Search results

This study aims to assess the alignment of South Korea’s government-certified social enterprises (GCSEs) with prevailing social enterprise (SE) models, notably the entrepreneurial nonprofit, social cooperative and social business models delineated in the “Emergence of Social Enterprises in Europe” (Defourny and Nyssens, 2012, 2017a, 2017b) and the “principle of interest” frameworks (Defourny et al., 2021). Thereby, it seeks to situate these enterprises within recognized frameworks and elucidate their hybrid identities.

Analyzing panel data from 2016 to 2020 for 259 GCSEs, this study uses tslearn for k-means clustering with dynamic time warping to assess their developmental trajectories and alignment with established SE models, which echoes the approach of Defourny et al. (2021). We probe the “fluid” identities of semi-public sector SEs, integrating Gordon’s (2013) notion that they tend to blend various SE traditions as opposed to existing in isolation.

Results indicate that GCSEs do align with prevalent SE frameworks. Furthermore, they represent a spectrum of SE models, suggesting the versatility of the public sector in fostering diverse types of SEs.

The concept of a semi-public sector SE model has been relatively uncharted, even though it holds significance for research on SE typologies and public sector entrepreneurship literature. This study bridges this gap by presenting empirical evidence of semi-public SEs and delineating the potential paths these enterprises might take as they amalgamate various SE traditions.

In Hungary, as in other Central and Eastern European countries, the concept of social enterprise (SE) has attracted increased attention in recent years, with certain key actors shaping the organisational field. This growing interest is largely because of the availability of European Union funds focussing on the work integration of disadvantaged groups but ignoring other possible roles of SEs. This study aims to consider a seldom examined and underfunded area: SEs’ institutional environment and organisational activities in the social and health sectors.

Based on neoinstitutional theory, the paper uses desk research and qualitative case studies. It presents the experiences of SEs providing social and health services for specific disadvantaged groups.

This paper identified the key actors influencing the everyday operation of SEs and examined their connections, interactions and partnerships. Based on the findings, SEs primarily depend on the central state, public social and health institutions and local governments. At the same time, their connections with private customers, networks, development and support organisations, third sector organisations and for-profit enterprises are less significant. The key actors have a relevant impact on the legal form, main activities and the financial and human resources of SEs. SEs, however, have little influence on their institutional environment.

The paper contributes to understanding the opportunities and barriers of SEs in Hungary and, more generally, in Central and Eastern Europe, especially regarding their place in social and health services.

Public sector institutional entrepreneurship efforts may contribute to addressing social challenges by creating an enabling regulatory environment that promotes social enterprise formation and fosters complementarity between the public sector and social enterprises. The outcomes of such public sector institutional entrepreneurship are explored in this study. To assess the outcomes of such public sector initiatives in South Korea, the perspectives of executives (n = 40) of government-certified social enterprises are assessed.

Several research methodologies were combined, including purposive sampling with an 11-point Likert scale, hierarchical clustering and principal component analysis. The literature on government–nonprofit relations as well as public sector institutional entrepreneurship was leveraged.

This research results indicate that the enabling regulatory environment with entrenched funding and incubation mechanisms produces mixed-to-positive outcomes if framed with reference to public sector–social enterprise complementarity. The authors identified three perspective-based ideal types that have differential views of isomorphic regulatory pressures, the efficacy of incubation and scaling programs, participation in policymaking and other aspects of public sector patronage.

This study contributes to relating the literature on public sector institutional entrepreneurship and government–third sector relations by empirically assessing how social enterprises attracted by government demand-side signaling to become certified as social enterprises encounter and perceive an ostensibly enabling regulatory ecosystem, with its derivative policies and mechanisms, crafted by the public sector.

The aim of this paper is to provide insights and knowledge about the motivations and implications for social enterprises' participation in SIBs, particularly in terms of collaboration and partnership with the public sector, as well as the different positions on this issue. The overall aim, therefore, is to show how social enterprises and public organisations have interacted in the context of SIBs and what has been achieved by participating.

This multiple case study approach applies qualitative methods like observations and semi-structured and unstructured interviews.

The study shows that SIBs can be an option for financing social enterprises within a strategy of income diversification and resource dependency. Despite tensions and complexities, SIBs can renew the traditional funding relationship by adding innovation, strengthening the co-creation process and creating a stable relationship.

Research findings may lack generalisability due to the specific context in which the case study is rooted.

The paper offers practical implications in terms of insights and suggestions for social enterprises and the public sector interested in developing the scheme.

This paper adds the voice and perspective of social enterprises on the relationship with the public sector within the framework of SIBs initiatives.

The purpose of this paper is to explore the notion, and dynamics, of trust between social enterprises and the public sector in two different cultural contexts. The strategy was to ask very simple and broad questions of a number of people in the social enterprise/public sector nexus, and allow them to talk. This talk was recorded and analysed for patterns and insights. This paper looks in detail at one of the insights derived from this wealth of data and makes a startling claim, one that needs further investigation and thought, that in social enterprises, trust precedes performance.

The research is based on grounded theory and comprises a series of semi‐structured interviews based on a common framework undertaken in two countries – the UK and Poland. The interviews were transcribed and then coded by the two teams independently and key insights recorded.

