to formulate strategies and to manage its external context consistent with a social mission. The unique features of its internal context enable the social enterprise organisation to enact the concept of social enterprise. These features include an explicit and solely social mission, social capital, social entrepreneurship, a stakeholder-ownership structure, and organisational hybridity and heterogeneity. In discussion of the principal case study findings, the thesis highlights that through a social mission, a stakeholder-ownership structure, hybridity and heterogeneity, the social enterprise can operate beyond stereotypes of market sector organisations. It does not have to focus purely on mechanisms for increasing individual, private wealth and can pursue social agendas as its purpose. Using its social capital and social entrepreneurship, the social enterprise can cooperate with other actors in constructing, through regulation and governance, a ‘choice architecture’ persuading actors to make socially ameliorative decisions. This lowers the complexity and uncertainty that characterise the social arena and can lead to opportunities for further cooperation for problem resolution. The central implications of the case study and the literature review are discussed in this thesis by examining the thesis findings in the context of the climate crisis. Through its unique features the social enterprise organisation is able to enact concepts proposed as opportunities for pursuing organisational resolutions to the climate crisis, perceived to be the realignment of incentives to which cooperation, politics and regulation can contribute. These concepts include ‘transformative leadership’ to pursue social equity and justice as a path towards resolution of the climate crisis, and ‘natural capitalism’, the realignment of capitalism with the value of ecosystems and natural resources. The social enterprise organisation possesses the motivation and capability to enact these concepts.