Search results

The aim of this paper is to determine the criteria for a solid impact evaluation in social entrepreneurship. The solid impact evaluation method is needed for building the bridge between two separate discourses of social entrepreneurship: the discourses of protectionists of social entrepreneurship, who believe without empirical proof that social enterprises are effective and the opponents or doubters in social entrepreneurship, who need empirical proof of the effectiveness of social enterprises.

The criteria for a solid impact evaluation discourse of social entrepreneurship are determined and its impact evaluation is analysed based on literature.

A solid social impact evaluation method should be able to analyse: the social impact of the organisation and not only the financial allocation and outcome; differences in the impact of two organisations which are operating in the same field; and the selection of target group and analysis of all the impacts of the activities.

The list of criteria for a solid impact evaluation might not be complete as it is based on literature review only. As there is a considerable gap between the discourse of protectionists and opponents of social entrepreneurship, additional analyses are required to analyse the discourse of practitioners of social entrepreneurship.

The current study could be used for practitioners as well as for politicians while preparation for the negotiations with the representatives with other sectors as it brings out some of the common topics that are misunderstood by different parties.

This paper takes the first step toward a construction of a solid impact evaluation model. Evaluating the social impact of social enterprises with a solid model could bring closer the discourses of social enterprises used by protectionists and opponents of social entrepreneurship.

This paper explores the motivating factors that lead to opportunity recognition among social entrepreneurs in India.

The study followed an exploratory, qualitative design based on thematic analysis of the interview data collected from 13 Indian social entrepreneurs.

The study identifies two aggregate factors that motivate social entrepreneurs: personal and contextual. Personal factors include life experiences, social awareness, social inclination since childhood, spiritual motives, the need for a meaningful career and entrepreneurial intention. Contextual factors included institutional voids, community development, the presence of a role model and volunteer experiences.

This study contributes to the social entrepreneurship literature by providing a model for motivating factors that lead to opportunity recognition. This study enables policymakers and social entrepreneurship educators to identify aspiring social entrepreneurs and provide target-specific support to them.

This study enables policymakers and social entrepreneurship educators to identify aspiring social entrepreneurs and provide target-specific support to them.

The study uniquely contributes to the social entrepreneurship field by offering deep qualitative insights into the motivational and opportunity recognition patterns of social entrepreneurship.

From its earliest incarnations, entrepreneurship has been linked to innovation, and often innovations with a societal or social impact. Although classical economists discussed the role entrepreneurs play in handling risk in an economy (Hébert & Link, 2009), perhaps the greater risks have been the social impacts which entrepreneurship brought to societies (Drucker, 1985). The power of mercantile economies like the Phoenician or two thousand years later the British came as much from the new ideas and processes they introduced to the societies of trading partners as from the goods traded.

This study aims to understand the relationship between entrepreneurial competencies (self-efficacy and social capital) and sustainable entrepreneurship and its incidence through entrepreneurial motivations (opportunity and necessity entrepreneurship).

The authors adopt a quantitative approach and use ordinary least squares regressions and bootstrapping analysis to test the hypotheses about the relationship between entrepreneurial competencies and sustainable entrepreneurship mediated by entrepreneurial motivations using a cross-sectional sample of 2,356 nascent entrepreneurs from the Global Entrepreneurship Monitor 2021–2022 report.

Evidence suggests that sustainable entrepreneurship is positively influenced by both opportunity- and necessity-driven entrepreneurship. Additionally, the results show that both entrepreneurial motivations positively mediate the relationship between self-efficacy and sustainable entrepreneurship.

The approach departs from the traditional unidimensional perspective on entrepreneurial motivations, recognizing that an entrepreneur can simultaneously embody varying degrees of both motivations. By integrating the study of entrepreneurial competencies and motivations into sustainable entrepreneurship, we can gain a holistic understanding of the dynamics at play.

El objetivo de este estudio es comprender la relación entre las competencias emprendedoras (autoeficacia y capital social) con el emprendimiento sostenible y su incidencia a través de las motivaciones emprendedoras (emprendimiento por oportunidad y por necesidad).

Adoptamos un enfoque cuantitativo y utilizamos regresiones de mínimos cuadrados ordinarios (MCO) y análisis de bootstrapping para probar nuestras hipótesis sobre la relación entre las competencias emprendedoras y el emprendimiento sostenible mediado por las motivaciones emprendedoras utilizando una muestra transversal de 2.356 emprendedores nacientes del informe Global Entrepreneurship Monitor (GEM) 2021–2022.

La evidencia sugiere que tanto el emprendimiento de oportunidad como el de necesidad tienen un impacto positivo en el emprendimiento sostenible. Además, encontramos que ambas motivaciones emprendedoras median positivamente la relación entre la autoeficacia y el emprendimiento sostenible.

Nuestro enfoque se aleja de la tradicional perspectiva unidimensional de las motivaciones emprendedoras, reconociendo que un emprendedor puede encarnar simultáneamente diversos grados de ambas motivaciones. Al integrar el estudio de las competencias y motivaciones emprendedoras en el emprendimiento sostenible, obtenemos una comprensión holística de la dinámica en juego.

Este artigo tem como objetivo compreender a relação entre as competências empreendedoras (autoeficácia e capital social), e o empreendedorismo sustentável e sua incidência por meio de motivações empreendedoras (empreendedorismo de oportunidade e necessidade).

Adotamos uma abordagem quantitativa e usamos regressões de mínimos quadrados ordinários (OLS) e análise de bootstrapping para testar nossas hipóteses sobre a relação entre competências empresariais e empreendedorismo sustentável mediada por motivações empresariais usando uma amostra transversal de 2.356 empreendedores nascentes do relatório Global Entrepreneurship Monitor (GEM) 2021–2022.