The research indicated an unsolicited pre‐occupation with trust relationships between the social enterprises and the public sector organisations. The research suggests that trust precedes performance, in that the public sector partner extended a trust relationship before the organisation was able to demonstrate their track record. This challenges EU public procurement rules which require that an organisation demonstrates competency and track record before a contract is let.

Grounded theory by necessity provides insights on which to build theory rather than to prove theory. This research project did not have the resources to develop a questionnaire that could indicate whether the findings are wide spread and therefore robust.

Trust is an under‐theorised resource in the literature on social capital. This research begins to conceptualise trust as an essential resource for social enterprises in the startup, and may prompt social enterprise practitioners to consider trust as a non‐financial resource in their business planning. The insights derived from this field provide some notes of guidance to public sector agents working with social entrepreneurs to understand the trust resources required, and the limits to that trust, and the impact of bureaucratisation on the socially entrepreneurial startup.

This paper builds on existing literature on social capital and inter‐organisational trust but extends it in a unique manner to the body of social entrepreneurship literature.

The paper seeks to build a theoretical argument on social enterprise applications in an urban facilities management (urban FM) setting, by exploring the concepts of urban FM and its underlying philosophy.

The paper is based on an extensive literature review within and around the concept of urban FM and its relationship with social enterprise principles, forming a basis for further research in this area.

Urban FM could be used as a mechanism to develop the sustainable design and management of community facilities operations by taking social enterprise as an approach to seek a new service delivery model.

There is limited literature relating to urban FM, and it is one of the new critical alignments in FM that is waiting to be explored further. However, within this new exploration of urban FM knowledge, the paper considers a sustainable way of managing community facilities, raising important social implications for the FM industry,

The paper argues that the concept of urban FM and social enterprise principles can be applied in their relationship towards managing community facilities in a sustainable way.

The purpose of this paper is to review current conceptualisations of social enterprise and present a new theoretical model for social enterprise in the UK.

This conceptual paper draws on the rise of social enterprise in the UK context. Social enterprise in the UK emerged around the 1980s, in both political consciousness and as an academic discipline. The paper explores organisational antecedents to develop a conceptual model that prioritises different legal forms of social enterprise in the UK regulatory framework.

In critiquing policy, practitioner and academic publications, as well as the theoretical models that operationalise social enterprise, there are two observations from the literature this paper examines: first, Theories to date have tended to conceptualise social enterprise as a single hybrid form, neglecting a consideration of the various legal identities, ownership and governance types; second, Theoretical models have tended to overlook the cultural, regional and political-economic histories within their conceptualisations.

The value and originality of this paper lies in offering a new paradigm in the conceptualisation of social enterprise in the UK. This is a new contribution to knowledge that strengthens an understanding of the field. This paper creates the space to broaden and appreciate ideologically and operationally different hybrid business types of social enterprises that include charitable, solidarity and entrepreneurial type social enterprises.

The purpose of this paper is twofold: to outline the historical and current contextual forces behind the development of the social enterprise movement in Israel and to analyze the different models identified by the research team along which social enterprises are formed at present.

The study was part of the International Comparative Social Enterprise Models (ICSEM) Project and the methodology used in the analysis of the models was the one used in the international comparison. It entailed the analysis of three to five case studies within each model, which were analyzed along three major dimensions: the economic basis of the enterprise, its social objectives and its governance structure.

The findings suggest that social enterprises in Israel develop along four major models, all within existing different incorporation systems; these are nonprofit organizations, privately owned business enterprises, cooperatives and public-sector frameworks. On the basis of the case studies analyzed, it was possible to identify specific characteristic configurations of the three dimensions (economic/social/governance) that were at the basis of the model and guided it.

The study is the first of its kind to present a broad picture of the developing social enterprise scene in Israel and as such can clearly inform and guide both researchers and policymakers in their future work on the development of the social enterprise phenomenon in the country.

In light of the contemporary UK policy framework elevating neo-mutualism and communitarian ethics within social policy, the purpose of this paper is to report on the delivery of an EU project Older People for Older People that tested the proposition that older people in remote and rural communities can contribute to providing services for others in their age group through the creation of sustainable social enterprises – either in “co-production” with statutory public service providers or as new, stand-alone services.

In the context of a literature based theoretical exploration of the nature of “sustainability”, the paper reports on a series of rural community “case study” social enterprises (e.g. community transport schemes, care hubs, cafés and a radio station; “drop in” and outreach services (including alternative therapies and counselling); ITC training, helping, and friendship schemes; volunteering support and history and culture projects).

From this, the authors highlight both conducive and problematic circumstances that are intrinsic to community led social enterprise and suggest that sustainability is unlikely to be “spontaneous”. Rather, it will require a complex mix of supportive inputs that is at odds with the innate liberalism of entrepreneurship. The authors also offer a more nuanced conceptualisation of sustainability that moves beyond a simple economic or temporal notion and suggest that the “success” of social enterprises, their worth and sustainability, must be assessed in more multifaceted terms. The authors conclude by reflecting on the nature of this ground in the wider context of the “Big Society” movement in the UK and highlight the inherent tension between “Big Society” rhetoric, the support needed to establish and sustain localised social enterprises, and the expected agency of communities.

The paper is original in three respects: it develops an in-depth empirical consideration of social enterprise sustainability; it does this within a broad policy and theoretical context; and it specifically looks at social enterprise development and delivery in relation to older people and rural contexts.