Differences in social entrepreneurship between countries

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.

Social Entrepreneurship and COVID‐19

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.

A decade ago the concept of social entrepreneurship was rarely discussed in Malaysia even though the practice of delivering social values to the population has been around for years. Efforts that combined the concept of entrepreneurship and social development were established years before the emergence of the term. Only in recent years the concept of social entrepreneurship is making a significant breakthrough and attaining more interest not only from social entrepreneurs but also academics and policy makers due to globalized economic system that in turn has resulted in the emergence of social entrepreneurship within a complex framework of political, economic and social changes occurring at the global, national and local levels. Nevertheless, the concept and definitions of social entrepreneurship, social entrepreneur and social enterprise need to be comprehended by those who are involved in the sector to further sustain the development of pertinent initiatives. Therefore, this paper reviews current literature pertaining the concepts and definitions of social entrepreneurship, social entrepreneur and social enterprise and recent development of the sector in Malaysia.

A decade ago the concept of social entrepreneurship was rarely discussed in Malaysia even though the practice of delivering social values to the population has been around for years. Efforts that combined the concept of entrepreneurship and social development were established years before the emergence of the term. Only in recent years the concept of social entrepreneurship is making a significant breakthrough and attaining more interest not only from social entrepreneurs but also academics and policy makers due to globalized economic system that in turn has resulted in the emergence of social entrepreneurship within a complex framework of political, economic and social changes occurring at the global, national and local levels. Nevertheless, the concept and definitions of social entrepreneurship, social entrepreneur and social enterprise need to be comprehended by those who are involved in the sector to further sustain the development of pertinent initiatives. Therefore, this paper reviews current literature pertaining the concepts and definitions of social entrepreneurship, social entrepreneur and social enterprise and recent development of the sector in Malaysia.

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.

Although the business and public policy communities have ignited a national movement toward embracing social entrepreneurship as a laudable enterprise and a critical piece in addressing social problems, social work remains notably absent from the discussion and definition of this field. Though the values and practices of social entrepreneurship are closely aligned with social work, social work scholars and institutions have been less at the forefront of this movement than have representatives of other disciphnes. The Skoll Foundation, a leading agent for developing and promoting social entrepreneurship, listed three exemplary social entrepreneurs in their description of the concept (the document, Foundations of Entrepreneurship, has since the time of this writing been taken down; for general information, see http:// www.skollfoundation.org/). Among those listed is Jane Addams, founder of Hull House and one of the most influential figures in social work history. Yet social work has done little to align itself with the movement of social entrepreneurship. There remains an opportunity for the field of social work to avail itself of the resources and knowledge created by this movement and to infuse social work knowledge into the study of social entrepreneurship. Understanding the history and definition of social entrepreneurship helps to define potential roles and contributions for social work and provides an opportunity to explore their congruence and potential connections. DEFINITION OF SOCIAL ENTREPRENEURSHIP Consideration of the role of social work in the social entrepreneurship movement requires an understanding of the concept. Although there has been some debate about the definition of social entrepreneurship (Christie & Honig, 2006; Mair & Marti, 2006), common to all definitions is the goal of creating social value or mission rather than personal gain or financial wealth (Peredo & McLean, 2006). Bill Drayton, founder of Ashoka, a leading global organization that identifies and promotes social entrepreneurs, is generally credited with the term's origin. His famous statement embodies the concept: Social entrepreneurs are not content just to give a fish or teach how to fish. They will not rest until they have revolutionized the fishing industry (see http://usa.ashoka.org/social-entrepreneurs-are-not-content-just-givefish- or-teach-how-fish). Scholars have argued over whether social entrepreneurship has specific ingredients, including particular responses or specific characteristics of the entrepreneur. Dees (1998) defined social entrepreneurship as the combination of social mission with business discipline, innovation, and determination to respond to social needs. Martin and Osberg (2007) described social entrepreneurship as a response to an opportunity to create an out-of-the box solution to a novel problem. They described three components: (1) identification of a stable but unjust equilibrium; (2) creation of a transformational social response; and (3) the result being a new, stable equilibrium that alleviates suffering of the identified group. Their definition clarifies that social service provision, creation of local programs, and social activism that creates change through indirect action are not included. Some scholars have suggested that social entrepreneurs have certain characteristics like a willingness to accept above-average risk, being unusually resourceful (Peredo & McLean, 2006), or having a strong ability to seize presented opportunities (Thompson, 2002). In 2006, Light argued for a more inclusive definition. He defined social entrepreneurship as the effort of an individual, organization, network, or group of organizations to create large-scale, sustainable change by shifting an approach to solving social problems. He argued against the notion of a heroic, risk-taking individual, forwarding instead a concept that celebrates working together in novel ways to solve social problems. …

