Institutional Theory in Social Entrepreneurship: A Systematic Review

Social Entrepreneurship and COVID‐19

Purpose The authors bring diverse feminist perspectives to bear on social entrepreneurship research and practice to challenge existing assumptions and approaches while providing new directions for research at the intersections of gender, social and commercial entrepreneurship. Design/methodology/approach The authors apply liberal feminist, socialist feminist and transnational/post-colonial feminist perspectives to critically examine issues of gender in the field of social entrepreneurship. Findings By way of three distinct feminist lenses, the analyses suggest that the social entrepreneurship field does not recognize gender as an organizing principle in society. Further to this, a focus on women within this field replicates problematic gendered assumptions underlying the field of women’s entrepreneurship research. Practical implications The arguments and suggestions provide a critical gender perspective to inform the strategies and programmes adopted by practitioners and the types of research questions entrepreneurship scholars ask. Social implications The authors redirect the conversation away from limited status quo approaches towards the explicit and implicit aim of social entrepreneurship and women’s entrepreneurship: that is, economic and social equality for women across the globe. Originality/value The authors explicitly adopt a cultural, institutional and transnational analysis to interrogate the intersection of gender and social entrepreneurship.

This study aimed to identify the boundaries between social entrepreneurship and entrepreneurship research through conducting a comparative analysis of international co-authorship networks. Analyzing 29,510 papers published in the Web of Science database from 1999 to 2021, this study utilized bibliometric analysis to examine international co-authorship networks, the strength of international co-authorship, and the top collaborative and collaborating countries. The results found that based on quantitative analysis, social entrepreneurship research focuses more on local challenges and less on international collaboration as compared to entrepreneurship research. Moreover, the findings reveal the involvement of developed countries in the international co-authorship for social entrepreneurship research field. This study sheds light on the characteristics of social entrepreneurship research, which focuses on local and regional challenges. Contrastingly, entrepreneurship research focuses on the globalized field while sharing information and technology. These insights could benefit researchers, practitioners, and educators in prioritizing globalization in entrepreneurship and localization in social entrepreneurship.

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.

