Academia.eduAcademia.edu

Outline

Title
Abstract
Introduction
Social Entrepreneurship and Research Methods
Conclusions
References
All Topics
Business and Management
Entrepreneurial and Small Business Operations

Main research areas and methods in social entrepreneurship

Profile image of Shahrazad HadadShahrazad Hadad

2017, Proceedings of the International Conference on Business Excellence

https://doi.org/10.1515/PICBE-2017-0095
visibility

…

description

11 pages

link

1 file

Abstract

The main specific objective of this paper is to explore the content of research as well as methodological issues on social entrepreneurship in the context of corporate social economics and entrepreneurship. Therefore, in order to obtain an overview of the research done on this theme, we conducted a literature review using the exploratory analysis as methodology. We focused on the studies and articles which were published in the most important academic periodicals that cover subjects as management, economics and business. The articles were identified based on the presence of selected keywords in their title, abstract and body of the article: ‘social entrepreneur’, ‘social enterprise’, ‘social entrepreneurship’, ‘corporate social entrepreneurship’ and ‘social economy’. Using this method, there were selected articles and studies published starting from the last decade of the 1990s up to 2015. We were also interested in international publications on the topic and also in books that appr...

Related papers

A critical appraisal of the social entrepreneurship paradigm in an international setting: a proposed conceptual framework
Sayem Hossain, Judy Drennan

The concept of entrepreneurship embedded in the backdrop of business has been increasingly applied to the context of addressing social problems and sustainability challenges. Known as 'social entrepreneurship' the topic has garnered the heightened attention of researchers in recent years. As a nascent stream of research social entrepreneurship is still in the early stages of development. Recent evidence suggests a growing body of scholarly research in this field; however, its conceptualisation remains obscure as it is predominantly dictated by definitional arguments. Consequently, the literature is still anecdotal in trying to unveil different dimensions of social entrepre-neurship and its potential benefits that might help to battle sustainability challenges. To bridge the existing gap in social entrepreneurship research this study adopts an inductive content analysis approach. Accordingly, a sizeable number of prior studies were extracted from five major databases from 1991 to date. Findings from the prior studies were synthesised in a systematic manner to draw valid conclusions. Based on the findings drawn from prior literature the study also proposes a conceptual framework and prompts further empirical research. The implications of the study are twofold: academic and practical. The academic implication is primarily to contribute to the relatively uncultivated area of social entrepreneurship literature. The practical Int Entrep Manag J

View PDFchevron_right
A Study on Exploring the Concept of Social Entrepreneurship
Anand Choudhary

2019

Social entrepreneurship in recent times has gained importance as a means to meet social and economic needs of the poor globally. However, in spite of it’s increasing popularity as a concept, there is no consensus among academics and practitioners when it comes to formulating one common definition on the topic which may be acceptable to all as it means different things to different people. The current article tries to analyse the literature available on the subject, exploring it’s theoretical and conceptual framework which helps to understand the phenomena of social entrepreneurship and its role, importance and applicability in the modern society.

View PDFchevron_right
Social Entrepreneurship Research: A Source of Explanation, Prediction, and Delight
Dr.Ketan K U M A R MISHRA

The phenomenon of social entrepreneurship, sometimes denoted societal entrepreneurship, receives increased attention and popularity by policy makers, opinion leaders, as well as by researchers. The concept lacks a rigorous definition and in this survey we list a number of alternative definitions and classifications made in recent research. These are based on comparisons between social entrepreneurship and other forms of organization, the core elements supposed to accrue to social entrepreneurship and on identification of environmental factors in which social entrepreneurs operate. In addition, despite the strong recent increase in research interest comprising several schools of thought, there is a lack of reliable data. One of the few comprehensive attempts to collect comparable data is the 2009 GEM study, measuring levels of social entrepreneurship activity in 45 countries. In this working paper we contribute an interpolated figure for Sweden using cubic spines, which shows that Sweden ranks in the middle of the European countries. At the political decision level both the European Union and individual member states begin to adopt or suggest special legal framework conditions, including beneficial treatment, for so called social enterprises. The paper concludes that there are a limited number of studies using quantitative methods, a lack of rigorous hypothesis testing, little variety in research design, a need for an unambiguous definition that can serve as a foundation for future research and a thorough analysis of the contributions to society that can be attributed social entrepreneurship.

