Main research areas and methods in social entrepreneurship

Corporate social entrepreneurship (CSE) is a subject of growing interest for scholars in the areas of corporate entrepreneurship, social entrepreneurship, and corporate social responsibility as it has the potential of engaging corporations in activities that transform traditional practices, advance corporate purpose, and promote positive social change. CSE consists of identifying, evaluating, and exploiting entrepreneurial opportunities that address social and environmental problems through market means from within corporations. Dual value creation—the simultaneous pursuit of social and economic value creation—is a core element of CSE, however, in organizations that have not been originally designed for this purpose. As an umbrella concept, CSE embraces similar terms such as social intrapreneurship and sustainable corporate entrepreneurship. CSE often starts autonomously through managers and employees acting as social intrapreneurs, until initiatives are accepted and integrated into the firm’s concept of strategy. CSE introduces a societal concern to corporate entrepreneurship, contextualizes social entrepreneurship in corporations, and advances entrepreneurial approaches to corporate social responsibility—all of which are topics that remain relatively unexplored and that offer vibrant opportunities for future research.

ABSTRACTIn this article, we aim to conceptualize a market-based approach to poverty reduction from a corporate social entrepreneurship (CSE) perspective. Specifically, we describe some market-based initiatives at the base of the economic pyramid and relate them to the social entrepreneurship literature. We refer to the entrepreneurial activities of multinational corporations that create social value as CSE. We then conceptualize CSE according to the corporate entrepreneurship and social entrepreneurship domains and shed light on how corporations can implement CSE. Finally, by reviewing relevant literature, we propose some of the factors that can stimulate CSE in organizations and some of the benefits companies can gain by implementing CSE.

Purpose– The purpose of this paper is to shed light on the international market expansion of multinational corporations (MNCs) to the base of the pyramid (BoP). The authors employ the corporate social entrepreneurship (CSE) perspective to reveal how MNCs can enter this market, the key enabling factors and the benefits they can gain. CSE is related to entrepreneurial and marketing strategies that are inspired by social responsibility.Design/methodology/approach– An exploratory, qualitative multiple-case study has been employed. In-depth interviews were conducted with managers from three MNCs that have entered the BoP market in India.Findings– The findings of this research confirm that successful entry into the BoP requires the pursuit of social responsibility and the adaptation of marketing strategies. In addition, MNCs should identify the key environmental factors (demand conditions and socio-political actors’ expectations) and develop organisational characteristics (management support, network orientation towards non-governmental organisations and availability of financial resources) to match. The findings of this research show that engagement in CSE in countries with considerable BoP populations can bring firms legitimacy and sustainable profitability.Research limitations/implications– This research is based on interviews with a limited number of MNCs in India. Future studies could generalise the findings of this research to a larger number of corporations in other countries.Originality/value– This research brings new insights to the field of international marketing by integrating the corporate social responsibility, marketing and entrepreneurship disciplines. The findings of this research offer empirical support for CSE and its role in international marketing strategies.

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 (

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.

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 and COVID‐19

Social entrepreneurship is one of the fastest growing areas of entrepreneurship. Since the beginning of 21st century, the popularity of social entrepreneurship steadily, but gradually increases. Currently, social enterprises are operating similarly to traditional ones and thus can be seen separate from charity organizations. This concept is well practiced in emerging economies. The concept of a social enterprise and entrepreneurship can be approached in many different ways. The European Union has an operational definition of a social enterprise. In addition, in various European countries, there are some additional laws and regulations defining social entrepreneurship or a social enterprise. In Latvia, both the definition of social entrepreneurship and social enterprises are included in the Law on Social Entrepreneurship. In Sweden or Estonia, there are no common definition or legal framework for social enterprises. In Finland, the situation is the same, but there is a law concerning work integration enterprises. The EU´s operational definition for social enterprises is common for all European countries. The Baltic States and the Scandinavian countries have different perceptions of social entrepreneurship among the population and entrepreneurs. The paper analyses social enterprises in four European countries: Latvia, Estonia, Sweden and Finland by using national and EU-level knowledge sources. In the next phase, two case studies of social enterprises from each country are analysed according to the EU´s operational definition. As a result, the authors identified the similarities and differences of social enterprises in terms of their social mission, business models and governance models and suggested directions for future research.

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.

Due to rapid evolution of new technologies and the accelerated economic and social change, many organizations have realized in recent years that in order to survive in this turbulent and competitive global environment it is necessary to take into account the needs and expectations of their stakeholders, as well as to make the labour relationships more flexible and to adopt a socially responsible behaviour. Social enterprises may be the solution as they represent a business model adapted to the 21st century, which through their activity create a balance between economic, financial, cultural, social and environmental needs. In fact, last decades have witnessed the emergence and development of concepts such as social economy and enterprise, social entrepreneurship. As a driver of innovation, job creation and economic growth, social entrepreneurship can and should contribute to economic well-being and social progress. On this line, it is worth to emphasize that the activities of social entrepreneurs may have an appreciable impact on the quality of life of people around the world. Also, social entrepreneurship represents a complex and multidimensional concept that has constituted a topic of great significance for numerous researchers in the past decades. The paper aims to define the concepts of social entrepreneurship and quality of life, and to illustrate their relationship in the case of TOMS company. The descriptive and quantitative research method used by the authors was based on secondary data found in the electronic databases, international journals and corporate reports. The paper contributes to a better understanding of the two concepts, namely social entrepreneurship and quality of life. Also, it shows that they are two related concepts as the first one has a positive impact on the second one through various actions, such as ensuring the basic material conditions, increasing the level of education, or improving the health system. Keywords: Social Entrepreneurship, Quality of Life, Entrepreneurship, TOMS Company.