Academy of Management ReviewVol. 38, No. 3 DialogueStudying the Origins of Social Entrepreneurship: Compassion and the Role of Embedded AgencyMatthew G. Grimes, Jeffery S. McMullen, Timothy J. Vogus and Toyah L. MillerMatthew G. GrimesUniversity of Alberta, Jeffery S. McMullenIndiana University, Timothy J. VogusVanderbilt University and Toyah L. MillerIndiana UniversityPublished Online:6 Mar 2013https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.2012.0429AboutSectionsView articleView Full TextPDF/EPUB ToolsDownload CitationsAdd to favoritesTrack Citations ShareShare onFacebookTwitterLinkedInRedditEmail View articleREFERENCESArend R. J. 2013. A heart-mind-opportunity nexus: Distinguishing social entrepreneurship for entrepreneurs. Academy of Management Review, 38: 313–315.Link , Google ScholarBattilana J. 2006. Agency and institutions: The enabling role of individuals' social position. Organization, 13: 653–676. Google ScholarDacin M. T., Dacin P. A., Tracey P. 2011. Social entrepreneurship: A critique and future directions. Organization Science, 22: 1203–1213. Google ScholarDees J. G. 2007. Taking social entrepreneurship seriously. Society, 44(3): 24–31. Google ScholarDiMaggio P. J. 1988. Interest and agency in institutional theory. In Zucker L. G. (Ed.), Institutional patterns and organizations: Culture and environment: 3–21. Cambridge, MA: Ballinger. Google ScholarEisenhardt K. M. 1988. Agency- and institutional-theory explanations: The case of retail sales compensation. Academy of Management Journal, 31: 488–511.Link , Google ScholarEmirbayer M., Mische A. 1998. What is agency? American Journal of Sociology, 103: 962–1023. Google ScholarGartner W. B. 2001. Is there an elephant in entrepreneurship? Blind assumptions in theory development. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 25(4): 27–39. Google ScholarGranovetter M. 1985. Economic action and social structure: The problem of embeddedness. American Journal of Sociology, 91: 481–510. Google ScholarHolm P. 1995. The dynamics of institutionalization: Transformation processes in Norwegian fisheries. Administrative Science Quarterly, 40: 398–422. Google ScholarKrueger N. F. 1993. The impact of prior entrepreneurial exposure on perceptions of new venture feasibility and desirability. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 18(1): 5–21. Google ScholarLeadbeater C. 1997. The rise of the social entrepreneur. London: Demos. Google ScholarMair J., Marti I. 2006. Social entrepreneurship research: A source of explanation, prediction, and delight. Journal of World Business, 41(1): 36–44. Google ScholarMair J., Marti I., Ventresca M. J. 2012. Building inclusive markets in rural Bangladesh: How intermediaries work institutional voids. Academy of Management Journal, 55: 819–850.Link , Google ScholarMcMullen J. S., Plummer L. A., Acs Z. J. 2007. What is an entrepreneurial opportunity? Small Business Economics, 28(4): 273–283. Google ScholarMcMullen J. S., Shepherd A. 2006. Entrepreneurial action and the role of uncertainty in the theory of the entrepreneur. Academy of Management Review, 31: 132–152.Link , Google ScholarMiller T. L., Grimes M. G., McMullen J. S., Vogus T. 2012. Venturing for others with heart and head: How compassion encourages social entrepreneurship. Academy of Management Review, 37: 616–640.Link , Google ScholarMitchell R. K., Busenitz L. W., Bird B., Gaglio M. C., McMullen J. S., Morse E. A., Smith J. B. 2007. The central question in entrepreneurial cognition research. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 31: 1–27. Google ScholarPeredo A. M., McLean M. 2006. Social entrepreneurship: A critical review of the concept. Journal of World Business, 41(1): 56–65. Google ScholarSeo M., Creed W. 2002. Institutional contradictions, praxis, and institutional change: A dialectical perspective. Academy of Management Review, 27: 222–247.Link , Google ScholarShaw E., Carter S. 2007. Social entrepreneurship: Theoretical antecedents and empirical analysis of entrepreneurial processes and outcomes. Journal of Small Business and Enterprise Development, 14: 418–434. Google ScholarFiguresReferencesRelatedDetailsCited ByEntrepreneurship for the Public Good: A Review, Critique, and Path Forward for Social and Environmental Entrepreneurship ResearchSiddharth Vedula, Claudia Doblinger, Desirée Pacheco, Jeffrey G. York, Sophie Bacq, Michael V. Russo and Thomas J. Dean26 January 2022 | Academy of Management Annals, Vol. 16, No. 1Energizing through Visuals: How Social Entrepreneurs Use Emotion-Symbolic Work for Social ChangeDavid Barberá-Tomás, Itziar Castelló, Frank G. A. de Bakker and Charlene Zietsma19 December 2019 | Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 62, No. 6Why We Care about Certified B Corporations: From Valuing Growth to Certifying Values PracticesJoel Gehman, Matthew G. Grimes and Ke Cao26 March 2019 | Academy of Management Discoveries, Vol. 5, No. 1Hidden Badge of Honor: How Contextual Distinctiveness Affects Category Promotion among Certified B CorporationsJoel Gehman and Matthew Grimes23 February 2018 | Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 60, No. 6An Identity-Based Approach to Social EnterpriseTyler Wry and Jeffrey G. York8 September 2015 | Academy of Management Review, Vol. 42, No. 3An Embedded Agency Approach to Entrepreneurship Public Policy: Managerial Position and Politics in New Venture Location DecisionsJeffery S. McMullen, Matthew S. Wood and Alexander S. Kier27 July 2016 | Academy of Management Perspectives, Vol. 30, No. 3Converging Winds: Logic Hybridization in the Colorado Wind Energy FieldJeffrey G. York, Timothy J. Hargrave and Desirée F. Pacheco8 June 2015 | Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 59, No. 2 Vol. 38, No. 3 Permissions Metrics Downloaded 75 times in the past 12 months History Published online 6 March 2013 Published in print 1 July 2013 Information© Academy of Management ReviewWe thank Roy Suddaby for his editorial feedback.PDF download

