The role of network bricolage for facilitating dual value creation in social enterprises: a measure development and empirical examination

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.

Social Entrepreneurship and COVID‐19

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.

Despite the founders of social enterprises being faced with a proliferation of structural forms to pursue their interests, social enterprise is often portrayed as a homogenous organisational category. This domain is increasingly rendered a governable terrain (Nickel & Eikenberry, 2016) through the development of Kitemarks, funder/investor requirements and government policy initiatives which shape and control what it means to be a ‘good’ social enterprise. Such mechanisms have been shown to strengthen institutional coherence and drive structural isomorphism (i.e. Similarity) (DiMaggio & Powell, 1983; Boxenbaum, & Jonsson, 2017). As yet, however, scant attention has been given to the ways in which Kitemarks, standards and funding criteria serve to prioritise and marginalise particular forms of social enterprise by bestowing or denying access to material (e.g. financial) and symbolic (e.g. legitimacy) resources. Further, the implications of such disciplining affects and how individual entrepreneurs respond to them has likewise received little attention from scholars. This thesis seeks to explicate this issue, positioning Kitemarks, standards and funding criteria as political artefacts that serve to discipline the structure choices of social entrepreneurs through prescribing desirable characteristics, behaviours and structures for social enterprises. This prescription becomes problematic in situations when adherence to such prescriptions is at odds with social entrepreneur’s own constructions of legitimate organising principles, which are perceived by them to be as socially and materially efficacious but prevent access to physical and symbolic resources. The qualitative data set for this thesis comprises fifteen in-depth interviews with social entrepreneurs and their advisors regarding structure choice. The analysis presented offers new insights into the dynamics of structure choice by social entrepreneurs, including the potential nodes of conflict between exogenous prescriptions and social entrepreneur’s own orientation to certain aspects of organisation and what social entrepreneurs actually do in the face of such conflict. I find that conflict is particularly prevalent in respect of ownership and decision-making. In order to resolve the tensions that they experience, social 4 entrepreneurs often ‘decouple’ their governance and/or organising practices from those prescribed in external standards or begin to create new structures and ways of organising on the margins of the social enterprise domain through a process of institutional entrepreneurship (Battilana, Leca, & Boxenbaum, 2009). This thesis places such structures within an extended structural typology, extending the work of Bull (2015, 2018), and culminates in the development of a practice model for social enterprise structure selection.

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.

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?

This bibliography is an attempt to list the most relevant material on the topic of ‘social entrepreneurship’ published within the past two decades. The Academic Search Complete and Web of Science databases were used to conduct a literature search using the keywords ‘social enterprise’, ‘social entrepreneurship’ and ‘social entrepreneur’. The literature search was limited to peer-reviewed journal articles and books published between 1989 and 2009. Since academic interest in social entrepreneurship is a relatively new phenomenon, very little research in this area was conducted before 1989. Two seminal pre-1989 articles were included in this list: Banks (1972), who first coined the term ‘social entrepreneur’ in the context of the sociology of social movements; and Drucker (1979), who first introduced the concept of ‘social enterprise’ while advocating ethical responsibilities of corporations. Only articles and books in which ‘social entrepreneurship’, ’social enterprises’ or ‘social entrepreneurs’ were the main focus and had an important role in either the formulation of an empirical study or the development of a conceptual framework were included in this list. Articles that merely mentioned these terms or in which these concepts did not play a major role were not included. Mention may be made of online resources, such as technical reports, unpublished manuscripts, conference papers and white papers. All but two such articles, Dees (2001) and Alter (2004), were excluded from this list. The artcile by Dees (2001) titled, ‘The meaning of “social entrepreneurship”’, is a significant conceptual contribution to the field and has been cited 211 times since its publication online. Alter’s article (2004) that presents a typology of social enterprises is yet another important theoretical contribution and has been cited 35 times since it was published online. It is hoped that this systematic and thorough listing of relevant work in the area of social entrepreneurship will be of assistance to scholars in a field in which the literature, to date, has been fragmented and disjointed. It will be much appreciated if the unintentional omission of any relevant articles and books is brought to the attention of the author.

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

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 (

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.

In periods of recession, private sector of economy does not develop entrepreneurial action, due to limited demand which implies limited profits. This results in reduction in employment and increase in unemployment. Public sector of economy should proceed to public investments and enhance development. However, in the present economic crisis, public sector does not develop initiatives, due to budget deficit; to the contrary public sector is confined and contributes to the maintenance of recession. Social sector of economy does not aim at profit making but at job creation, mainly for the vulnerable groups of population. It intervenes by taking actions of mild economic growth and contributes to economic recovery. For this reason, national legislations in Europe provide the establishment of social economy enterprises. Local government, which, in a sense, belongs to the social sector of economy, has the possibilities to reinforce both social economy enterprises and actions of social entrepreneurship aiming for the enhancement of local economy.

