Search results

This article has two objectives: to clarify the organizational and managerial differences between social entrepreneurship and social enterprises and to investigate the role of social enterprises and their impacts on the welfare systems of European countries. The authors describe social entrepreneurship as a trend across all forms of enterprises and social enterprise as the institutionalization of a new typology that is distinguished by specific features from its inception. By relying on a theoretical analysis, the article supports the interpretation of social enterprise as an innovative institutional tool that can have a role in supporting growth and welfare. The essential features of social enterprise, which justify their competitiveness vis-à-vis public and for-profit organizations in the production and delivery of general-interest services, are thoroughly investigated. The article sheds light on the contribution of social enterprises to reforming and democratizing the traditional European welfare systems, which – since the 1980s – have revealed their inability to distribute welfare services inclusively and cope with the growing phenomena of poverty and inequalities.

Digital marketing is becoming the dominant marketing communication method for companies and consumers around the world. The reason for this is due to the real time communication advantages that make it an effective marketing method. The aim of this chapter is to focus on how digital marketing relates to social entrepreneurship in Vietnam, thereby offering a new perspective on the role of social entrepreneurship in developing digital marketing techniques. This will contribute to the existing literature on digital marketing and social entrepreneurship by extending it to an emerging economy setting. Implications for practitioners and policymakers are given that highlight the need for more social enterprises to incorporate digital marketing techniques.

In this chapter, I attempt to explain the diverse nature of social enterprise education in higher education and review the content, placement, and pedagogy of various programs of study with distinctly different approaches. I see the approaches to social enterprise education falling into three different categories that I call accommodating, integrating, and immersion. The differences are explained by the problem of the familiar: the attempt to define the field in terms of the existing economic and entrepreneurial theories alone. Building on work of others I offer a new framework for understanding social enterprise and social entrepreneurship in the form of propositions that may be empirically tested and potentially could be helpful in developing consistent models for social enterprise education. These propositions are concerned with social benefits or outcomes, agency and firm, scale, and sustainable funding.