8 The intertwining of social, commercial and public entrepreneurship Elisabeth Sundin and Malin Tillmar 1 INTRODUCTION The strong connection between entrepreneurship and the private sector has resulted in entrepreneurship in other sectors being un...

Purpose The purpose is to assess current construct measurement in social entrepreneurship and provide recommendations for future construct measurement on the topic. Methodology/design We use content analysis to assess the construct measurement practices in social entrepreneurship research. Prior studies were coded and analyzed to assess the way social entrepreneurship researchers have developed measures for key constructs in the social entrepreneurship literature. The content analysis allows for the examination of the number, type, and measures associated with social entrepreneurship research and for the comparison with the construct measurement practices in entrepreneurship research, in general. Findings We suggest that, while initial quantitative research has provided a useful start for empirical analysis of social entrepreneurship, future research can be improved by developing and applying stronger measures of key constructs, such as social value, mission consistency, and performance of social enterprises. Originality/value This chapter takes a content analytic approach to provide evidence regarding how a foundational element such as construct measurement has developed within social entrepreneurship research. We also propose directions for improving future research by validating and strengthening measurements of core constructs in social entrepreneurship.

Ashta argues that a combination of high-speed technological change and inequalities is leading to an increase in social entrepreneurship, which in turn drives research in social entrepreneurship. However, research in this disciplinary field of social entrepreneurship is young, definitional, largely case-based and static. To make social entrepreneurship research more dynamic, Ashta proposes using the life cycle concept. He demonstrates that the overlap between research on microfinance sector and social entrepreneurship theory is surprisingly small, indicating that researchers have been treating these as distinct fields although there should be considerable overlaps. This book takes elements of the research in social entrepreneurship discipline, microfinance industry and the life cycle concept to extend Ashta’s previous work on building a realistic theory of 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.

The purpose of this study is to provide a systematic literature review on personality trait research in social entrepreneurship, clarify the prevailing research categories and research themes, and suggest potential future research directions. The review process follows the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA). A total of 60 publications in the research topic from Web of Science and Scopus were analyzed. This study identifies four main categories in studies of personality traits in social entrepreneurship: ‘comparison of personality traits,’ ‘description of personality traits of social entrepreneurs,’ ‘personality traits and social entrepreneurial intention,’ and ‘personality traits and other factors.’ In addition, the themes in each category are also determined and several research gaps deserving of future investigation are recognized. Policymakers and educators gain a deeper understanding of personality traits in social entrepreneurship to have policies that trigger a change in social entrepreneurship education by cultivating personality traits towards sustainable development. This study classifies publications related to personality traits in social entrepreneurship and provides a guide for researchers by providing a systematic understanding of the research structure in this topic.

Social entrepreneurship (SE) research has been presented in the literature as a field of action in a pre-paradigmatic state, a field that lacks an established epistemology. Despite that impediment, several qualitative and quantitative studies have already been undertaken on the sole base of some institutions’ worldview and without previous solidification of theory. Consequently, critics and social constructivists have found much ambivalence in these and owing to the resulting mess, even question SE's legitimization as a distinctive item of research. Articles on the topic of SE make use of a variety of frameworks, borrowing from neo-institutional or dialectic theory, bringing with them different research methods and views from other disciplines. Instead of proposing another conceptual approach and yet contributing to the ongoing discussion, the authors enact on a deductive journey by examining and clustering underlying paradigmatic assumptions found in a large-scale sample (>300) of current articles. In comparison to results from the management (entrepreneurship) literature, the study finds statistical evidence to the hypotheses that SE differs in researchers’ paradigms, that seminal SE research transcends the foci on either detached structures or individuals, and that research in SE is often led by advocacy worldviews of the researchers themselves.