View PDFchevron_right
Editorial Paper. Social Entrepreneurship and Social Enterprise Phenomenon: Antecedents, Processes, Impact across Cultures and Contexts
Journal of Entrepreneurship, Management and Innovation JEMI

Journal of Entrepreneurship, Management and Innovation, 2018

Social entrepreneurship 3 , as a field of research, has gained enormous interest of academics in management and entrepreneurship literature for almost 30 years now. Also, scholars in other intellectual domains like economics, finance, marketing, political science, sociology and few others, have found it fascinating. As a term, it is common in public discourses and has found interest among policy makers, corporations, media, different groups of practitioners and professionals. As a phenomenon it is not new, although the SE term has been only recently coined (Banks, 1972; Drucker, 1979). For far more than two centuries great individuals and groups have tried to tackle the societal challenges, using economic means, such as the Rochdale Pioneers who inspired cooperative ideals, and Florence Nightingale-an English nurse and social activist, who changed the patient care landscape (Nicholls, 2006). Many of the ventures and actions of social initiatives can be traced to the earlier, medieval or even ancient times. Today, social initiatives and social enterprise have emerged in particular countries and regions as a result of

View PDFchevron_right
Social Entrepreneurship: Analyzing Literature and Proposing a Comprehensive Model
Mehran Nejati, yashar salamzadeh, Aidin Salamzadeh

Nowadays, entrepreneurship, specifically social entrepreneurship (SE), is drawing the attention of so many scholars, researchers and policy makers. Social entrepreneurs play a critical and significant role in any economy. They are known as social change agents, which are able to make fundamental contributions to economic and social development. However, there is not a common view about the topic, especially in the field of SE. This paper seeks to elaborate the concept of SE, as a unique and distinct concept. In order to do so, the paper reviews the existing literature on SE and proposes a model to put together the concepts and ideas and provide a comprehensive and common view for the beneficiaries of this phenomenon. This paper will rebuild the existing view of the SE as a two-sided fact, which includes 'Social' and 'Entrepreneurship' dimensions.

View PDFchevron_right
Social Entrepreneurship in the Modern Economy: Warm Glow, Cold Feet
Brigitte Hoogendoorn

This study tests and extends current knowledge on the causes of social entrepreneurship: a type of entrepreneurship that concerns the process of discovering, evaluating, and pursuing opportunities aimed at the creation of social value. In contrast to what is common in this research domain, this study applies a research design based on unique, large-scale and internationally comparable survey data. Various research themes are addressed such as the occurrence and drivers of social entrepreneurship at the macro-level, factors that influence the survival of social ventures at the firm level, and the differences and commonalities between social and commercial entrepreneurs at the individual level. At the macro-level it is concluded that social entrepreneurship clearly is a global phenomenon with a prevailing role for the level of income in a country as one of the drivers of its occurrence. At the micro-level results indicate a deviating entrepreneurial profile for social entrepreneurs th...

View PDFchevron_right
Social entrepreneurship theory and sustainable social impact
raghda el ebrashi

Social Responsibility Journal, 2013

View PDFchevron_right
Social entrepreneurship: New research findings
Benson Honig

Journal of World Business, 2006

View PDFchevron_right
Schools Of Thought In The Field Of Social Entrepreneurship
Cris Bravo Monge

2016

Social entrepreneurship is a new and exciting topic<br> that holds a great promise in helping alleviate the social problems of<br> the world. As a new subject, the meaning of the term is too broad and<br> this is counterproductive in trying to build understanding around the<br> concept. The purpose of this study is to identify and compare the<br> elements of social entrepreneurship as defined by seven international<br> organizations leading social entrepreneurship projects: Ashoka<br> Foundation, Skoll Foundation, Schwab Foundation and Yunus<br> Center; as well as from three other institutions fostering social<br> entrepreneurship: Global Social Benefit Institute, BRAC University,<br> and Socialab. The study used document analysis from Skoll<br> Foundation, Schwab Foundation, Yunus Center and Ashoka<br> Foundation; and open ended interview to experts from the Global<br> Social Benefit Institute at Santa Cl...

View PDFchevron_right
Social Entrepreneurship and Social Business: Retrospective and Prospective Research
Ann Cunliffe

Revista de Administração de Empresas, 2015

Social Entrepreneurship and Social Business (SE/SB), inclusive business, businesses with social impact and a higher purpose are becoming increasingly important both in academia and the business world (Sassmannshausen & Volkmann, 2013). Since the influential article by Dees (1998), many different perspectives about social entrepreneurship and social business have been discussed in academia. On the management side, these types of businesses have also proliferated in the last decades. Yunus with his work leading Grameen Bank has inspired many other entrepreneurs and organizations to create a new kind of business more embedded with a social purpose.