Background: Despite the important role of social enterprises in addressing the gaps in social service and infrastructure provision by national governments, the organisational capabilities that make social enterprises competitive and effective are still under-researched in emerging economies.Aim: The purpose of the study is to extend the extant studies on the nexus between organisational ambidexterity and firm performance to the social enterprise context. More specifically, we draw on the Dynamic Capability Theory to investigate business-like social enterprises in Ghana and how organisational ambidexterity (i.e. exploitation and exploration) influences their social and economic performance.Setting: Organisational ambidexterity was tested on 317 randomly selected social enterprises in Ghana.Method: The study employed a quantitative research design via a survey questionnaire while the structural equation modelling technique in Analysis of a Moment Structure (AMOS) software was used to test the study’s hypotheses.Results: It was found, among other things, that both exploration and exploitation are positively and significantly related to social performance (social marketing achievement and social value creation) and economic performance (commercial marketing achievement and economic value creation) of social enterprises. That is, the simultaneous pursuit of exploitative and explorative initiatives does not decrease but increase social enterprise performance. These results defy the conventional wisdom that the trade-off between exploitative and explorative functions may decrease organisation efficiency and bring unnecessary costs.Conclusion: Organisational ambidexterity can be considered a cradle of strategic revitalisation and competitive advantage for social enterprises enhancing social and economic performance. Therefore, we suggest that social entrepreneurs should pursue exploitative and explorative ambidexterity simultaneously through appropriate structural ambidexterous mechanisms like structural separations or contextual ambidexterous mechanisms such as non-structural separations of units.

PurposeThe exploration of performance determinants in social enterprises has gained increasing relevance among researchers and practitioners, particularly in rural tourism. The purpose of this paper is to analyze the contributions of transformational leadership and social entrepreneurship to the performance of social enterprises in the context of rural tourism. Further, the mediating roles of social capital, creativity and social value were investigated.Design/methodology/approachData were gathered through a survey of 168 employees of social enterprises operating in the rural tourism setting. Eight surveyors were sent out to conduct the survey. Data were analyzed by structural equation modeling (SEM) using AMOS 18.0.FindingsThe results of the SEM suggested that transformational leadership is positively associated with social value, social capital and performance of social enterprise. In addition, social entrepreneurship had a significant influence on social value, social capital and performance of social enterprise. Creativity and social value predicts the performance of social enterprise. Further, social capital was found to have a positive relationship with creativity. Finally, the mediating roles of social capital, creativity and social value were also confirmed. The findings thus highlight the power of the social value creation and social capital in the social enterprises operating in the rural destinations.Social implicationsThe findings assert that social entrepreneurship and transformational leadership are key sources of social value creation, social capital and creativity in rural tourism context indicating the need for additional efforts on this kind of entrepreneurial activity. The findings can motivate policymakers to promote social entrepreneurship in rural tourism destinations as a means of stimulating bottom-up social capital and social value creation.Originality/valueThis study is among the first to examine the hypothesized relationships focusing on tourism social enterprises.

This book shows how social entrepreneurship and social enterprises can integrate social and economic development. These dual-mission ventures that strive to achieve both financial sustainability and social good are especially path-breaking approaches in reducing economic, education, health, technology, and other disparities among marginalized individuals, families, and communities. While this global movement varies in pace and scope, this work features snapshots from eight countries or regions. This volume focuses especially on emerging economies and those in transition, featuring African countries of Kenya and Tanzania, Albania, Argentina, Central Asian countries of Kyrgyzstan and Tajikistan, Cuba, India, the Russian Federation, and Taiwan. We examine a variety of ventures and their social policy context as they attempt to meet human needs while simultaneously also attaining financial sustainability. We also suggest social policies that promote supports for social entrepreneurs since environmental, economic, and social sustainability are core goals. But we also raise cautions about fostering social enterprises as panaceas for addressing human needs when government investments are required in social welfare, social protections, and ecosystem supports. Contextual frames are provided that range from social enterprise business plans and measuring entrepreneurial orientation to avoiding displacement dynamics and pitfalls of non-market economies. These are consistent with the global agenda of building jobs from the ground up as articulated in the UN Sustainable Development Goals. Recommendations are derived from illustrative cases from the nations and regions featured for more strategic supports and investments in social entrepreneurs and social enterprises.