Editorial Presentation: Critical perspectives in social innovation, social enterprise and/or the social solidarity economy

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.

Purpose Given that social enterprises struggle to operate entrepreneurial activities along with social and regulatory obligations where institutional pressures are prevalent, this study aims to identify the relationship between entrepreneurial orientation (EO) and social enterprise performance (SEP). It also investigates the moderating effect of mimetic and coercive isomorphisms and the mediating impact of social innovation (SI) and strategic flexibility. Design/methodology/approach The authors draw on survey data from a sample of 200 social enterprises sampled from a list of registered enterprises provided by the United Arab Emirates (UAE) Red Crescent Authority to understand the effects of EO on SEP in terms of its socioeconomic and regulatory context. Findings This study found that EO positively influences SEP and SI and strategic flexibility represent important mediating roles. The study also showed that coercive isomorphism and mimetic isomorphism moderate the association between EO and the performance of social enterprises. Research limitations/implications The study has some limitations, including the utilization of cross-sectional data, which hinders causal examinations and longitudinal understanding of the relationship between EO, SI and performance and the focus on the UAE context, which hampers generalizability. Furthermore, the measurement used self-reported data, which may have related bias. Practical implications The practical implication from this study is that policymakers and social entrepreneurs should foster entrepreneurial initiative, SI and institutional isomorphism to enhance SEP. Social implications Among the variables under consideration in this study, this paper focuses on the effect of EO on the performance of social enterprises with a spotlight on innovation and strategic flexibility. Thus, showing how EO produces a positive impact on socioeconomic issues in the UAE makes a contribution to practice that can help policymakers and social entrepreneurs to start up sustainable businesses. The findings of this study add credence to entrepreneurial practices and initiatives that aim to improve institutional settings for the benefit of society and financial sustainability. Originality/value This research is novel in one particular way: It uses both the resource-based view and dynamic capabilities frameworks in investigating the interdependencies among EO, SI and strategic flexibility in SEP. It also describes the moderating roles of coercive and mimetic isomorphic pressures, which were previously missing in earlier research, and presents an empirically important regionally relevant case study based on a high-impact area of the UAE, an underexamined emerging market in EO and social enterprise research. Together, these contribute to the theoretical and contextual originality of the research.

Regardless of the crucial role of civil society in social innovation, European Union (EU) social innovation concepts emphasized market-economic features rather than social by prioritizing social business over social movements. By emphasizing the economic features of social innovation, social enterprises, as ventures with both social and economic goals, are frequently associated with social innovation, especially in the developed economies. As an EU member country, Slovenia needed to adjust its policies to the EU social innovation concepts. Bearing in mind the EU interpretation of social innovation and the significance of state policies for its development, our aim is to investigate the policy framework conditions for the development of forestry-based social innovation initiatives in Slovenia. We found out that the prevalent economic understanding of social innovation reflects in Slovenian policy documents by equating social innovation with social enterprise. In this sense, the view of social innovation as both growth engine and a way for solving societal problems translates into explicit statements on social innovation in cohesion policy documents and progresses by operationalization of social innovation through indicators solely on social enterprise. Within the regulatory framework on social entrepreneurship, social enterprise is defined strictly with respect to legal forms, activities, profit sharing and governance, imposing barriers to the registration and development. Similarly to cohesion policy, the Rural Development Programme embraces a market-oriented understanding of social innovation and focuses explicitly on social enterprise. Forest policy documents do not explicitly mention social innovation or social enterprise. This is reasonable for documents adopted before 2011 when social innovation and social enterprises became a part of the prevailing discourse in Slovenia. However, newly adopted forest policy documents also do not integrate either social innovation or social enterprise. As forestry-based social innovation initiatives cannot be officially recognized as such, there are two possible ways for them to develop. The first applies to market-oriented, forestry-based social innovation initiatives that offer new products or services. Such initiatives can register as social enterprises and mobilize resources they can access within the social entrepreneurship regulatory framework and the Rural Development Programme measures explicitly addressing social enterprise. The second way addresses forestry-based social innovation initiatives that are not market-oriented. Those initiatives will have to navigate through policy framework conditions for resources available through the Rural Development Programme and forest policy instruments that target cooperation and networking.