As evidências sugerem que o empreendedorismo sustentável é influenciado positivamente pelo empreendedorismo orientado pela oportunidade e pela necessidade. Além disso, os resultados mostram que ambas as motivações empresariais mediam positivamente a relação entre a autoeficácia e o empreendedorismo sustentável.

Nossa abordagem se afasta da perspectiva unidimensional tradicional sobre as motivações empresariais, reconhecendo que um empreendedor pode incorporar simultaneamente vários graus de ambos os ases motivações. Ao integrar o estudo das competências e motivações empresariais ao empreendedorismo sustentável, obtemos uma compreensão holística da dinâmica em jogo.

Purpose: This literature review aims to answer the calls for further exploration of scaling challenges and opportunities for social entrepreneurs (SEs). We address the scaling issue of social entrepreneurship through the theoretical lens of sustainable business models. Methodology: This paper investigates, on a multilevel approach, 340 journal articles published in one of the 20 peer-reviewed journals in management, entrepreneurship, CSR, organizational behavior, and nonprofit. It also considers influential articles due to their relatively high citation count (i.e., more than 150 times) outside of those selected journals. This paper furthermore analyses in-depth 32 scaling articles. Findings: This study positions the topics of social entrepreneurship over the last decades, together with the six types of scaling strategies: scaling up, scaling down, scaling across, scaling deep, scaling out, and diversification. It also discusses 15 challenges related to the scaling efforts by SEs. It furthermore elaborates on potential leads for research and practice regarding scaling social impact. Social Implications: There are many pathways for SEs to increase their impact on society, even though it remains quite challenging to achieve for most. Understanding what possibilities or limitations apply to individual SEs is but a first step in developing the full potential of social entrepreneurship. Originality: This paper approaches scaling from three complementary levels of analysis, i.e., individual, organizational, and institutional. Thus we provide more clarity and a nuanced perspective on past and future research regarding scaling challenges and opportunities.

Recent interest in social entrepreneurship among young people has led to a heightened interest in new research. Few studies, however, have yet to investigate motivators of involvement, particularly from countries that are new to social entrepreneurship. The current study set out to better understand this phenomenon among young social entrepreneurs in Malaysia. In-depth one-to-one interviews with 12 young entrepreneurs were carried out to collect the data. Four themes and ten sub-themes emerged from the interviews, including early life experience (childhood experience and family experience), inspiration from clients and colleagues (interactions with the target group and exposure to social entrepreneurs), work-related experience (volunteer experience and job-related experience), and personal meaning (contribute back to society, desire for more meaning in life, and personal passions). The implications for policy-makers and interested parties are outlined in regard to enhancing participation and interest among youth for social entrepreneurship.

In this chapter, we review and examine the differences and similarities between social, sustainable, and environmental entrepreneurship. We explore the concepts, key questions, empirical methodologies, and disciplinary roots that differentiate and relate these emergent interest areas. The result of this comparative analysis inevitably raises the question of whether these new literature streams are inclusive or separate from the traditional domain of entrepreneurship research. We find that these three areas share many similarities, yet are distinguishable from one another and from more traditional, commercial forms of entrepreneurship. However, we determine that although these three areas of entrepreneurial scholarship raise unique questions and highlight different types of phenomena, they are not their own fields of study, but rather promising contexts for studying key questions of the entrepreneurship field.

In this book chapter, we analyse social entrepreneurship (SE) development in the Western Balkans and present a regional overview. SE has become a globally known contributor to alleviating societal, economic, social, and environmental concerns. Its influence on increasing people’s quality of life has put the concept on a pedestal, and the Balkans are no different. The new advances have increased the efforts from the third sector in advocating for increased visibility, recognition, and support for social enterprises (SEs) as contributors to the development of resilient communities and facilitating the countries’ recovery from economic, social, and environmental crises. To provide a regional development overview, we use the institutional perspective. We base the analysis on data by applying qualitative methods, including document analysis, conference speeches, round tables, consultations, and other impactful events conducted over the last decade. The evidence suggests that the Western Balkan countries are similar in their development and lack a clear vision, a strategic pathway, and sustainable solutions to accelerate the sector’s growth. The awareness of the SEs’ contributions is still low, hindering their impact and potential scalability. Raising awareness campaigns is much needed to increase SEs’ visibility, recognition, revenues, and financial sustainability. Intersectoral collaboration is not at a suitable level, and the coordination and partnerships between the SE actors are lacking. The region needs to make a significant and consistent effort to facilitate the sector’s development and support SEs to provide the expected societal impact.

The purpose of this study is to assess the current prevalence of empirical research in the field of social entrepreneurship. Further, we identify secondary datasets and explain their relative strengths and weaknesses for use by social entrepreneurship scholars.

The authors conducted a search of academic articles in the EBSCO and ProQuest databases mentioning social entrepreneurship, social venture(s), social enterprise(s), or social entrepreneur(s) in the title, abstract, or keywords published from 2009 to 2013. Papers were coded and analyzed based upon the nature of their methods.

We find that while qualitative studies are still the norm, quantitative methods are increasing, thanks to the creation of large-scale datasets and the use of analysis techniques new to the field. Three such large-scale datasets – the PSED II, GEM, and nonprofit tax collections – are discussed in depth. We find several strengths and weaknesses for each dataset, yet each provides social entrepreneurship scholars with fruitful opportunities.

Through a deeper understanding of empirical research and sources of social entrepreneurship data, scholars may be more attracted to social entrepreneurship, better equipped to conduct high-quality research and publish in high-quality outlets. Moreover, by moving beyond case studies and small-sample research to engaging larger pools of subjects and producing more generalizable findings, social entrepreneurship scholars will have the ability to impact a much broader scope of practitioners.