How to Achieve Large-Scale Social Impact

College entrepreneurship education embodies the important value on meeting the demand of college students' all-round development, promoting the development of higher education and the institutions of higher learning, and promoting social progress, but there are obvious contradictions between the urgent demand of current social development to entrepreneurship education and practice and the absence of entrepreneurship education and practice development of. Reference to research experience of other countries, building the localization of social entrepreneurship education system, creating entrepreneurial culture atmosphere of society and colleges and universities, seeking government support and social force assist, and exploring the social entrepreneurship education value realization mode, can effectively solve the contradiction.

Social entrepreneurship advocates solving social problems through market methods, and emphases the mixed logic drive and dual identity, which has contributed significantly to poverty reduction, environmental protection and sustainable social development. However, there are some problems with social entrepreneurship such as difficulty in transforming social opportunities, high cost of resource acquisition, difficulty in coordinating the interests of partners and difficulty in measuring social value, which need to be solved by innovation in opportunities, resources, governance, and value measurement. Digital technology has shaped the development of emerging industries and changes in social systems, and provided effective solutions for enriching social problem solutions, reducing the threshold for the integration of social resources, building a trust network, and measuring social influence. Digital social entrepreneurship, a new form of entrepreneurship to deal with the several challenges of the digital era, refers to the process oriented by solving social problems and satisfying the social demand that integrates digital technology with social entrepreneurship and promotes the digitization of social entrepreneurship opportunities, resources, governance and value measurement, so as to more effectively realize social entrepreneurship activities with mixed economic and social values. Through the comparative study with social entrepreneurship and digital entrepreneurship, digital social entrepreneurship has differences in opportunities, resources, governance methods and value measurement, which are manifested in the functions of outstanding characteristics of intelligent social problem connection, real-time response to social problems, visualization of social value, and indexation of social entrepreneurship. Hence, this paper preliminarily maps a research framework, which contains the connotation, process elements and operation mechanism of digital social entrepreneurship. The factors interact with each other to form a unique operating mechanism. Based on the case study of the “Xintairuan” which is a Chinese golden social enterprise, we have depicted the digital social entrepreneurship process including four basic elements, such as digital social entrepreneurs, digital social citizens, digital social entrepreneurship platforms and the digital social regulation. It forms the unique operation of mechanism of the artificial integration of opportunities-resources, the twinning of empowerment-regulation, mixed value of creation with joint efforts, and the scale of social influence. This article proposes the concept, elements and operating mechanism of digital social entrepreneurship in a novel way, describes the inherent commonalities between digital technology and social entrepreneurship, reconstructs the basic content of traditional entrepreneurship, and pays more attention to the initiative and dynamics of social entrepreneurial innovation processes under digital technology. It is also of great practical value to fill the gaps in digital social entrepreneurship research and improve efficiency. This paper holds that the nature of the operation process of digital social entrepreneurship is the process of social value creation by social entrepreneurs, participation of citizens in digital society from bottom to top and their active value dissemination, and promotion of value sharing and governance improvement by digital social entrepreneurship platforms. In the future, the research of digital social entrepreneurship urgently needs to construct a new paradigm of integration, contextualization, problematization and humanization under the vision of mixed value logic and digital drive. This study further develops the research’s connotation of digital entrepreneurship and social entrepreneurship, which has important practical meaning for promoting the digital application and the improvement of efficiency for social entrepreneurship.