This chapter has provided an overview of the concepts of social entrepreneurship and innovation. It has highlighted the fact that social entrepreneurs use the same skills and behaviours of traditional entrepreneurs, but for a social rather than an economic purpose. The social entrepreneur can be found in a wide range of environments that can include non-profit and voluntary organisations through to for-profit organisations. Social entrepreneurship seeks to build a social value proposition that draws together people and capital to exploit opportunities for social capital building. Social entrepreneurship and innovation are new and emerging concepts that remain poorly defined. However, since the 1990s there has been a growing recognition of the importance of the social economy and the social enterprise. The ‘third way’ was a reaction to the ‘economic rationalism’ that became prominent in the 1980s. An important form of social enterprise is the co-operative. This type of business model has been in operation for centuries, and the principles of the Rochdale Society founded in 1844 remain the basis for the global co-operative enterprise movement that encompasses some of the largest business organisations in the world. Co-operatives offer economic and social benefits to their members and can be found in a wide range of industries. They play an important role in regional and community development. However, co-operatives suffer from some generic problems associated with their collective ownership rights, and recent trends have seen the formation of a new generation co-operative business model designed to alleviate some of these problems. The theory of community-based enterprise (CBE) suggests that, where a community is suffering economic or social stress but has a tradition of collective problem-solving and sufficient social capital willing to become involved and provide the necessary critical mass, a CBE can form. It will be based on available community skills, have a range of goals, and succeed if there is sufficient community participation.

Creating an enabling environment for social entrepreneurship in tackling complex socio‐economic challenges is at the forefront of government policy agendas globally. Although several policy mechanisms have been proposed to this end, whether and to what extent those policy mechanisms may (re)shape the social entrepreneurship environments have rarely been explored. By examining the Social Innovation and Entrepreneurship Development Fund (SIE Fund), a recent policy project aimed at fostering social innovation in Hong Kong, this article presents a rare empirical exploration to illustrate how public policies can potentially drive social innovation. We explore first the impact of the SIE Fund in fostering innovation among its funded social enterprises, and second, how the SIE Fund may have influenced Hong Kong's social entrepreneurship environment. Results show that the projects under the SIE Fund exhibit characteristics distinct from the social enterprises prior to the inception of the SIE Fund. In addition, evidence of innovations in terms of product, process, marketing, and innovation in developing new or improved social practices were also identified. This study illustrates how specific public policy mechanisms may potentially facilitate the diversification, inclusion, innovation, and expansion of the social entrepreneurship environment. Findings carry substantial policy implications, in particular to neighbouring East Asian societies typically characterized by a strong government, and face similar structural, demographic and socio‐economic challenges that necessitate innovative solutions.

1990s when the term began to be increasingly used in both Western europe and the United States. Indeed, the third sector, be it called the non- profit sector, the voluntary sector or the social economy, has long witnessed entrepreneurial dynamics which resulted in innovative solutions for providing services or goods to persons or communities whose needs were neither met by private companies nor by public providers. however, for reasons which vary from region to region, the concept of social enterprise is now gaining a fast growing interest along with two closely related terms, namely ‘social entrepreneur’ and ‘social entrepreneurship’. Social innovation, or at least innovation to provide answers to social needs, seems to be at the heart of the fast developing literature around those ‘Se concepts’. So it makes sense to question more deeply the actual links which may exist between the corpus of social enterprise research and the social innovation dynamics as defined in this book’s introduction through three major features: the satisfaction of human needs, the relations between humans in general and between social groups in particular, and the empowerment of people trying to fulfil their needs, this third feature being seen as a bridge between the first and the second. For doing so, we first contextualize the emerging Se concepts, especially highlighting their different roots and subsequent schools of thought both in the United States and europe. While doing this, we try to show the extent to which social innovation has a place and a role in such streams of literature (Section 3.2). Then, we analyse more deeply the eMeS conceptualization of social enterprise. The eMeS approach to social enterprise has been developed by a group of european scholars and is anchored in the european tradition of social economy (Section 3.3). The specificity of the eMeS approach is to approach social enterprises dynamics both by its aim, the primacy of social aim and its process through democratic governance echoing the different dimensions of social innovation (Section 3.4). Finally, we develop the issue of the links between public policies and the diffusion of social innovation in the field of social enterprise. For that purpose, we rely on one of the main eMeS research projects in the field of work integration social enterprise (Section 3.5).

