Social Entrepreneurship and COVID‐19

Over the past years, institutional theory has become an increasingly utilized theoretical lens for social entrepreneurship (SE) research. However, while there is a rapid growth of SE research that employs an institutional perspective, researchers have yet to systematically understand the wide-ranging application of institutional theory to SE study. Thus, a review of existing SE literature that employs institutional theory seems warranted and timely. Accordingly, we initially review the current use of institutional theory in SE research based on 101 peer-reviewed articles published between 2008 and 2020. More specifically, drawing on four critical institutional perspectives that have long been used in entrepreneurship research (including institutional context, legitimacy, institutional logic, and institutional entrepreneurship), we provide the first comprehensive analysis of the uses of institutional theory in SE literature. We then offer a comparative analysis of the application of institutional theory to SE and commercial entrepreneurship based on these four institutional perspectives, especially considering the similarities and differences between social and commercial entrepreneurship. Based on our review, we finally identify gaps in the existing SE study and provide several promising avenues for future SE study, as well as contribute to advancing institutional theory development.

Social entrepreneurship has captured the increasing interest and imagination of scholars, practitioners, governments, and the general public since the early 1990s. It has extended the concept of entrepreneurship by including (and in some cases, emphasizing) the ‘social dimension’ of entrepreneurial ventures. This book defines social entrepreneurship as an entrepreneurial process initiated by social entrepreneurs with social goals/missions in pursuit of social value creation; social entrepreneurship outcomes are social enterprises, including social businesses using commercial means and non-profit organizations. This volume is truly international, with contributions from nine different countries by twenty-two different researchers. One aim has been to present papers from different contexts on the economy, politics, and cultural issues, and in national and regional contexts, combining the needs of commercial, social, and human development. For social entrepreneurship, such contexts might comprise sparsely populated areas or urban areas, social entrepreneurship education, social entrepreneurship for healthcare, social entrepreneurship finance, and so on. In all this, we seek to conceptualize the notion of social entrepreneurship, both social and societal. Therefore, this volume develops social entrepreneurship research and takes it in practical directions, synthesizing the numerous streams of social entrepreneurship research and theory for the benefit of educators, libraries, scholars, non-profit researchers, public policymakers, practitioners, students, and any organization or individual interested in staying abreast of advances in this area. It is also an important reference book for faculty and students interested in conducting research or teaching social entrepreneurship. KeywordsCorporate Social ResponsibilitySocial EnterpriseSocial EntrepreneurshipSocial EntrepreneurSocial InnovationThese keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

A social enterprise organisation seeks business solutions to social problems. It identifies social needs and uses the market to address them. Existing literature presents a variety of concepts and frameworks to connect market sector organisations with social amelioration agendas, including corporate social responsibility and stakeholder management. Yet, the demand for such organisations to contribute to resolving social problems remains, and international business and management scholarship in this area needs to be supplemented by literature on governance and regulation. The central objective of this thesis is to examine the potential of the social enterprise as a market sector organisation, to address social problems principally by examining a case study of a market sector organisation dealing directly with the climate crisis. The primary argument of the thesis is that the social enterprise has a unique internal context, which it harnesses to formulate strategies and to manage its external context consistent with a social mission. The unique features of its internal context enable the social enterprise organisation to enact the concept of social enterprise. These features include an explicit and solely social mission, social capital, social entrepreneurship, a stakeholder-ownership structure, and organisational hybridity and heterogeneity. In discussion of the principal case study findings, the thesis highlights that through a social mission, a stakeholder-ownership structure, hybridity and heterogeneity, the social enterprise can operate beyond stereotypes of market sector organisations. It does not have to focus purely on mechanisms for increasing individual, private wealth and can pursue social agendas as its purpose. Using its social capital and social entrepreneurship, the social enterprise can cooperate with other actors in constructing, through regulation and governance, a ‘choice architecture’ persuading actors to make socially ameliorative decisions. This lowers the complexity and uncertainty that characterise the social arena and can lead to opportunities for further cooperation for problem resolution. The central implications of the case study and the literature review are discussed in this thesis by examining the thesis findings in the context of the climate crisis. Through its unique features the social enterprise organisation is able to enact concepts proposed as opportunities for pursuing organisational resolutions to the climate crisis, perceived to be the realignment of incentives to which cooperation, politics and regulation can contribute. These concepts include ‘transformative leadership’ to pursue social equity and justice as a path towards resolution of the climate crisis, and ‘natural capitalism’, the realignment of capitalism with the value of ecosystems and natural resources. The social enterprise organisation possesses the motivation and capability to enact these concepts.

