Search results

The purpose of this paper is to evaluate critically the discourse that entrepreneurship and enterprise culture are inextricably inter‐twinned with profit‐driven capitalist endeavour by seeking to understand whether amongst some populations, the culture of entrepreneurship is more socially‐oriented than profit‐driven.

To do this, a secondary analysis is undertaken of the results of the UK Global Entrepreneurship Monitor in general, and UK Social Entrepreneurship Monitor more particularly. It compares the levels and ratios of commercial‐to‐social entrepreneurship across various population groups and areas in the UK.

The finding is that there are different cultures of entrepreneurship across varying population groups. Many marginalized groups are more socially‐orientated than profit‐driven. This is particularly the case amongst the long‐term registered disabled (2.3 times more likely to engage in social rather than commercial entrepreneurship than the average UK entrepreneur), other non‐White groups (2.2 times more likely) and the retired (twice as likely). Similarly, people living in rural areas display a greater propinquity to engage in social rather than commercial entrepreneurship than those living in urban areas.

The findings raise questions about whether it is appropriate to parachute into some populations a culture of commercial entrepreneurship that might be “foreign” to their enterprise culture and whether a focus on social entrepreneurship in the enterprise culture agenda will promote greater inclusiveness of populations traditionally under‐represented.

This paper is one of the first to document the varying ratios of commercial‐to‐social entrepreneurship amongst different population groups and areas.

The purpose of this paper is to address the emerging practice of social entrepreneurship by exploring the historical and theoretical antecedents of social enterprise and its contemporary practice. By exploring key theoretical concepts, the paper draws comparisons between “for‐profit” and social entrepreneurs. The paper seeks to discuss the contemporary practice of social entrepreneurship. Discussion of the theory of entrepreneurship and contemporary practice of social entrepreneurs seeks to create a more nuanced view of social entrepreneurship and develop greater theoretical insights into this phenomenon and its recent expansion.

A phenomenological research approach was adopted, and 80 in‐depth interviews with social entrepreneurs from across the UK identified as the most appropriate data collection tool. Data analysis sought to identify and understand similarities between the more understood and studied behaviour of “profit‐seeking” entrepreneurs and those of an emerging group of social entrepreneurs.

In‐depth interviews revealed five key themes within which the practice of social entrepreneurship could be compared and contrasted with for‐profit entrepreneurship. These included: the entrepreneurial process, in particular, opportunity recognition; network embeddedness; the nature of financial risk and profit; the role of individual versus collective action in managing and structuring enterprises; and creativity and innovation.

Findings suggest that while the contemporary practices of social enterprises share many similarities with their for‐profit counterparts, significant differences can be found when comparing these practices with extant entrepreneurship research.

The paper addresses an emerging phenomenon within the practice and theory of entrepreneurship and offers insight into similarities and differences between entrepreneurship in the profit and not‐for‐profit sectors.

This chapter explores social enterprises as an alternative and addition to traditional entrepreneurial ecosystems (EEs). It reviews the substantial social enterprise literature in order to identify the myriad of competing tensions constraining development and success of social EEs in areas of significant poverty and economic deprivation. Following this, the findings of several contemporary and novel studies are discussed. These collectively evidence ways social enterprises are overcoming the seemingly immutable constraints they operate under. In particular, the Social Enterprise Places initiative has been highly effective in supporting the development of flourishing social EEs in many locations in the UK. However, the growth of social enterprises, both in number and economic importance, presents further challenges that social enterprise owners and managers will have to contend with. Consequently, these organisations and their allied ecosystems require continued structural, financial and skills support.

The purpose of this paper is to contribute to understanding social entrepreneurship via a systematic literature review (SLR) of the construct’s varied definitions to assess the means by and the context in which the phenomenon is studied.

The SLR follows a deliberative, replicable, methodical and transparent process, including a quality assessment tool of definitional sources. SLR results are organized around Gartner’s (1985) framework of new value creation, thus additionally analysing the dimensionality with which social entrepreneurship has been studied. Finally, a qualitative analysis of the definitions reviews commonalities of themes within definitions to assess trends.

Significant research has been dedicated to defining social entrepreneurship. However, many efforts do not explore the full dimensionality of the concept, as findings reveal that no definition explored the four dimensions of entrepreneurship posited by Gartner (1985). Further, a time-series review of definitions demonstrates limited advancement in definitional development. Geographic location of definition authors and key word analysis challenge previous research on the activation of social entrepreneurship in literature.