Global experiences of post-war and post-conflict recovery and reconstruction show that preparations for the post-war period should begin even before the conflict ends. For Ukraine's post-war recovery, promoting social entrepreneurship and implementing social innovations is crucial. These efforts will foster practical cooperation between the state, businesses, and the public, addressing various challenges collectively, solving socio-economic problems, and implementing reforms. The purpose of this article is to study the essence and evolution of knowledge about constructs and concepts in the fields of social innovation and social entrepreneurship, to substantiate the opportunities for the dissemination of social innovations, and to create conditions for social entrepreneurship in addressing social needs in the context of Ukraine's post-war recovery. Given its fragmented conceptualisation and widespread use by scholars, policymakers, and practitioners, this study is driven by the need for a theoretical justification of social innovation and entrepreneurship. Methods: To achieve this goal and solve specific tasks, empirical and theoretical research methods were used: analysis, synthesis, and generalisation. These methods, applied at a dialectical level, provide a scientific basis for theoretical and methodological approaches to introducing social innovations in public life. With the help of multidisciplinary ontological analysis and the use of bibliometric indicators, such as citations, co-citations, bibliometric links and coincidences, the main research trends in the knowledge clusters of social innovation and social entrepreneurship were identified. This was accomplished through system mapping with the VOSviewer tool and the analysis and synthesis of publications on social innovation and social entrepreneurship for deep theoretical and practical understanding, as well as evaluation of current research at the interdisciplinary level. Results and Conclusions: Ukrainian legislation does not define the concepts of "social innovation" and "social entrepreneurship," which hinders the development and functioning of social entrepreneurship and the production of social innovations. The war and its aftermath have created new challenges that require new practical approaches and means of solving social problems. One of these approaches is to combine the measures of the current social policy in Ukraine, limited by the organisational and financial involvement of the state in solving social problems, with the possibilities of public participation and entrepreneurial activity. Introducing modern world practices of social innovation and social entrepreneurship, as well as regulatory regulation of social enterprises, will be an essential step towards developing the non-governmental sector of social development and social protection policy.

This report sets out to present some of the highlights from a more in depth study carried out on social entrepreneurship and innovation ecosystems in Chile, Colombia, Costa Rica, Mexico and Peru as part of a wider comparative study between the Latin American Pacific Alliance countries and sixcountries in Asia (Japan, South Korea, China, Singapore, Thailand and the Philippines). This study comprises a global, regional and country level perspectives as well as a detailed analysis of 25 examples of social enterprise within the two regions. In this report we begin by providing the context of the Pacific Alliance agenda and observe the opportunity this regional integration effort may have for social enterprise across the region. Secondly we outline some of the different ways each countries ecosystem has evolved over the last few years in terms of public policies, intermediaries, financial support mechanisms and Universities. There are different stages of evolution to be observed depending on the sector. For example Chile and Colombia have followed similar processes to develop public policies for social innovation (building on the maturity of their existing entrepreneurship and innovation support systems), whereas Costa Rica has leap-frogged this process with the creation of its new Social Innovation Council. Mexico and Colombia are leading the way in terms of social impact investment and Peru, with a far more incipient ecosystem although has seen rapid growth in the last two years, which above all has stimulated social entrepreneurship activity within the University sector. Thirdly we consider the different degrees of social and financial motivations of social enterprises and how these are made to fit within the existing legal frameworks and also explore the profile of the social entrepreneur in the region. Finally observe the emerging phenomena of social innovation labs as new ways of responding to social problems using diverse systemic perspectives, new ways of experimentation and learning and unique participatory design approaches.