The dynamic present in Ukraine forms a new interpretation of the concept of “entrepreneurship”. In the modern sense, entrepreneurship involves identifying, evaluating and using new, as yet unseen opportunities to attract the attention of consumers and maximize profits. In this sense, opportunities are a tool for finding innovation and creating new products or services. According to the Business Dictionary, entrepreneurship means the ability and desire to organize a business, taking into account the potential risks, in order to profit from it. According to Lowry, the concept of “entrepreneur” is defined as a person who seeks to achieve their goals in the economic space, to meet their desires and needs. According to the position of the consulting company McKenzie, entrepreneurs are responsible for improving the lifestyle of consumers, as well as for solving the problems faced by consumers. Most of these problems are social in nature. An enterprise that seeks tools of influence to solve such problems is called social. In our opinion, social entrepreneurship is a field of activity that can have both commercial and non-commercial basis, all efforts of which are aimed not at maximizing profits, but at solving social problems with innovative ideas. The spread of social entrepreneurship is currently fragmented and in its infancy. Entrepreneurs who choose to engage in social enterprises are often called innovators because they try to solve “outdated” social problems with “new” entrepreneurial approaches. Most researchers confirm the view that social entrepreneurship is entrepreneurship with innovation and even social entrepreneurship itself is called innovation in the social sphere. The definitions of social entrepreneurship are considered in the work, its innovative content is determined. Innovative social entrepreneurship in Ukraine is analyzed. The effectiveness of the introduction of social enterprises to solve social problems is substantiated. Examples of functioning social enterprises in Ukraine are given and social enterprises that are currently represented in Ukraine are grouped into three groups. The main stages of implementation of social entrepreneurship are summarized.

El éxito de las Beyoungri Danche depende de las estrategias financieras que sus líderes utilizan para hacerlas sostenibles en el tiempo. La recopilación de buenas prácticas de las Beyoungri Danche coreanas en la literatura y una investigación exploratoria de contenidos web de tres organizaciones exitosas, permite aprender tácticas de otra cultura que ha demostrado un alto nivel organizacional y fortalecer el diálogo alrededor de un tema de interés común.

Case synopsis Drawing from individual experiences and shared passion, Amena and Ramez first founded Helm as a student club at the American University in Cairo in 2012. As a club, Helm worked extensively to identify the main challenges facing persons with disabilities (PwDs) in Egypt. During meetings with various stakeholders, Helm found that employment was a recurring theme. The employment rate for PwDs in Egypt was only 21.3% compared to 40.2% among the non-disabled. During its first year alone, Helm found jobs for 300 individuals with some sort of disability. Despite this initial success, Helm strived to increase its social impact by increasing the integration of PwDs in Egypt through changing employers’ mindset and building inclusive work atmospheres where PwDs could work and thrive. There were, however, major cultural barriers in Egypt standing in the way of this vision. Despite these challenges, Helm managed to play a pivotal role in creating social transformation around disability in Egypt. Helm became a key player in reshaping Egypt’s legislation on PwDs through participating in several policymaking discussions, parliamentary committee meetings and programs with governmental entities. In the hope of increasing Helm’s potential social impact, Amena and Ramez aimed to maintain their growth in Egypt and to expand to other markets in the region. Accordingly, they were faced with a set of compelling questions. Amena and Ramez further wanted to make sure that their current business model and contribution to social transformation for PwDs could help them to grow and serve other markets. Should they adapt their business model and services offerings to scale up their social impact accordingly? If so, how? Case learning objectives This case allows students to consider the nature of social enterprises in developing countries and how they create social transformation in supporting PwDs in local communities. This case also introduces students to social enterprises’ business models, scalability and the sustainability issues which such enterprises face in the context of developing countries. By the end of studying the case, students should be able to understand the following: Objective 1: Identify the characteristics of social entrepreneurship and apply it to a social enterprise using Robinson’s (2006) definition of social entrepreneurship; Objective 2: Analyze the business model of a social enterprise using the nine building blocks of the business model canvas of Osterwalder and Pigneur (2010); Objective 3: Evaluate the social enterprise revenue model for sustainability using Yunus et al.’s (2010) building a social business model; and Objective 4: Suggest business model modification to improve a social enterprise’s scalability and service offerings in a new market. Complexity academic level This case study is aimed at students who are enrolled in entrepreneurship, social entrepreneurship, non-profit management, corporate social investment and sustainability courses. This case is written at an honor of graduate level so it can be used for master’s level, short graduate programs, MBA. The case is directed to students who have a business background and want to understand and explore social entrepreneurship. Supplementary materials Teaching notes are available for educators only. Subject code CSS 3: Entrepreneurship.

Social enterprises, social entrepreneurship and sustainable business models are increasingly common in sectors where Fair Trade does not have a strong presence (e.g. mobile phones and software). This research asks: To what extent do social and sustainability enterprises and entrepreneurship (SSEEs) in these ‘distant’ sectors engage the principles of Fair Trade? It draws on an in-depth, multi-method case study of SSEEs in the legal cannabis sector in Portland, Oregon, US. It analyzes data from magazine advertisements, public and industry events, and visits to 85 cannabis retailers. The results suggest that SSEEs in distant sectors may not be engaging some of the principles that are at the heart of Fair Trade. These include transparency, accountability, collaborative price-setting, pre-payment, honouring contracts, inclusive governance and worker organizing. SSEEs appear more engaged with the environment and buy-cotting (privileging) small producers, sustainable businesses and marginalized groups. How can Fair Trade encourage and empower SSEEs in distant sectors to engage more principles of Fair Trade?

