Search results

Social entrepreneurship is primarily concerned with the development of innovative solutions to society's most challenging problems. Since social entrepreneurship flourishes in resource-constrained environments, social innovation may depend on the extent to which social entrepreneurs can combine and apply the resources at hand in creative and useful ways to solve problems – “bricolage.” Moreover, innovating for social impact relies on a set of institutional and structural supports – “innovation ecology,' which can facilitate or impede innovation. Our research empirically examines these variables as drivers of systemic social change through scaling and replication – “catalytic innovation” (i.e., the development of products and services targeted to unserved markets). Results of a survey conducted with 113 social entrepreneurs indicate that, while innovation ecology is associated with the degree of catalytic innovation, it is mediated by the role and degree of bricolage that social entrepreneurs bring to solving problems. These findings reinforce the role of entrepreneurs as the indispensable agents of social change.

The purpose of this paper is to inform scholars and practitioners about the current body of knowledge on the role of social capital in scaling social impact since these concepts are still poorly understood and literature is fragmented despite their importance.

A systematic literature review of 27 highly relevant studies in leading journals is conducted, and the results are synthesized into an integrative theoretical framework.

The framework identifies possible dependent, independent, mediating and moderating variables which conceptualize the role of social capital in scaling social impact.

To the best of the authors’ knowledge, this is the first study to systematically map social capital’s role in scaling social impact literature with the help of an integrative theoretical framework. For researchers, this framework would help by providing a shared frame of reference to conceptualize the role of social capital in scaling social impact and identify future research directions. Practitioners can use the findings of this review as a guide while designing and implementing scaling social impact programs.

The purpose of this paper is to contribute to the understanding of the factors that influence social entrepreneurial ventures’ (SEVs) pursuit of a blended value approach. This paper predicts and examines that the mindset of SEV senior decision-makers leads them to perceive organisational goals differently.

This paper tests the hypotheses on an original data set of 171 SEVs by means of discriminant analysis.

The results suggest that social entrepreneurs who display an agency-oriented mindset tend to perceive organisational goals as being single: either social or financial. Conversely, social entrepreneurs who have a stewardship-oriented mindset tend to perceive organisational goals as blending both. The findings also underline that senior decision-makers’ mindsets in terms of governance are far from being uniform in SEVs.

The findings empirically contribute to the argument that agency principles do apply to broader contexts than profit-oriented organisations (Wiseman et al., 2012) and frame SEVs as a promising context that redefines principal-agent relationships. It follows that the expected association between non-economic goals and stewardship put forward in the literature needs to be nuanced: only a blended value approach of social and financial objectives is associated with stewardship, whereas single social goals are best perceived by agency-oriented senior decision-makers. The results are limited to a single survey, using cross-sectional data.

The findings have a bearing on goal setting in social entrepreneurship. The results suggest that practitioners who display a stewardship mindset are more likely to perceive a double bottom line than those displaying an agency mindset.

A novel feature of the model is the incorporation of senior decision-makers’ heterogeneous “governance mindsets” (agency and stewardship) and one of the first empirical tests of blended value in social entrepreneurship.

Entrepreneurial orientation (EO) has emerged as a core concept in the field of entrepreneurship. Yet, there continue to be questions about the nature of EO and how best to conceptualize and measure it. This chapter makes the case that EO has grown beyond its roots as a firm-level unidimensional strategy construct and that a new multidimensional version of EO is needed to capture the diverse manifestations and venues for entrepreneurial activity that are now evident around the world – global entrepreneurial orientation (GEO). Building on the five-dimension multidimensional view of EO set forth when Lumpkin and Dess (1996) extended the work of Miller (1983) and Covin and Slevin (1989, 1991), the chapter offers an updated definition of EO and a fresh interpretation of why EO matters theoretically. Despite earnest efforts to reconcile the different approaches to EO, in order to move the study of EO and the theoretical conversation about it forward, we maintain that as a group of scholars and a field, we need to acknowledge that two different versions of EO have emerged. Given that, we consider original approaches to measuring EO, evaluate formative measurement models, consider multiple levels of analysis, call for renewed attention to EO configurations, and discuss whether there is a theory of EO.

This paper aims to make sense of the social enterprise in a frame of social procurement and conceptualise it as a provider of public welfare based on bibliometric material. Comprehensively, it contributes to developments in social procurement, which has received limited attention.

Scoping literature from Web of Science and using bibliometric methods, the paper identifies and qualitatively explores the literary intersections between social enterprise and social procurement.

Of the 183 articles, four literary clusters are revealed illustrating scholarly intersections and a detailed exploration of social enterprise as a public provider. The alignment and themes of the clusters further indicate the application of, and role played by, social enterprise in social procurement. Collectively, they reveal the dominance of social enterprise in this dyadic relationship and a minor undertaking of research in social procurement.

This “sense-making” groundwork forms a foundational step in developing our understanding of procurements through social enterprises. Furthermore, a positioning and conceptualisation of social enterprise accredits their utility and applicability in delivering public benefits. In this way, the paper informs and supports scholarly and practice-based interest into social enterprises for the delivery of public services.

The paper presents the first bibliometric conceptualisation of social enterprise in relation to social procurement and offers detailed insights through the bibliometric clusters. Furthermore, the paper contributes to the underdeveloped social dimension of procurement and bridges the gap between two distinct fields of scholarship: public management and administration and social entrepreneurship.

The purpose of this paper is to demonstrate how extending social innovation and impact learning to the field was accomplished.

The paper discusses how experiential learning can be adapted to social entrepreneurship education and how to structure the course and deliverables. It highlights the importance of students' selection and preparation.

The paper shares some students' reflections on their fieldwork and how they dealt with new ideas. It also provides three central lessons – “go real”, “go deep”, “get feedback” – that were learned through the experience.

Since information from only one course offering has been reported, a simple generalization should be made cautiously. For this reason, the transferability of this experiential learning course to other regions of the world is discussed and recommendations are offered for educators who want to engage in a successful “boundary‐less classroom.”

Initial evidence is provided that the success of experiential learning in social innovation and impact can be guaranteed by a number of elements, including students' preparation to assist them as they confront challenges found in the field experience. Experiential learning would not be transferable without deep intercultural understanding and a well‐chosen selection of social enterprises and social entrepreneurs with whom to collaborate.

Alternative enterprises – organizations that operate as a business while still also being driven by a social purpose – are sometimes owned by workers or other stakeholders, rather than shareholders. What role does ownership play in enabling alternative enterprises to prioritize substantively rational organizational values, like environmental sustainability and social equity, over instrumentally rational ones, like profit maximization? We situate this question at the intersection of research on: (1) stakeholder governance and mission drift in both hybrid and collectivist-democratic organizations; and (2) varieties of ownership of enterprise. Though these literatures suggest that ownership affects the ability of alternative enterprises to maintain their social missions, the precise nature of this relationship remains under-theorized. Using the case of a global, social, and environmental values-based banking network, we suggest that alternative ownership is likely a necessary, but not sufficient, condition to combat mission drift in enterprises that have a legal owner. A supermajority of this network’s banks deploy alternative ownership structures; those operating with these structures are disproportionately associated with social movements, which imprint their values onto the banks. We show how alternative ownership acts through specific mechanisms to sustain enterprises’ missions, and we also trace how many of these mechanisms are endogenous to alternative ownership models. Finally, we find that ownership models vary in how well they enable the expression and maintenance of these social values. A ladder of mission-sustaining ownership models exists, whereby the dominance of substantive, non-instrumental values over operations and investment becomes increasingly robust as one moves up the rungs from mission-driven investor ownership to special shareholder and member-ownership models.