Despite the increasing focus on scientific maturity in social entrepreneurship (SE) and social innovation (SI), scholars still place a greater focus on defining theoretical boundaries than on the commonalities and complementarities between these phenomena. We address this gap by investigating when, how, and to what extent SE and SI are interrelated via a bibliometric analysis of the intersection of the SE and SI theoretical domains that combines cocitation analysis, historiography, and bibliographic coupling. Building on these results, we advance the theoretical debate by introducing a novel framework, documenting that while the SI process can occur beyond social enterprises’ boundaries, SE can contribute to creating, enabling, and scaling SI solutions. Moreover, we document historical convergence in a new trend accompanying the increase in SI research under the SE umbrella. This leads to a research agenda that can prompt the cross-pollination of these theories, fostering a novel theoretical construct through this combination.

Social entrepreneurship is a mix of sectoral innovation and resource availability by which social problems are treated as the ones handicapping a societie’s needs. It is a new dimension of the business sector. In Nepal, like everywhere in the world, a model of social entrepreneurship has been developed by several social innovators. The main aim of this research is to analyze the sectoral social entrepreneurship and innovation practices in Nepal. This paper is based on scientific review with reference to the social entrepreneurship and innovation in the context of Nepal economy. This subject matter is highly recognized due to its broad scope in terms of educational innovation, business innovation, environmental innovation, social innovation, financial innovation, technical innovations, innovations in all the sectors of economy, and, finally, innovations in the living standard of Nepalese people. Nepal needs social and economic transformation, which can be made by building socially responsive citizens. Thus, the context of Nepal suggests an opportunity for sectoral and structural innovations. Social innovations can make Nepal smart and strong. So, the government should create the environment for the social enterprise sector in Nepal.

Purpose The study is positioned at the crossroads of transformative social marketing and social innovation literature through the lens of participatory design (PD). This exploratory study aims to explore how social enterprises in India engage economically marginalized people in transformative social marketing and innovation for sustainable development through PD. Design/methodology/approach The study includes a case study with a matched pairs analysis approach. The data analysis reports three themes depicting the role of PD in different stages of the social innovation process (codiscovery, codesign and scaling-up), the challenges faced in the process and the outcomes of the PD process. Findings The authors propose that social enterprises can act as sustainable development catalysts for more inclusive sustainable development through their proactive and creative uses of PD. Still, PD also has limitations for addressing the challenges stemming from marginalized contexts, which requires effective social marketing strategies to overcome. Originality/value The study contributes to the emerging dialogue on PD with marginalized users and widens the scope of studies on transformative social marketing and innovation. The findings also provide practical insights for PD practitioners on how designers can learn from diverse PD practices in the context of economically marginalized people.

Social enterprise and innovation are inextricably linked in the literature (Chell et al. in Entrepr Reg Dev 22(6):485–493, 2010; Dees in Harv Bus Rev 76:54, 1998; Light in Stanf Soc Innov Rev 4(3):47–51, 2006). To date, research on social enterprise innovation has predominantly focused on micro-level factors, such as the social entrepreneur or organizational attributes. Inversely, recent empirical advances on social enterprise find a country’s social enterprise sector is influenced by macro-institutional factors, including form of government, stage of economic development, culture and model of civil society (Monroe-White and Coskun, in: Shaping social enterprise: understanding institutional context and influence, Emerald Publishing Limited, London, pp 27–48, 2017). Given the link between social enterprise and innovation, recent empirical findings around social enterprise beg the question, do macro-institutional factors similarly predict innovation by social enterprises? This paper uses a hierarchical linear model to examine the influence of national-level variables on social enterprise innovation. Results indicate that similar to social enterprise, macro-institutional factors predict social enterprise innovation. More specifically, macro-institutional factors influence the various types of innovations (product, process and marketing) differently. Moreover, country-level innovation is traditionally defined by economic factors, such as R&D funding and STEM workforce, however, these factors do not help explain social enterprise innovation. Given the social aspects of social enterprise innovation, to capture the full scope of innovation within countries, expanded definitions of national-level innovation should be considered.