Case synopsis The use of entrepreneurship to deliver profound social impact is a much-needed but poorly understood concept. While social enterprises are generally well understood, there is a considerable need to have a more common approach to measuring the different ways they create social value for us as well as to reduce the difficulties of starting and growing them in the difficult conditions of developing countries. In the northeast of Nigeria, for example, the mammoth challenge of rebuilding communities in an unfavorable entrepreneurship environment makes the need for a solution even more urgent. This case study illustrates a model of promoting entrepreneurship that advances the conditions of sustainable development goals (SDGs) in local communities using a configuration of the key theories of social impact entrepreneurship (variants of entrepreneurship with blended value or mission orientation, including social entrepreneurship, sustainable entrepreneurship and institutional entrepreneurship). The extent to which ventures can adjust and improve the extent of their contributions to the SDGs are shown using examples of three entrepreneurs at different stages of growth. From this case study, students will be able to understand how entrepreneurs can identify and exploit social impact opportunities in the venture’s business model, within the network of primary stakeholders as well as in the wider institutional environment with the support of Impact+, a simple impact measurement praxis. Learning objectives The case study envisions training students how to hardwire social impact focus in the venture’s business model (social entrepreneurship), how to run ventures with minimal harm to the environment and greatest benefit to stakeholders (sustainable entrepreneurship) and how to contribute to improving the institutional environment for social purpose entrepreneurship (institutional entrepreneurship). At the end of learning this case study, students should be able to: 1. discover an effective model for a startup social venture; 2. explore options for managing a venture sustainably and helping stakeholders out of poverty; and 3. identify ways to contribute to improving the institutional environment for social impact entrepreneurs. Social implications For students, this case will help in educating them on a pragmatic approach to designing social impact ventures – one that calibrates where they are on well-differentiated scales. For business schools, entrepreneurial development institutions and policymakers, this case study can help them learn how to target entrepreneurial development for specific development outcomes. Complexity academic level The case study is preferably for early-stage postgraduate students (MSc or MBA). Supplementary materials Teaching notes are available for educators only. Subject code CSS 3: Entrepreneurship.

Social Entrepreneurship and COVID‐19

The article examines the nature of social entrepreneurship as one of the key factors in the development of the national economy. It is noted that the foundation of social entrepreneurship is the concept of "entrepreneurship", in other words, the initiative autonomous activity of people, the purpose of which is to make a profit or personal income, implemented personally, under their own property responsibility or under the responsibility of a legal entity. It is noted that the mission of organizations engaged in social entrepreneurship is related to solving a certain social problem, and financial stability is an important component needed to achieve a social effect and long – term existence. Based on the position of social entrepreneurship (between entrepreneurship and charity), the criteria inherent in social entrepreneurship as a macroeconomic phenomenon are defined: social mission; entrepreneurial approach; innovation; replication; self-sufficiency and financial stability. The leading stakeholders of social entrepreneurship, which occupy one of the main places in its formation and institutionalization in the world, have been identified. It is noted that the real volumes of social entrepreneurship in macroeconomics cannot be calculated, and not only due to the existence of a huge number of organizational forms and types of activities that can be attributed to social entrepreneurship, but also due to certain differences in understanding this phenomenon in different states. The ratio of social and commercial entrepreneurship as two macroeconomic categories is determined. It is proved that for a social entrepreneur, the social result will not be a side result of activity, but the main one, which corresponds to the mission and goals of the organization, which depend on the solution of a certain social task. It is concluded that social entrepreneurship will be much more successful than commercial entrepreneurship where you can see serious positive achievements. The differences between social entrepreneurship and business in the social sphere are clarified. It is noted that the mission of organizations engaged in social entrepreneurship and providing relevant services takes place in parallel with the solution of a certain social task, and financial stability is a prerequisite for obtaining a social effect and future existence. It is proved that social entrepreneurship is an innovative activity, primarily aimed at solving or somewhat mitigating social problems of society on the basis of self – sufficiency and sustainability, which has the ability to solve problems of externalities associated with the unwillingness or inability of people to pay for goods and services. It is determined that the essence of social entrepreneurship in the national economy is to increase overall economic efficiency due to the introduction into economic circulation of those resources and methods that were not previously used in this way.

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.

Global Entrepreneurship Monitor 2015 to 2016: Special Topic Report on Social Entrepreneurship