Introduction. Modern development of socio-economic sector makes adjustments to market environment. Enterprises require expansion of their activities and feel necessity to diversify risks. Satisfaction of consumer needs is accompanied by introduction of innovations in various areas. Focusing on marketing 3.0, when market activity should not only ensure enterprise’s profitability, but also care about consumer and environment, is embracing more and more enterprises and becoming modern business responsibility. Therefore, the problem of social entrepreneurship research in context of sustainable development is becoming relevant and important.
 Aim and tasks. The main aim of this work is to formulate theoretical means for social entrepreneurship research, which should reveal peculiarities of tools to achieve global goals of sustainable development. To achieve this goal, the following tasks have been solved in this study: analysis of definitions and study the essence of “social entrepreneurship” concept; interconnection of social entrepreneurship goals with global goals of sustainable development and compliance with modern concept of marketing 3.0.
 Results. Research of “social enterprise” definition allows to define it as stable business structure, tended to self-development, which forms mechanism of social support and infrastructure development through close integration into social system. Social entrepreneurship is aimed at solving social problems and other goals of marketing 3.0. Social enterprise is considered in context of sustainable development, which is a concept that requires balance between satisfying current needs of people and protecting interests of future generations, ensuring their necessity for safe and healthy environment, and it must be able to contribute to global goals of sustainable development at local level.
 Conclusions. Social enterprises have become an acceptable mechanism for solving socio-economic problems, as they are developing and expanding new tools to achieve global goals of sustainable development at local level. Social entrepreneurship has opportunity to involve socially vulnerable groups in public life and expand citizens’ activity. Social entrepreneurship today is aimed at positive social changes and providing basic human needs in an optimal way.

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...

Contents: PART I. OPPORTUNITIES IN THE FIELD OF SOCIAL ENTREPRENEURSHIP 1. Opportunities for Social Entrepreneurship: An Analysis of the Social Sector in Six Midwest US Areas John E. Clarkin, Dayle D. Deardurff and Anne Gallagher 2. A Multi-Stakeholder Perspective on Social Business Planning: Opportunity Discovery and Exploitation in the Case of Dynamo Camp Francesco Perrini and Clodia Vurro 3. Applying Disruptive Innovation Theory to Green-Tech Ventures Moriah Meyskens and Todd W. Moss PART II. THE KEY ROLE OF THE LEADER IN SOCIAL ENTREPRENEURSHIP 4. The Role of Personal Values in Social Entrepreneurship Michael Conger 5. Is Social Entrepreneurship Transformational Leadership in Action? Divya Bhutiani, Kimberly Flicker, Padmakumar Nair and Aard Groen PART III. A STAKEHOLDER APPROACH TO STUDY SOCIAL ENTREPRENEURSHIP 6. Sustaining the Stakeholder Engagement in the Social Enterprise: The Human Resource Architecture Rita Bissola and Barbara Imperatori 7. Stakeholder Salience and Disruptive Innovation in Social Entrepreneurship Todd W. Moss and Moriah Meyskens 8. Balancing Competition and Collaboration: How Early-Stage Social Ventures Succeed Aparna Katre, Paul Salipante, Barbara Bird and Sheri Perelli 9. The Dynamics and Long-Term Stability of Social Enterprise Dennis R. Young, Janelle A. Kerlin, Simon Teasdale and Jung-In Soh PART IV. THE LEGITIMATION OF SOCIAL ENTREPRENEURSHIP 10. Verifying Social Enterprises: Applying Lessons from Fair-Trade and Other Certifications Elizabeth Bennett, Donald Gregory, Robert Leaver and Kelly Ramirez 11. From Private to Public: Community Institutions, Corporate Social Action, and Sustainable Economic Development Stephen J. Mezias and Mohamad Fakhreddin

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.