Purpose The purpose of this paper is to evaluate the social impact of the social cooperative enterprise (SCE) “Modousa” in a marginal agricultural area of Lesvos Island, Greece. Focusing on post-productive agriculture and collaborative rural development, the study investigates how Modousa leverages local resources – particularly olive oil – to strengthen local capital, foster community-led sustainable development and address structural challenges. By analyzing Modousa as a model of social entrepreneurship, this paper aims to highlight its potential to empower rural communities, promote niche markets and contribute to broader discussions on sustainable rural development and social innovation. Design/methodology/approach The study uses participatory observation and secondary data analysis, complemented by unstructured interviews with Modousa’s founding members and local civil society representatives. The researcher participated as an observer in Modousa’s activities, balancing insider access with ethical considerations. Events were observed in physical and digital spaces to document local perceptions and practices. Data were analyzed thematically to explore how Modousa functions as a social solidarity economy (SSE) initiative in Lesvos, based on principles of collective ownership, democratic management and community benefit, following relevant European and Greek SSE frameworks. Findings The findings show that Modousa strengthens local capital by mobilizing natural, cultural, social and economic resources, fostering community-led development in a marginalized rural area. Its model of collective ownership and democratic governance helps mitigate structural challenges and global market pressures. Modousa promotes olive oil as a socio-cultural product, enhancing local identity, creating niche markets and building solidarity networks. The enterprise demonstrates how social entrepreneurship can drive sustainable development by leveraging territorial assets and engaging local actors. Overall, Modousa’s approach contributes to rural revitalization, encouraging a transformative culture of collaboration and resilience in peripheral agricultural regions. Originality/value This study offers original insights into how SCEs like Modousa can function as agents of rural transformation in marginalized agricultural regions. By combining participatory observation with in-depth interviews, it examines the interplay between social entrepreneurship, local capital mobilization and community-led development. The research highlights the innovative use of olive oil as both an economic product and a cultural asset, contributing to place identity and local resilience. The findings provide a practical framework for policymakers, practitioners and scholars interested in applying similar SSE models to promote sustainable development in other rural contexts.

PurposeThis paper aims to examine how the fields of social enterprise, social entrepreneurship and social innovation have theorised and applied the concepts of narrative and storytelling.Design/methodology/approachA literature review and subsequent thematic analysis were used. A keyword search of three databases identified 93 relevant articles that were subsequently reviewed for this paper.FindingsFour main roles for storytelling and narrative were found in the literature: to gain support for social innovation, to inspire social change, to build a social-entrepreneurial identity and to debate the meaning and direction of social innovation itself.Practical implicationsFollowing the literature review, capacities and applications of storytelling and narrative in other, related fields are discussed to highlight practical use cases of storytelling that might currently be underdeveloped in the social enterprise and innovation sectors.Originality/valueThe paper argues that the social innovation and enterprise literature predominantly views storytelling as a form of mass communication, while often overlooking its ability to foster communal debate and organise intrapersonal dialogue as possible aspects of strategic thinking and innovation management in social enterprise, social entrepreneurship and social innovation.

Social enterprise and social entrepreneurship are concepts that have a real effect on social change. The strategies associated with social enterprise and social entrepreneurship have become popular in public policy circles, as they have a real aptitude for solving many societal problems. This popularity has led to the rapid development of social innovation and a rethinking of the interconnecting relationships of social entrepreneurship. The authors of this chapter present a model for social enterprise and innovation approaches, and critically explore these aspects and the ways in which they can be conceptualized within corporate social responsibility.