Are you ready for social entrepreneurship revolution? her book Social for 21st Century, Georgia Levenson Keohane provides a great insight into emergence of social business and entrepreneurship. Her work provides a clear-sighted analysis of many different dynamics at play as we test new models and solutions for global economic change. (Muhammad Yunus, 2006 Nobel Peace Laureate, author of Banker to Poor). Entrepreneurship and venture thinking don't reside only in Silicon Valley; they can be found in nonprofit sector, and they are changing social fabric of nations and cultures around world. Just how nonprofit sector has evolved into a powerful agent of social change is story expertly told by Georgia Levenson Keohane in Social for 21st Century. This is a hugely important book for those who want to understand nonprofit world and its evolving role. (Eliot Spitzer, former governor of York and host of Current TV's Viewpoint). A timely, comprehensive, and well-written perspective on one of most powerful, positive forces for social change in our world today. Keohane's book not only synthesizes her state-of-the-art knowledge of field, but brings new insight into impact investing, growing role of social capital markets, essentiality of valid performance measures, and blurring of lines between social, public, and private sectors. (William F. Meehan III, Raccoon Partners Lecturer in Management, Stanford Graduate School of Business and Director Emeritus, McKinsey and Company). Modern social entrepreneurship is transforming way we invest our money and change world. Within 10 years, investors will channel hundreds of billions of dollars to achieve positive social and environmental impact in housing, health, education, energy, and financial services across globe. While there are extraordinary financial and social gains to be made, many unanswered questions remain. What's best way to harness markets to promote social change? And what kinds of investments can we make across nonprofit, private, and public sectors to achieve a more shared prosperity? This book demystifies complex world of social entrepreneurship, providing all information you need to understand social investment and innovation, whether you're a private investor, policymaker, nonprofit manager, or passionate and engaged donor. In clear and straightforward language, former McKinsey executive Georgia Levenson Keohane charts development of what New York Times calls the emerging hybrid of philanthropy and private equity. In Social for 21st Century, a must-read for anyone interested in innovative solutions to social problems, Keohane: shows how social entrepreneurship has radically transformed nonprofit, private, and public sectors; explores promise of impact investing - what it really is and how it works; illuminates challenges of bringing billions of dollars in private capital to bear on social problems; identifies smart public policies that promote social innovation at local and national levels; and recommends specific investment opportunities you can act on now. With in-depth coverage of cutting-edge social programs and philanthropic initiatives, Social for 21st Century provides knowledge and tools you need to be a responsibly engaged investor and citizen in coming decades.

The capacity to affect change on a local and global scale about a range of political, social, environmental, and economic challenges is known as social entrepreneurship (SE). Young exposure to theory and practice of social entrepreneurship at postsecondary educational institutions is thought to influence this change. In this study, we examine the intentions of students in social entrepreneurship. This study's objective is to assess the degrees of social and entrepreneurial entrepreneurship. For the study, 150 college students served as the sample. This study examines empathy, moral duty, social support, self-efficacy, social impact, and educational level as principal motivators for social entrepreneurship intentions. The SPSS is a software program used to analyse the data and perform statistical analyses. The findings indicate that the only factors that were statistically correlated with the desire to engage in social entrepreneurship were empathy, self-efficacy, and psychological support. The association between social support and the ambitions for social entrepreneurship was shown to be unfavourable. In conclusion, the study provides insightful information for practitioners and educators who aim to foster a vibrant environment for student social entrepreneurship.

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.

Social entrepreneurship (SE) involves identifying and exploiting opportunities to create social value through commercial and market-based activities. It is increasingly recognized as an important approach to addressing societal challenges that are not yet adequately tackled by existing governments, nonprofit organizations, or companies. While SE is recognized as a multilevel phenomenon involving diverse actors and processes across various levels of analysis, its explanation and effects remain only partially understood. To achieve a more comprehensive understanding of the multilevel nature of SE, I adopted a multilevel framework in this thesis to explore the various cross-level effects between macro- and microlevels on SE and its social impact. Therefore, the main research question in this PhD thesis is: How do macrolevel conditions relate to microlevel antecedents in affecting SE and its outcomes? I primarily leveraged institutional theory as the theoretical foundation to answer this research question. Overall, in this dissertation, which includes four studies reported in Chapters 2-5, I examined how institutional theory is applied in the SE domain, how macro- and microlevel antecedents jointly influence SE, and how social enterprises work with local communities to create social impact. Specifically, Chapter 2 contributes to both SE and institutional theory literature by providing an up-to-date overview of institutional theory-based SE research and discussing the ethics of SE within this research topic. It reveals three unique conversations between SE and institutions: institutional and societal change, institutional complexity and hybrid organizations, and the institutional context of SE. We further delved into each conversation, identifying new avenues for future research. We also encouraged scholars to critically examine ethics in institutional SE research and proposed several opportunities for incorporating ethics in future studies. In chapters 3 and 4, we focused on the macro-to-micro situational mechanisms in the context of SE, seeking to understand how national conditions and individual-level factors both independently and jointly predict individuals’ SE activity. Chapter 3 adopts the view of institutions as constraints and employs discovery theory of opportunities to comprehend individuals’ engagement in SE. Moving on to Chapter 4, we used the legitimacy and organizational ecology perspectives to investigate individuals’ SE behavior. These two chapters advance knowledge of SE phenomena in an explicit multilevel setting. Chapter 5 addresses recent calls for more attention to the societal impact created by SEs through the involvement of local communities. We explored what specific dynamic capabilities are needed for social enterprises to involve local communities in creating societal impact within the Chinese context. This chapter enriches our understanding of how SE fosters societal impact through community involvement, particularly in the context of China. Overall, with the above research into SE and its effects, I hope to contribute to a society where SE plays a more significant role in generating lasting change in social, cultural, and environmental issues. By gaining a deeper understanding of the multilevel nature of SE, we can craft effective policies to support the development of SE, such as encouraging the legal registration of social enterprises in different countries.