Entrepreneurial ventures that explicitly address social and environmental issues have proliferated, together with diverse but strictly connected research streams and academic discussions around the phenomena of social entrepreneurship and sustainable entrepreneurship. However, while existing literature reviews address either social or sustainable entrepreneurship, studies systematizing the convergences and divergences of both sustainable and social entrepreneurship simultaneously in the academic literature are lacking. To fill this gap, the authors performed a systematic literature review covering the Scopus and Web of Science databases from 2001 to 2022. A total of 209 articles were reviewed, and thematic and lexical data analyses were conducted. As a result, convergences and divergences related to enablers, impact, business models, financial constraints, and fundraising instruments were identified. This article concludes by providing insights about knowledge gaps associated with the role of entrepreneurs, networks, impact measurement, business model innovation, and the capital structure of social and sustainable ventures.

Contents: Introduction PART I 1. Research in Social Entrepreneurship: From Historical Roots to Future Routes H. Aygoren PART II 2. A Social Exchange Theory of Non-Governmental Organizations as Social Entrepreneurs in Rural Entrepreneurship S.H. Lee 3. A Theoretical Model for Understanding the Scalability of Social Impact C. Weber, A. Kroeger and K. Lambrich 4. What Really Matters: A Theoretical Model for the Assessment of Social Enterprise Performance A.-K. Achleitner, P. Heister and W. Spiess-Knafl 5. An Empirical Analysis of the Missions, Funding Sources, and Survival of Social Ventures A.V. Bruno, J. Woolley and E.D. Carlson 6. Crowdfunding, Foundations, and Impact Investors as Sources of Financial Capital for Social Entrepreneurs J.E. Clarkin PART III 7. Leadership Training as a Means to Stimulate Social Entrepreneurship J. Maas, A.A. Seferiadis, J.F.G. Bunders and M.B.M. Zweekhorst 8. Value Creation at the Individual, Venture and Societal Levels of Analyses through Social Venture Competitions M. Meyskens and N. Auch Conclusion Index

PurposeThis paper examines the ethical tensions in social entrepreneurship (SE) research by focusing on the ethical consequences of obtaining ethics approval in a university in the developed world while executing fieldwork for data collection in a developing country. It aims to offer insight into ethical research practice to protect vulnerable research participants from being further silenced and marginalised by the dominant social order that developed world universities embody.Design/methodology/approachThe ethical tensions are described through narratives drawn from a Filipino Ph.D. candidate's experience. The candidate obtained ethics approval from the university in New Zealand and collected interview data from social enterprise beneficiaries in the Philippines. A critical reflexive lens carves a space for a deepened understanding of these ethical tensions.FindingsThis paper offers critical insights into ethical SE research involving participants from vulnerable communities. These insights suggest that closer consideration needs to be given to contextual sensitivity, particularly on the part of researchers and research ethics committees, in crafting ethical data collection protocols. Findings also show how it is important for the indigenous researcher to filter ethical protocols through their local knowledge.Originality/valueThe paper uses critical reflexivity to examine ethical tensions in SE research involving vulnerable beneficiaries. It offers insights into ethical research procedures and practices that engender mindfulness of the contextual and relational aspects of doing SE research in the developing world.

In this essay we suggest directions and perspectives for social entrepreneurship research that could result in a state in which social entrepreneurship would have become mainstream. This includes the need to delineate and define social entrepreneurship vis-à-vis commercial entrepreneurship, the question of growth and scaling up of social ventures, the role of social entrepreneurship on a macroeconomic level, and the use of critical theory as a theoretical lens. Our recommendations are inspired by a Professional Development Workshop on ‘Social Entrepreneurship: Future Directions in Education and Research’ organized by the authors at the Academy of Management Conference 2010 in Montréal.