Case overview This case uniquely challenges students by introducing the history of how LIXIL transformed its corporate social responsibility (CSR) program to create shared value within the global sanitation sector by launching the SATO business unit as a social enterprise. SATO is a “self-sustaining social business that establishes a local Make, Sell, Use cycle in the community – creating jobs and allowing local manufacturers and stakeholders to continue the business independently” (LIXIL, 2019). From 2012 to 2021, NGOs helped the company design and market the SATO toilet pan and other products that form the SATO business unit. The SATO business unit must balance its social mission of improved sanitation with the need to gain a profit and become a sustainable business – the ongoing challenge of social entrepreneurship. Leaning objectives After completing this case study, students will be able to meet the following objectives: understand the difference in corporate strategy between CSR and ventures that create shared value; understand the sometimes-competing goals of social enterprises and analyze how they can balance both economic and social objectives; understand that developing and emerging markets are different from each other; explain how corporations can decide which markets to pursue, and how they can meet the needs of the diverse BOP markets; understand how the pursuit of the Sustainable Development Goals can create economic opportunities for corporations; and (optional: suggested for post-graduates) identify activities and challenges of MNC market entry in developing country contexts. Analyze institutional voids in developing country contexts and explore how partnerships can help to address these voids. Complexity academic level This case is most appropriate for the study of international business, corporate social responsibility, and social entrepreneurship students at both the undergraduate and post-graduate levels. The case may be used for undergraduate students to illustrate corporate social entrepreneurship, creating shared value, NGO partnerships, and marketing to the base of the pyramid (BOP) consumers. An optional section on BOP market entry is presented for early- and late-stage post-graduate students, illustrating the concepts of the liability of foreignness and institutional voids. Supplementary materials Teaching notes are available for educators only. Subject code CCS 3: Entrepreneurship.

Editors Monica Nandan, Tricia Bent-Goodley, and Gokul Mandayam have produced a landmark book that highlights the relevance of social entrepreneurship, social intrapreneurship, and social value crea...

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.

In Europe, we are witnessing a growth in the social economy sector, i.e. in socio – economic organizations, which belong neither to the traditional for profit sector (market economy) nor to the public sector (government) (Deforuny, 2001; Young, 2007) - they rather act at the interface of civil society and markets (Jäger, 2010). The main goal of these organizations, called social enterprises or social business, is doing business for socially useful purposes. These initiatives may take the form of traditional Non-Governmental Organizations (NGOs), like foundations and associations, as well as new kinds of organizations for example social cooperatives, partnerships, funds.Social economy is situated between public and business sphere of administration and combines both, social objectives and the ones profit-oriented. Social entrepreneurship is unquestionably a desirable feature of social economy understood as reaching planned economic objectives with the use of available resources. Another feature comprises in using involvement and creativity of excluded persons and thus, solving social problems, among others, structural unemployment and disadvantage of social minorities as well as strengthening democratic processes, bottom-up social initiatives etc. Achieving objectives, both social and economic, requires using modern management instruments and methods.All of the above mentioned organizations or ventures, which achieve their local, social or ethical mission and goals using methods adopted from the business sector (Defourny, Hulgard, Pestoff, eds.2014). One of these methods is project management. The whole sector of social economy, both in Poland and in Europe, is strongly influenced by projectification process: a lot of the activities are performed in the form of projects. For last ten years projectification of social non-governmental sector as well as the economy sector in Poland was reinforced by EU’s funding stream – hundreds of co-funded projects, which aimed at increasing the level of development and improving the condition of social economy, were implemented. Some of these projects have resulted in the creation of durable, dynamically operating social enterprises, and some of them did not produce any long-term results. In case of successful projects, we can observe an unusual effect of projectification process: the creation of permanent structures, sustainable social economy organizations through the implementation of projects.Although we can identify examples of interesting research on impact of project work on NGOs (Brière, Proulx, Navaro, & Laporte, 2015); Golini, Kalchschmidt, Landoni, 2015) or critical success factors of non-governmental projects (Khang & Moe, 2008), there is a research gap which we would like to address in this paper: lack of research on project management best practices in social enterprises. Thus, the main research question we would like to investigate in the paper is: What are the factors that lead to creation of durable, permanent social economy enterprises from projects?This paper draws on set of qualitative data from broader research on social economy sector conducted in Poland in years 2011-2013 by researchers from the Institute of Public Affairs (IPA). For the purpose of this paper we have conducted multiple case study analysis and analysed 36 case studies of existing social enterprises. One of our research goals was to find out, which factors are critical in the process of creation durable social enterprises from projects. Also, we wanted to understand how projectification, influenced strongly by the EU policies, changes the landscape of social enterprises in Poland and helps them achieve success.

Corporate social responsibility (CSR) is entrepreneurs’ obligation to be socially responsible so as to create values for the community, one of which is through social entrepreneurship. The CSR and social entrepreneurship form a corporate social entrepreneurship which can strategically provide a balance between the economic value and social value among various stakeholders. This study aims to determine stages of implementation of corporate social entrepreneurship and development of Business Model Canvas to run the corporate social entrepreneurship in Sido Muncul partnership program with Parang Gupito Farmer Group. The results show that the stages of implementation of corporate social entrepreneurship in Sido Muncul partnership program in Parang Gupito include problem identification and need analysis, resource allocation and coordination, network building, intensive mentoring, sustainable innovation, getting business partners, and performance assessment. The value proportion of the Sido Muncul partnership program in the Business Model Canvas for the Parang Gupito Farmer Group includes knowledge and skills about agriculture, agricultural product innovation, marketing and distribution, tourism services, product standardization, as well as price and market guarantee that have an impact on increasing the farmers’ welfare.