Search results

Field emergence poses an intriguing problem for institutional theorists. New issue fields often arise at the intersection of different sectors, amidst extant structures of meanings and actors. Such nascent fields are fragmented and lack clear guides for action; making it unclear how they ever coalesce. The authors propose that provisional social structures provide actors with macrosocial presuppositions that shape ongoing field-configuration; bootstrapping the field. The authors explore this empirically in the context of social impact investing in the UK, 2000–2013, a period in which this field moved from clear fragmentation to relative alignment. The authors combine different computational text analysis methods, and data from an extensive field-level study, to uncover meaningful patterns of interaction and structuration. Our results show that across various periods, different types of actors were linked together in discourse through “actor–meaning couplets.” These emergent couplings of actors and meanings provided actors with social cues, or macrofoundations, which guided their local activities. The authors thus theorize a recursive, co-constitutive process: as punctuated moments of interaction generate provisional structures of actor–meaning couplets, which then cue actors as they navigate and constitute the emerging field. Our model re-energizes the core tenets of new structuralism and contributes to current debates about institutional emergence and change.

This chapter aims to understand whether and how impact investment, a novel approach to financing social and sustainable entrepreneurship, is aligned with, and contributing to, the sustainable development goals (SDGs). We theorise the SDGs as a ‘field-level frame’, a cultural template guiding social and environmental change. We analyse performance data of impact investors both in Australia and globally and map this impact data to the 17 SDGs. We find that impact investors are engaging with language consistent with the SDGs a possible field-level frame to guide impact strategy and measurement. To date, impact investors measure social outcomes more frequently than environmental outcomes; this may be explained, in part, by our analysis that reveals some SDGs create greater points of leverage to generate layers of impact across SDGs. This chapter explains how impact investors are engaging with the pursuit of the SDG agenda.

In a moment where social issues around the world are becoming more and more severe, a call for real impact is very much needed. Current investment into societal solutions that work at scale is not sufficient to get us closer to achieving the Sustainable Development Goals. Additional capital is required, but it is also essential that it is deployed in ways in which impact is maximised. Focussing on additionality – not just intentionality – and on impact management – not just impact measurement – represents the right direction.

EVPA embarked in a journey towards redefining the impact investment space to clarify the role of different investors. EVPA identifies two main strategies: investing for impact and investing with impact. Investors for impact are those that support innovative ways to tackle societal problems and embrace impact management, using the data collected to refine activities to maximise social impact.

However, despite all the frameworks and guidelines produced in the field of impact measurement and management in the last 10 years, the perception among the community of investors for impact is that there is still a lot to do, highlighting a gap between theory and practice. Investors' networks such as EVPA play a crucial role in filling this gap, supporting members (but not only) in the adoption of appropriate IMM practices. In this respect, EVPA has developed several responses (e.g., five-step IMM process, a training partnership with Social Value International, in-depth case studies) and is fully committed to strengthen its efforts in the years to come.

Public services and activities delegated to non-profit actors are increasingly subject to evaluation. This practice is not new. Seminal papers document the emergence of such practices in Anglo-Saxon countries in the 1920s. Methods are now converging on measuring the (social) impact, which often involve broadening the spectrum of components evaluated. The flexible and unifying term ‘impact’ is now adopted in public services, education, health and research, as well as in the social economy and finance sectors through impact investing. This is based on extending the spirit of an efficient State, from the expansion of service productivity measures in the 1960s to the expansion of social assessment practices of CSR. To ensure impact measurement, action programmes (both public and private) are now split into a sum of (small) projects whose common denominator is that they are precisely circumscribed to ensure rigorous evaluation. The social impact can be assimilated with a new mode of regulation, the aim of which is to reconcile the requirements of these different actors in evaluative practice, and to almost magically (i.e., by overlooking the intense social work required) align the search for economic efficiency and the pursuit of a social purpose. In this respect, social impact bonds are a heuristic illustration of the trend, bringing together the interests of private funders, public authorities and social economy actors in a single contract, with the ‘evaluator’ playing a decisive role in coordinating this new alliance.

The global economic fallout following the unexpected onset and rapid spread of COVID-19 pandemic worldwide, in early 2020, has necessitated international and national action plans towards new normal models of realignment in enterprise bottom-line and management. In 2020, ‘Supporting Small Business through the COVID-19 Crisis’ was declared the lead theme of the MSME Day – June 27 – by the UN. A ‘COVID Response Alliance for Social Entrepreneurs’ was launched by an affiliate of the World Economic Forum (WEF). Drawing inspiration from the ‘small business’ focus of the UN MSME Day declaration and the ‘social entrepreneurship’ perspective of the WEF, the study seeks to draw few perceptions and conclusions in the post-COVID economic recovery context of India, where Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises (MSMEs) are observed to be a key driver of development, thanks to an add-on supportive package in the wake of the COVID-19 economic crisis. It is found that the package fails to provide a direct push for promotion of social enterprises/entrepreneurship in the Indian MSME sector, as there is no focused policy approach on leveraging ‘entrepreneurship resources’. Hence, the general trend of the sector continues to be dominated by the ‘for-profit first’ concern rather than a fair blend of ‘social value creation first’, with ‘profit’. Discourse on social entrepreneurship and action-oriented rehabilitation tools proposed in the Covid context globally have failed to reorient the dominant outlook of social enterprises in India – business as a tool for achieving social impact – to social impact as a spontaneous/positive outcome from business. The study highlights the lapses on the ground, of theoretical formulations, despite their couching in Covid contexts, and the need for a more institutionalised enabling environment for social value creation, impact investment and social stock exchange in the social enterprise ecosystem.

Purpose – These last three years, the global reputation of microfinance has been damaged by some major crises, notably in India. The Microfinance Investment Vehicles (MIVs), funded by public money and socially inclined investors, are believed by observers to be part of the causes of the crises (von Stauffenberg & Rozas, 2011). As a consequence, they now have to demonstrate their commitment to the social mission of microfinance. This chapter aims at putting forward the debate on MIVs’ ability to effectively contribute to the social mission of microfinance by analyzing how they integrate social performance in their investment decisions.

Methodology/approach – Analysis of interviews with microfinance fund managers based on a framework of recognized impediments to a socially responsible approach in investing.

Findings – While social performance is recognized by respondents to be an important topic for the industry, fund managers still do not give a strong role to social criteria in investment decisions. The findings of the qualitative analysis in the chapter demonstrate that this is linked to a number of major impediments such as the tendency to believe that microfinance is social per se, the lack of standardization in social performance tools, and also a loose regulation regarding social reporting.

Research limitations/implications – The findings of the study are limited due to the relatively small sample size and the focus on fund managers’ answers only. Future research could investigate the viewpoints of different stakeholders in the investment process, such as the back investors of microfinance funds or the regulatory institutions.

Originality/value – To the best of our knowledge, this is the first attempt to get insights on the impediments to a stronger focus on social performance by MIVs, with the application of a recognized framework from the Socially Responsible Investment (SRI) literature.

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.