Social Innovation, Entrepreneurship, and Enterprise in Social Work and Human Services: Recasting the Historical Evolution of a Global Phenomenon

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 (

El éxito de las Beyoungri Danche depende de las estrategias financieras que sus líderes utilizan para hacerlas sostenibles en el tiempo. La recopilación de buenas prácticas de las Beyoungri Danche coreanas en la literatura y una investigación exploratoria de contenidos web de tres organizaciones exitosas, permite aprender tácticas de otra cultura que ha demostrado un alto nivel organizacional y fortalecer el diálogo alrededor de un tema de interés común.

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

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

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.

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.

Digital social innovation: An overview and research framework

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.

The relevance of professional training of future social work specialists for social entrepreneurship is justified by the modernization of the system of social protection of the population. Social entrepreneurship is like an innovative social technology. Social work professionals – social entrepreneurs can act as social innovators. In addition, the relevance is justified by the formation of a model of a socio-entrepreneurial university. Modern youth has an innovative potential and at the same time it is not ready for social entrepreneurship; theory and considerable experience have been gained in the methodology of professional training, but there is no built-in system for training future social entrepreneurs from among future social work specialists – this is the contradiction identified by the author. The desire to solve them determined the purpose of the study: to identify the ideas of future social work specialists about social entrepreneurship and their readiness to open a social enterprise. The theoretical analysis of the scientific literature indicates that social entrepreneurship is underdeveloped in domestic social practice. However, the infrastructure supporting social entrepreneurship has been specified; highlighted the role of universities in the training of social entrepreneurs; the prospects for the results of professional training of social entrepreneurs are determined. The article provides a secondary analysis of the results of foreign and domestic researchers who studied students' ideas about social entrepreneurship. The author's survey was conducted on the basis of Samara University. The sample consisted of future social work specialists (68 people). Conclusions are drawn about the poorly formed ideas of future social work specialists about social entrepreneurship. Interest in social entrepreneurship was noted. The common features of social entrepreneurship and social work are highlighted. The importance of entrepreneurial skills for a social worker is recognized. “Helping people” appears to be the main motive for the potential opening of a social enterprise, according to the results of the survey.

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.

Owing to the contextual challenges, human service professionals (HSP) are creating social value (SV) for diverse vulnerable population groups through social innovation. This qualitative exploratory study investigates the nature of SV created by 14 HSPs, representing a diverse range of human service organizations (HSOs), and examines ‘why’ and ‘how’ they innovate. In addition, the study examines HSPs’ current understanding and practices related to social entrepreneurship (SE). The study findings highlight that increased accountability and new funding opportunities challenged HSPs to innovate. HSPs created SV by addressing new unmet needs, developing new collaborations, and employing alternative marketing strategies, thereby ensuring the financial sustainability of their programs and organizations, and promoting social and economic justice. Different understandings of SE were voiced based on the educational backgrounds of HSPs. Without formal training in SE, HSPs trained in social work appeared to use various components of the SE process, though in a haphazard fashion compared to those with a non-social work academic training. We suggest that the graduate curriculum across various disciplines should formally include principles and behaviors related to social innovation and entrepreneurship. Finally, more research is needed to understand and describe how HSPs create SV in HSOs.

Social entrepreneurship is a cross-cutting competency. It draws on knowledge from various disciplines and personal experiences. Health, social sciences and humanities are usually technically sound but lack specific business knowledge and skills. Entrepreneurial education makes it possible to establish training environments where students join as ‘novices’, develop skills and undergo experiences that help them build capable profiles and prepare for their professional careers in today's economy. It is important to note that the development of skills for social entrepreneurship is increasingly demanded in all disciplinary fields. Interest from the academic, business and civil society in social innovation and social entrepreneurship is growing rapidly since social value creation and social innovation are considered vital to the social entrepreneurship phenomenon. The innovation process aims to fill the gap between working life and educational framework so that students can develop innovation capabilities they will need during their careers. Taking cognizance of the importance of social innovation and entrepreneurship, the Government of India formulated a policy for Biomedical Innovation and Entrepreneurship in 2022. Our University established a first of its kind Social Innovation Lab (SinnoLAB) under a Collaborative European Union Project. Our University is one of the collaborating partners and the only health sciences university to set up a SinnoLAB in India. We discuss in this article how a SinnoLaB can be set up, its functions, need for such labs in medical institutes, its role in medical education and its beneficiaries and propose that other health sciences institutes can also take up social innovation and entrepreneurship considering the benefits to all stakeholders.

This article outlines findings from a study in South Africa and Kenya that explored social entrepreneurs' use of fabrication laboratories (fab labs), and in particular fab lab 3D printing services, in order to advance their social innovations and enterprises. Based on interviews with representatives of fab lab initiatives and social enterprises, the study found strong linkages between social entrepreneurship and fab labs, and between social entrepreneurs and the use of 3D printing technology. However, it was also found that social entrepreneurs tend not to rely primarily on fab labs for access to 3D printers, preferring to buy and build their own printer units-a practice made cost-effective through the selection of low-cost, open source models. In respect of the computer-aided design (CAD) software used to design the files for 3D printing, it was found that social entrepreneurs prefer the stability and user-friendliness of proprietary CAD software, despite the cost implications. At the same time, it was found that social entrepreneurs frequently use free and open source CAD files available online, and that they seek, in turn, to share their designs on a free and open source basis.

Social enterprises, social entrepreneurship and sustainable business models are increasingly common in sectors where Fair Trade does not have a strong presence (e.g. mobile phones and software). This research asks: To what extent do social and sustainability enterprises and entrepreneurship (SSEEs) in these ‘distant’ sectors engage the principles of Fair Trade? It draws on an in-depth, multi-method case study of SSEEs in the legal cannabis sector in Portland, Oregon, US. It analyzes data from magazine advertisements, public and industry events, and visits to 85 cannabis retailers. The results suggest that SSEEs in distant sectors may not be engaging some of the principles that are at the heart of Fair Trade. These include transparency, accountability, collaborative price-setting, pre-payment, honouring contracts, inclusive governance and worker organizing. SSEEs appear more engaged with the environment and buy-cotting (privileging) small producers, sustainable businesses and marginalized groups. How can Fair Trade encourage and empower SSEEs in distant sectors to engage more principles of Fair Trade?