This bibliography is an attempt to list the most relevant material on the topic of ‘social entrepreneurship’ published within the past two decades. The Academic Search Complete and Web of Science databases were used to conduct a literature search using the keywords ‘social enterprise’, ‘social entrepreneurship’ and ‘social entrepreneur’. The literature search was limited to peer-reviewed journal articles and books published between 1989 and 2009. Since academic interest in social entrepreneurship is a relatively new phenomenon, very little research in this area was conducted before 1989. Two seminal pre-1989 articles were included in this list: Banks (1972), who first coined the term ‘social entrepreneur’ in the context of the sociology of social movements; and Drucker (1979), who first introduced the concept of ‘social enterprise’ while advocating ethical responsibilities of corporations. Only articles and books in which ‘social entrepreneurship’, ’social enterprises’ or ‘social entrepreneurs’ were the main focus and had an important role in either the formulation of an empirical study or the development of a conceptual framework were included in this list. Articles that merely mentioned these terms or in which these concepts did not play a major role were not included. Mention may be made of online resources, such as technical reports, unpublished manuscripts, conference papers and white papers. All but two such articles, Dees (2001) and Alter (2004), were excluded from this list. The artcile by Dees (2001) titled, ‘The meaning of “social entrepreneurship”’, is a significant conceptual contribution to the field and has been cited 211 times since its publication online. Alter’s article (2004) that presents a typology of social enterprises is yet another important theoretical contribution and has been cited 35 times since it was published online. It is hoped that this systematic and thorough listing of relevant work in the area of social entrepreneurship will be of assistance to scholars in a field in which the literature, to date, has been fragmented and disjointed. It will be much appreciated if the unintentional omission of any relevant articles and books is brought to the attention of the author.

This Thematic Issue seeks to explore critical perspectives of an international nature on social innovation (SI), social enterprise (SE) and/or social solidarity economy (SSE). The aim is to examine the grand narrative, explore the ontological assumptions of the field, challenge the normative and present alternatives that draw attention to political economy, critical theory and critical management studies. Critical perspectives emerged in social innovation (SI) literature as a concerted effort sometime in 2008. A few voices sounded from the edges of the field much earlier. Ash Amin, Professor of Geography at Durham University, inspected the new favourite of public policy way back in 2002, discarded it as a "a poor substitute for a welfare state" and never returned to the subject. There were heated debates that challenged the grand narrative of SI at the International Social Innovation Research Conferences (ISIRC) (once called the Social Enterprise Research Conference before becoming ISIRC with the involvement of the social innovation theme from Skoll Centre). The Voluntary Sector Studies Network (VSSN) conferences picked away at the promise of unlimited performance and achievement of the upstart SE in a mature voluntary and charity network (

The main specific objective of this paper is to explore the content of research as well as methodological issues on social entrepreneurship in the context of corporate social economics and entrepreneurship. Therefore, in order to obtain an overview of the research done on this theme, we conducted a literature review using the exploratory analysis as methodology. We focused on the studies and articles which were published in the most important academic periodicals that cover subjects as management, economics and business. The articles were identified based on the presence of selected keywords in their title, abstract and body of the article: ‘social entrepreneur’, ‘social enterprise’, ‘social entrepreneurship’, ‘corporate social entrepreneurship’ and ‘social economy’. Using this method, there were selected articles and studies published starting from the last decade of the 1990s up to 2015. We were also interested in international publications on the topic and also in books that approached social entrepreneurship.

Purpose– Sweden, and many other countries, has, during the twentieth century, developed a rather large public sector providing social welfare services to citizens. Only to a small extent were private for- or nonprofit organizations providing these services. During the last decade we have seen a shift towards more services being provided by private for- and nonprofit actors. This shift means that roles are reconsidered, renegotiated and reconstructed. In this debate social entrepreneurship, social enterprises and innovation are emphasized. The aim of this paper is to problematize and analyze how social entrepreneurship and social enterprises relate to public sector management and governance.Design/methodology/approach– In the paper theories on (social) entrepreneurship and innovation is combined with theories focusing on welfare structures. Empirically, the analysis is based on the current policy development in Sweden and five social entrepreneurship initiatives.Findings– The analysis discloses the relationship between the public sector and social entrepreneurship as negotiation of emerging social enterprise markets in which aspects as the creation of value, dependencies and innovation are emphasized. Even if the study has a geographical focus both theoretical contributions and implications for policy and practice can be of use also in other contexts.Originality/value– Through combining social entrepreneurship with welfare services and public management this empirically based study contributes both to problematize and align the emerging field of social innovation.