We investigate the research question: Why are there very few social enterprises in China? Our findings unpack four types of institutional challenges to social entrepreneurship, as perceived by social entrepreneurs: norms of a strong role for government; misunderstood or unknown role for social enterprises; non-supportive rules and regulations; and lack of socio-cultural values and beliefs in support of social goals. We contribute to the literature on social enterprises by showing how an institutional environment may be “non-munificent,” i.e., non-supportive for the existence of social enterprises and their goals, and we thus address the need for more attention to the institutional environment in which social entrepreneurship takes place. Further, by using Q-methodology on 42 social entrepreneurs along with illustrative qualitative data from interviews, we address the need to go beyond anecdotal case studies and introduce methodological plurality in social entrepreneurship research. Finally, our findings on institutional challenges provide us with an opportunity to discuss how social entrepreneurs may engage with purposive activities to overcome such challenges, leading us to initiate a conversation between the social entrepreneurship and institutional work literatures.

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.

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 presented paper makes the analysis of differences and similarities between social entrepreneurship and corporate social responsibility. It describes the practice of business sector involvement in solving social issues on the example of two different forms of entrepreneurial activity (traditional and social entrepreneurship). The paper reviews in detail the features that characterize social enterprises and responsible businesses, and analyzes the importance of business involvement in solving social issues. The comparison method was used for the study, which focused on the research of social enterprises and corporate social projects. Specifically, social enterprises and social projects implemented by business firms with similar goals in the same geographical zone were selected and compared to each other. The study of the targeted social enterprises reveals that it is entirely possible for a company to achieve commercial and social goals with equal success. As a result, they can contribute to the resolution of social issues such as environmental protection, the employment of vulnerable and underprivileged groups in the open labor market, the development of innovative technologies, and others. Simultaneously, the study confirms that, given their nature, motivation, and goals, responsible business and social entrepreneurship have the full potential to exist and develop independently in the market. Social stability is a key indicator of success for any country, regardless of its social and economic development. Social issues play an important role in the formation of the business environment, on which opportunities for business growth and development highly depend. In the modern world, the role of business in solving social issues is significantly growing, a clear example of which is the UN's "2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development". These goals are of universal importance and represent the highest level of international efforts to ensure that we and future generations live on a more sustainable, safe, and secure planet. The business sector is one of the main stakeholders in the process of implementing sustainable development goals, which should contribute to the recovery of the economic environment. Companies in Georgia have varying opinions on the topic of business involvement in social issues. 34 out of 92 surveyed companies view corporate social responsibility as a capital investment, which can play an important role in attracting foreign investment, and 19 of them think that examples of company participation in social issues are influenced by emotional factors and are driven by spontaneous decisions. According to the same companies, social issues are outside the scope of activities of the business sector and are not a subject of their interest. It is evident that examples of business involvement in social projects are mostly observed in large corporations. At the same time, there is a growing trend of social entrepreneurship in Georgia. Since 2009, when the first social enterprises appeared, 66 businesses haven been identified as social enterprises. Social companies are crucial allies for the government and society, and contribute significantly to tackling pressing problems such as poverty alleviation, access to livelihoods, preservation of cultural heritage, environmental protection, health care, education, and others. That is why, social entrepreneurship, as a socio-economic and organizational phenomenon, has attracted the attention of scientists, representatives of business and government in recent years. Although social entrepreneurship differs from traditional entrepreneurship in terms of content, without in-depth knowledge, it is difficult to draw a line between a social enterprise and the enterprise that implements corporate social responsibility initiatives, which is further complicated by the unregulated legal framework of social entrepreneurship. Taking into account the aforementioned factors, the goal of the conducted study was, on the one hand, to gather information about the activities of social enterprises operating in Georgia, and on the other hand, to analyze the initiatives implemented by business companies under the umbrella of corporate social responsibility. Based on the information gathered, the similarities and differences between the two types of business involvement in social issues were outlined. The study also aimed to evaluate the prospects for the development of social entrepreneurship in Georgia. In the process of the study, desk and qualitative methods were used. Primarily, previous studies and literature were examined. Two focus group meetings were held as part of the qualitative research, one with representatives of traditional businesses that implement social projects and the other with social enterprises operating in Georgia. In order to illustrate the similarities and contrasts between the modes of their activities and the outcomes attained, social initiatives carried out by regular businesses and social enterprises were grouped based on similar content and scope. Due to the fact that social entrepreneurship in general and its development potential have not been thoroughly and widely researched at the academic level we will continue the research of the topic. In the following papers, the role of social entrepreneurship in solving the country's economic and social problems will be analyzed in more detail and the effectiveness of the model will be evaluated, particularly with regard to employing a diverse workforce. Keywords: Social entrepreneurship, a social enterprise, Corporate Social Responsibility, Business Social Responsibility, Responsible Business JEL Codes: L26, L32, M14

