Unpacking regional social entrepreneurship ecosystem: insights from India

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.

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.

Social Entrepreneurship and COVID‐19

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 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.

This study explores the scope of social entrepreneurship and examines how social entrepreneurship contributes to sustainable development. Using analysis and relevant comparisons, it identifies main actors in the socialenterprise ecosystem, as well as how the entrepreneurial ecosystem adapts to social enterprises. Additionally, this study reveals how social enterprise applies in the renewable energy domain and identifies its main advantages, as well as major barriers and how to overcome those barriers. Fundamentally, this study’s findings have significant implications, for academics and practitioners in the social field. It highlights the role of social entrepreneurship as a balanced approach for long-run increases in quality of life, and it follows innovative techniques and methods to meet social needs, inherently motivated by ethical factors in equality and social fairness. On the other hand, main challenges that could confront social entrepreneurship include government regulations, problems adopting advanced technology and infrastructure, external competitive threats, limited access to public funds or loans, lack of awareness and acquisition of skills and knowledge, and inadequate knowledge about social impact measurement techniques. This research also illustrates how to adapt Isenberg's model for the entrepreneurial ecosystem in the social enterprises, which shows that the evolution of social enterprises does not occur in a vacuum; rather, the growth of social enterprise ecosystems occurs through interactions and networks with various actors in different fields such as financial politics, law, and academia. Finally, we review the practical applications of social enterprises by highlighting the main benefits of RE social enterprises: energy savings, community awareness, and the creation of favorable social externalities in rural and developing areas.

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 circular economy(CE) is a key player in transforming production systems and consumption habits in Western Balkans (WB) countries to tackle the challenges of climate change in a region that includes some of the most polluted capital cities in the world, such as Skopje and Pristina. The circular economy roadmap is one of the main priorities of the Green Transition in the region. Although circular economy practices in the WB countries are still in the early stages of development, there is potential for growth, primarily through the 5Rs (Reduce, Reuse, Repair, Refurbish, Recycle). The contributions of the circular economy and social entrepreneurship to achieving the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) are well recognised, as they provide solutions to social, environmental, and economic challenges. However, there is a need to pair these two concepts more effectively and integrate them. While the circular economy focuses on financial and environmental solutions, social entrepreneurship compensates by offering social solutions. Social enterprises create an inclusive approach to the circular economy. On the other hand, social enterprises that adopt the principles of the circular economy can reduce their operational costs, add value, and create further opportunities for jobs and training. Social enterprises also offer more inclusive business models that prioritise the needs of local communities. Additionally, the transition to a circular economy presents opportunities for social entrepreneurship and social enterprises, including upskilling and reskilling the workforce, developing collaborative business models that target consumers, fostering innovative partnerships, and promoting advocacy opportunities. In the context of WB countries, social entrepreneurship and the circular economy are often studied separately, although research interest in both fields is increasing. Social entrepreneurship has been a crucial driver of social and economic development in these countries. However, the circular economy ecosystem in the WB region remains fragmented. This paper aims to investigate how social entrepreneurship can contribute to building a circular economy ecosystem in the WB region. The approach of this study is qualitative, based on case study methodology, focusing on one particular WB country, Albania. Eight semi-structured interviews were conducted with various stakeholders, including government representatives, academics, NGOs, and social entrepreneurs, between October and November 2024. The study presents a conceptual framework for the circular economy ecosystem, integrating aspects of social entrepreneurship, including social orientation, market orientation, innovation, opportunity recognition, and community orientation. The main contribution of this study is in linking social entrepreneurship with the circular economy. Received: 27 May 2025 / Accepted: 20 July 2025 / Published: 01 August 2025

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.

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 (

Purpose The purpose of this paper is to understand the tensions that marketing practitioners in social enterprises experience, and to explore how these tensions impact the development and implementation of marketing activities. Design/methodology/approach Using an approach informed by grounded theory, this paper reports on an investigation of the tensions facing 15 social enterprises. The primary data comprises semi-structured interviews with senior marketing decision-makers, supplemented with archival sources. Findings The analysis shows tensions and dualities inform the social and commercial strategic marketing activities of the social enterprises. These tensions and dualities are linked to how the organization obtains financial resources, the nature of the organization’s growth, working with myriad stakeholders and competitive versus cooperative pressures. A model outlining the dualities and their links to marketing activities is developed. Research limitations/implications The study provides an in-depth analysis of a small, regional sample of Canadian social enterprises. The study serves as a foundation for future research aimed at elaborating the model we propose. Practical implications The findings point to tensions and dualities that play an important role in enabling and restricting the development and implementation of strategic marketing activities in social enterprises. Understanding the nature of these dualities is crucial for social enterprise managers and social marketers as they develop strategic activities. Social implications Social enterprises engage in activities that offer substantial social benefits, yet the development of marketing activities in these organizations requires confronting tensions that must be carefully managed. Originality/value This paper highlights how dualities facing marketing practitioners in social enterprises influence the development of both social and for-profit marketing activities. The paper offers a model of these dualities. The findings help to extend our understanding of the complex environmental influences impacting marketing practices within social enterprise organizations. Understanding the nature of these environmental influences helps to attune marketers to the potential opportunities and challenges of using social enterprise as an organizational form for launching social marketing programs, as well as providing a theoretical basis for future investigations of marketing practice in social enterprise and social marketing organizations.

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.

BackgroundSocial enterprises are organizations created to address social problems that use business models to sustain themselves financially. Social enterprises can help increase access to primary health care in low resource settings. Research on social enterprises in health care have focused either on high-income countries, or on secondary and tertiary care in low- and middle-income countries, where common business models include differential pricing to cross-subsidize low income populations. This is the first study to examine social enterprises providing primary health care in low- and middle-income countries using primary data. The purpose is to determine whether social enterprise is a viable model in this setting and to identify common patterns and characteristics that could inform the work of social entrepreneurs, funders, and researchers in this area.MethodsWe identify social entrepreneurs working to deliver primary health care in low- and middle-income countries who have been vetted by international organizations dedicated to supporting social entrepreneurship. Through in-depth interviews, we collect information on medical processes, business processes, social impact, and organizational impact according to the Battacharyya et al. framework. We then conducted qualitative analysis to identify common patterns emerging within these four categories.ResultsCommon characteristics in the business models of primary health care social enterprises include flat rate rather than differential pricing and cross-subsidizing across services rather than patients. Subscription packages and in-house IT systems were utilized to generate revenue and increase reach through telemedicine, franchising, and mobile units. In some cases, alternate revenue streams are employed to help break even. About half of the social enterprises interviewed were for-profit, and about half non-profit. The majority faced challenges in engaging with the public sector. This is still a nascent field, with most organizations being under 10 years old.ConclusionsSocial enterprise has been demonstrated as a feasible model for providing primary health care in low resource settings, with key characteristics differing from the previously commonly studied social enterprises in tertiary care. There are opportunities to complement existing public health systems, but most organizations face challenges in doing so. More research and attention is needed by researchers, governments and funders to support social entrepreneurs and avoid parallel systems.