Catholic private schools continue to make improvements, both in governance and learning innovation. Education service providers are encouraged to innovate to be able to face government policies and free market competition. One of them is through social entrepreneurship because social entrepreneurship is slowly entering the education system. Social entrepreneurship, with its mission-driven focus on creating value and positive environmental impact, supports the sustainability of the institution. By implementing social entrepreneurship in the management of school institutions, education plays a role in overcoming social and environmental problems. This study aims to analyze social entrepreneurship management for school sustainability, taking the objects of Sint Antonius Junior High School East Jakarta and Sang Timur Junior High School Karang Tengah. This qualitative research uses observation methods, in-depth interviews using snowball techniques, and forum group discussion on 165 informants. The research aspects are social entrepreneurship, social entrepreneurship strategy, social entrepreneurship management, the impact of implementing social entrepreneurship management, and the linkage of social entrepreneurship management with ISO 26000 and SDGs no. 4 and 12. The findings show that both schools have implemented social entrepreneurship, which needs to be improved for school sustainability. This study provides recommendations for education providers on whether they should develop social entrepreneurship management for school sustainability. Institutions need to build a comprehensive social entrepreneurship management system that is strengthened with a focus on social entrepreneurship and support of social entrepreneurship processes.

Understanding the antecedents of social entrepreneurship is critical for unleashing the potential of social entrepreneurship and thus for tackling social problems. While research has provided valuable insights into imprinting of the conventional entrepreneur, research on differences between social and conventional entrepreneurship suggests that social entrepreneurs evolve differently. Using survey data of 148 social entrepreneurs, we draw on the concepts of imprinting and critical incident recognition as a framework for understanding how social entrepreneur’s childhood experiences and parental exposure to social entrepreneurship affect social entrepreneurial activity in adulthood. First, our results suggest that social entrepreneurs are imprinted by their childhood experiences but not by parental exposure to social entrepreneurship. Second, imprints tend to persist over time when they are linked to critical incidents regarding social entrepreneurship. These insights contribute to a deeper understanding of imprinting mechanisms in social entrepreneurship contexts and highlight the importance of making examples of social entrepreneurship tangible to children.

Social entrepreneurship (SE) has emerged as a strong force to bridge the gap between the demand and supply for fulfilment of socio-economic and environmental needs. SE emerged as a response to failure of market, state or both in meeting needs of society particularly at the bottom of the pyramid. SE has been rapidly growing in all the sectors: private, public and non-profit. It focuses on social impact and an innovative approach to achieve its purpose with the combination of social mission, entrepreneurship and creativity. It is of particular importance to India because the developmental needs of India cannot be solely addressed by government efforts or by the market forces. This chapter aims at explaining about SE as a field of knowledge, i.e. how social entrepreneurship and social entrepreneurs work to address the unmet needs of the society, its emergence in India, coherence of SE and Indian values, and a typology of social entrepreneurs for the Indian context. We also propose a research agenda on the topic.

Social entrepreneurship is multi-disciplinary area of scholarly enquiry. Being a new area of research, this is yet to emerge fully. Scholars have been studying cases in search of concepts to explain social entrepreneurship. Attempts have also been made to theorise the phenomenon and to develop theories thereof. Hence, it is obvious that research on social entrepreneurship in the last decades has been mostly qualitative and case study based and the scholars have been mostly focusing on developing concepts to explain functions and processes while reporting the impact. Case studies have also been used to explain similarities and differences between social and commercial entrepreneurship. Qualitative research provides strength to unfold the concepts and allows enormous possibilities to open up new dimensions. In this chapter, critique on case study method of qualitative research provided us the way to present different phenomenon to theorise which eventually would provide sound basis to construct theory on social entrepreneurship.