Research summary We provide an ethnographic account of how social entrepreneurs in the Safe Water for Africa program made sense of hybrid goods, as well as how and why those understandings affected both the social enterprise's marketing mix and stakeholders’ expectations of the enterprise's rights and responsibilities. We find that output maximizing‐behavior enabled by prosocial motivation elicits a psychological feeling of entitlement to a socio‐emotional return on investment in the form of beneficiary gratitude. When external stakeholders consider them justified, these feelings become moral norms that can induce or prevent the institutionalization of a suboptimal path of development, depending on the motivations of competitors. We show that social entrepreneurs’ emotional attachment can have consequences for development, challenging the functionalist conception of social enterprise as a temporary patch to institutional voids. Managerial summary We present a detailed account of the Safe Water for Africa program that examines: (a) how the program's stakeholders made sense of water as a “hybrid good;” and (b) how these understandings shaped the social entrepreneurs’ attitudes, the social enterprise's marketing mix, and stakeholder's expectations of the enterprise's rights and responsibilities. We find that the same motivation that prompted social entrepreneurs to act on behalf of those without safe water elicited a sense of entitlement to a “return on investment” in the form of beneficiary gratitude. If reciprocated, these feelings may become normalized and, depending on competitors' motives, hinder long‐term development efforts by precluding their entry. Copyright © 2017 Strategic Management Society.

The phenomenon of social entrepreneurship has proliferated in recent times. Concurrently, scholarly interest in and work examining social entrepreneurship has also blossomed. Yet there remains much about social entrepreneurship that we still do not know, whilst authors continue to highlight limitations in the state of theory development within the field of social entrepreneurship research. This chapter contributes towards advancing social entrepreneurship scholarship, and addressing these limitations, by exploring the insights, application, and value of Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) theory for social entrepreneurship research. To do this, two key CSR theories: stakeholder theory and Carroll’s CSR Pyramid, are analysed. We consider how both theories need to be adapted for a social enterprise context, before presenting a revised stakeholder theory of the social enterprise, and introducing the social enterprise responsibility pyramid. Although discussions in this chapter are principally conceptual, illustrative supporting examples are drawn from case study research with small and medium sized social enterprises in Sub-Saharan Africa

This paper questions the application of the entrepreneurship discourse to social entrepreneurship in the UK and looks at how people ‘doing’ social enterprise appropriate or re-write the discourse to articulate their own realities. Drawing on phenomenological enquiry and discourse analysis, the study analyses the micro discourses of social entrepreneurs, as opposed to the meta rhetorics of (social) entrepreneurship. Analysis using both corpus linguistics software and Critical Discourse Analysis showed a preoccupation among interviewees with local issues, collective action, geographical community and local power struggles. Echoes of the enterprise discourse are evident but couched in linguistic devices that suggest a modified social construction of entrepreneurship, in which interviewees draw their legitimacy from a local or social morality. These findings are at odds ideologically with the discursive shifts of UK social enterprise policy over the last decade, in which a managerially defined rhetoric of enterprise is used to promote efficiency, business discipline and financial independence. The paper raises critical awareness of the tension in meanings appropriated to the enterprise discourse by social enterprise policy and practice and illustrates the value of discourse analysis for entrepreneurship and social entrepreneurship research.

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.