Search results

Social entrepreneurial initiatives are often ascribed innovative roles for the public good. However, it is also argued that the same initiatives react to conditions in different contexts as well as to local or global trends. But, what roles and values are brought into practice by initiatives today and how can these be conceptualised as innovative? The aim of this paper is to empirically describe and analyse social entrepreneurship initiatives and contribute to the understanding of their role in the development of society.

The paper is based on a framework focusing on entrepreneurial dynamics, organisations and institutions. Empirically, it is grounded in four studies of social enterprises and their entrepreneurial initiatives in Sweden. Findings – The results reveal an intricate interplay between innovative challenges and institutional inertia as well as a combined role for social entrepreneurship initiatives in which innovative aspects can be more or less extensive.

The study contributes to problemising and nuancing the understanding of social entrepreneurship and social enterprises in relation to innovation in society.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Government attention to women’s entrepreneurship has increased in the past two decades; however, there are few cross-cultural studies to inform policy development. This paper aims to draw on gender and institutional theory to report on the status of female-focused small and medium-sized enterprises/entrepreneurship policies and to ask how – and to what extent – do women’s entrepreneurship policies differ among countries?

A common methodological approach is used to identify gaps in the policy-practice nexus.

The study highlights countries where policy is weak but practice is strong, and vice versa.

The study’s data were restricted to policy documents and observations of practices and initiatives on the ground.

The findings have implications for policy makers in respect of support for women’s entrepreneurship. Recommendations for future research are advanced.

The paper contributes to extant knowledge and understanding about entrepreneurship policy, specifically in relation to women’s entrepreneurship. It is also one of the few studies to use a common methodological approach to explore and compare women’s entrepreneurship policies in 13 countries.

Political Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR), based on ideas about deliberative democracy, have been criticised for increasing corporate power and democratic deficits. Yet, deliberative ideals are flourishing in the corporate world in the form of dialogues with a broad set of stakeholders and engagement in wider societal issues. Extractive industry areas, with extensive corporate interventions in weak regulatory environments, are particularly vulnerable to asymmetrical power relations when businesses engage with society. This paper aims to illustrate in what way deliberative CSR practices in such contexts risk enhancing corporate power at the expense of community interests.

This paper is based on a retrospective qualitative study of a Canadian oil company, operating in an Albanian oilfield between 2009 and 2016. Through a study of three different deliberative CSR practices – market-based land acquisition, a grievance redress mechanism and dialogue groups – it highlights how these practices in various ways enforced corporate interests and prevented further community mobilisation.

By applying Laclau and Mouffe’s theory of hegemony, the analysis highlights how deliberative CSR activities isolated and silenced community demands, moved some community members into the corporate alliance and prevented alternative visions of the area to be articulated. In particular, the close connection between deliberative practices and monetary compensation flows is underlined in this dynamic.

The paper contributes to critical scholarship on political CSR by highlighting in what way deliberative practices, linked to monetary compensation schemes, enforce corporate hegemony by moving community members over to the corporate alliance.

The purpose of this paper is to explore societal entrepreneurship in the turbulent health‐care sector in a changing welfare state, Sweden. Empirically oriented questions about the businesses explored in this paper are: how do the entrepreneurs see combining “health‐driven” and profit‐driven enterprises? What mindset and strategies guide their enterprises? What organizatorial solutions are used?

The paper is based on two case‐entrepreneurs, selected due to the author's perception of them as successful both as businesses and as societal change agents. The entrepreneurs have been interviewed by means of unstructured dialogues.

Both entrepreneurs prove to be frontier crossing combiners in several dimensions; they unite ideological commitment with economically sound businesses, they bring together their medical professions and complementary methods of treatment, they combine bridge building with challenging and they reconcile part‐time entrepreneurship with employment.

With regard to the long‐term preconditions for societal entrepreneurship, it is concluded that these two entrepreneurial processes have traits of both opportunity‐ and self‐exploitation. The long‐term social sustainability of enterprises of this kind is an issue for further research.

The paper goes beyond non‐profit research by exploring societal entrepreneurship in the for‐profit sector, with focus on entrepreneurship which crosses sectoral borders.

This study aims to analyse how top-level policymakers across the political left-right spectrum in a social-democratic welfare state understand social enterprise (SE), its relation to existing welfare institutions and their intentions of policymaking towards SE.

This study conducted in-depth interviews explicitly focused on SE with policymakers at the national level in Norway. The informants collectively represented most political parties in Norway’s Parliament in 2017–2021. Data were analysed using a historical institutional perspective.

Centre-right wing policymakers predominantly consider SE as commercial enterprises not requiring specific policies. Left wing policymakers prefer that SEs operate like voluntary organizations and advocate policies preventing extraction of profit and competition with public service providers. Hence, policymakers positioned SE within an overarching political debate on the privatization of welfare services. They expressed little interest in developing policies aimed at strengthening SE opportunity structures.

Policy inaction impedes recognition of SEs as different from commercial and voluntary organizations, as well as their ability to compete for tenders. Thus, SE will likely remain a rather marginal phenomenon in Norway. Further research is needed to establish whether and how Norway’s universal welfare state inhibits social entrepreneurship on the society-wide level.

This article details how SE is understood within a social democratic welfare regime and the likely consequences thereof for SEs. It contributes with new knowledge of why policymakers may be reluctant to develop policy dedicated to further SE, across different political party affiliations. To the best of the authors’ knowledge, this is the first study in Norway to analyse how existing institutions and political controversies influence how policymakers at the national level approach SE.