Although the SLR was conducted in a controlled manner, this study is time-bound and only reviews English-language publications. While results are analysed using a recognized framework (i.e. Gartner, 1985), other conceptual models are available. Although two researchers independently categorized and analysed definitions, assessment of quality was limited. The results offer an insight into how the conceptualization of social entrepreneurship may be advanced as well as the important role of practitioners in the development of the construct’s theory and practice.

The detailed appraisal of definitions may guide practitioners as they strive to define their own organizational efforts. The multi-dimensional conversation of social entrepreneurship in this study enables the leaders of different organizational types to ensure their social entrepreneurship activities consider all dimensions (i.e. environment, individual, organization and process). The SLR allows the practitioner to further engage in deep discussion on the future of the field by cataloguing their influence on the multi-dimensionality of the social entrepreneurship construct. Organizational leaders may also use the findings to generate more discussion around what is missing from the definitions (i.e. empathy, responsibility, resourcefulness and transparency).

The findings synthesize social entrepreneurship definitions across multi-disciplinary fields and contexts and within a multi-dimensional framework utilizing an infrequently used literature review method within social sciences.

The purpose of this paper is to discuss social enterprises, social entrepreneurship and social entrepreneurs. The paper draws on published work to flag key issues and discussion points that affect the clarity of the understanding. It aims to provide some greater insight and help both scholars and practitioners in their respective quests for understanding and improvement. The paper could further help people clarify what needs to be covered on courses and degrees in this subject area.

The paper draws on the work of others and to this adds personal conclusions from both direct experience and observation. It attempts to deal with complex issues and tensions in a straightforward style and thus draw attention to key debates.

The central argument is that if we see social enterprises, social entrepreneurship and social entrepreneurs bound together, operating with a common purpose and approach and pursuing the same ends, then we misunderstand this critically important sector. They are clearly linked but there are important distinctions.

This is a conceptual discussion paper. It is not directly a research paper and it is not written to either present the findings of a specific project or to inform a future research agenda. It could well‐trigger ideas for researchers, however.

The core material for this paper is not original but the presentation, synthesis and arguments offer a distinctive treatment. They should help clarify some of the debates and issues that hamper our ability to clearly understand the world of social enterprises.

Sustainability has become an ever-increasing issue in today's world. Countries across the world have had to refocus on sustainability due to the new pressures of climate change. In recent decades, numerous different institutions have become the architectural framework for the promotion and implementation of sustainability in society, namely: governments, non-government organizations, universities, social enterprises, and the private sector. One of the key drivers of sustainability is social enterprise education. This driver has become vital in higher education, as it enables the learner to understand the complex processes of sustainability. This chapter critically explores the interlocking relationship of social enterprise and sustainability. The authors of this chapter present findings from their UKIERI research project entitled “The Benefits of Modifying Social Enterprise within Higher Education's Social Sciences Curriculum.” Moreover, the authors argue that social enterprise can have a real influence in the achievement of the 17 Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), which were set out by the United Nations in 2015.

Small- and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) are tasked with driving economic recovery globally, particularly through knowledge diffusion and consequently, government policy-makers strive to encourage innovation activity to benefit their economies. Entrepreneurial ecosystems (EEs) are increasingly used as a framework through which such policies are funnelled, but an increased focus on high-growth, scale-up entrepreneurship risks overlooking the effects of entrepreneurship on social groups affected by multiple sets of disadvantage. This chapter identifies and analyses the existing research on disadvantaged entrepreneurship and the EE via a systematic review of the literature and then briefly outlines how the chapters contained within this book seek to address the gaps found.

Despite the increase in empirical studies of social enterprise in management and organization research, the lack of a cohesive knowledge base in this area is concerning. In this chapter, we propose that the underdevelopment of the attendant research infrastructure is an important, but oft-overlooked, barrier to the development of this body of empirical research.

We explore this proposition through a review of 55 empirical studies of social enterprises published in the last fifteen years, in which we examine the mix and trajectory of research methods used and the research infrastructure on which these studies depend.

We find that empirical research has used social enterprise largely as a context for theory development, rather than deductively testing, and thus building upon, existing theories. The latter pattern is due largely to the absence of two key dimensions of infrastructure: well-defined samples, and consistent, operational measures of social enterprise success. Finally, we identify present trends along both dimensions that contribute to changing the research infrastructure for empirical social enterprise research.

Our analysis highlights the critical need for research infrastructure to advance empirical research on social enterprise. From this perspective, research infrastructure-building provides an important opportunity for researchers interested in social enterprise and others interested in enabling high-quality empirical research in this setting.