View PDFchevron_right

References (69)

  1. Abu-Saifan, S. (2012). Social Entrepreneurship: Definition and Boundaries. Technology Innovation Management Review. February 2012, pp. 22-27 available online http://timreview.ca/sites/default/files/article_PDF/Saifan_TIMReview_February 2012_2.pdf, retreieved on 12.07.2015.
  2. Agoston, S. (2014). Intellectual Capital in Social Enterprises, Management & Marketing. Challenges for the Knowledge Society, 9(4), 423-438.
  3. Almarri, J., Sandhu, M., and Meewella, J. (2013). How do social benefits differ within commercial entrepreneurial streams?. International Journal of Business Excellence, Vol. 6, No.6, pp. 702-734.
  4. DOI: 10.1515/picbe-2017-0095, pp. 893-903, ISSN 2558-9652| Proceedings of the 11 th International Conference on Business Excellence PICBE | 900
  5. Alvarez, C., Urbano, D., Coduras, A. and Ruiz, J. (2011). Environmental conditions and entrepreneurial activity: A regional comparison in Spain. Journal of Small Business Economic Development, 18(1), 120-140.
  6. Austin, J., Stevenson, H., and Wei-Skillern, J. (2006). Social and commercial entrepreneurship: Same, different, or both?. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 30(1), 1-22.
  7. Bacq, S., and Janssen, F. (2011). The multiple faces of social entrepreneurship: A review of definitional issues based on geographical and thematic criteria. Entrepreneurship and Regional Development, 23(5-6), 373-403.
  8. Bacq, S., and Janssen, F. (2011). The multiple faces of social entrepreneurship: A review of definitional issues based on geographical and thematic criteria. Entrepreneurship and Regional Development, 23(5-6), 373-403.
  9. Banks, J. (1972), The Sociology of Social Movements, London: Macmillan.
  10. Bargsted, M., Picon, M., Salazar, A., and Rojas, Y. (2013). Psychosocial characterization of social entrepreneurs: A comparative study. Journal of Social Entrepreneurship, 4(3), 331-346.
  11. Bibu, Nicolae Aurelian and Orhei, Loredana, Social Entrepreneurship in the Context of Romania's European Integration. (July 7, 2008). The Annals of the University of Oradea, Section Economic Sciences, retrieved from http://ssrn.com/abstract=1156425.
  12. Bornstein, D. (2004). How to Change the World: Social Entrepreneurs and the Power of New Ideas. New York: Oxford University Press.
  13. Bratianu, C. (2007). Thinking patterns and knowledge dynamics. In B. Martis & D. Remenyi(Eds.). Proceedings of the 8th European Conference on Knowledge Management (pp.152-156), Consorci Escola Industrial de Barcelona, Spain, 6-7 September 2007.Reading: Academic Conferences Limited.
  14. Bratianu, C. (2009). The frontier of linearity in the intellectual capital metaphor. In C. Stam & D. Andriessen (Eds.). Proceedings of the European Conference on Intellectual Capital(pp. 97-103), Inholland University of Applied Sciences, Haarlem, The Netherlands, 28-29 April 2009. Reading: Academic Publishing Limited Chalmers, D.M., and Balan-Vnuk, E. (2013). Innovating not-for-profit social ventures: Exploring the micro foundations of internal and external absorptive capacity routines. International Small Business Journal, 31(7), 785-810.
  15. Chell, E., Nicolopoulou, K., and OÅNzkan-Karataş, M. (2010). Social entrepreneurship and enterprise: International and innovations perspectives. Entrepreneurship and Regional Development, 22(6), 485-493.
  16. Choi, N., and Majumdar, S. (2014). Social entrepreneurship as an essentially contested concept: Opening a new avenue for systematic future research. Journal of Business Venturing, 29(3), 363-376.
  17. Corner, P.D., and Ho, M. (2010). How opportunities develop in social entrepreneurship. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 34(4), 635-659.
  18. Dees, J.G. (1998), "Enterprising nonprofits", Harvard Business Review, Vol. 76, No. 1, pp. 55 -67.
  19. Dees, J.G. (2001).The Meaning of "Social Entrepreneurship". Comments and suggestions contributed from the Social Entrepreneurship Founders Working Group. Durham, NC: Center for the Advancement of Social Entrepreneurship, Fuqua School of Business, Duke University, Retrieved from http://www.caseatduke.org/documents/dees_sedef.pdf. DOI: 10.1515/picbe-2017-0095, pp. 893-903, ISSN 2558-9652| Proceedings of the 11 th International Conference on Business Excellence PICBE | 901
  20. Desa, G. (2012). Resource mobilization in international social entrepreneurship: Bricolage as a mechanism of institutional transformation. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 36(4), 727-751.
  21. Dhesi, A. (2010). Diaspora, social entrepreneurs and community development. International Journal of Social Economics, 37(9), 703-716.
  22. Di Domenico, M., Haugh, H., and Tracey, P. (2010). Social bricolage: Theorizing social value creation in social enterprises. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 34(4), 681-703.
  23. Dima, A.M., Vasilache, S. N. (2013). Principles and strategies to balance ethical, social and environmental concerns with corporate requirements, Book Series: Advances in Sustainability and Environmental Justice, 12, 51-66.
  24. Dima, A., Vasilache, S., Ghinea, V., Agoston, S. (2013). A model of Academic Social Responsibility, Transilvanian Review of Administrative Sciences, 38E, ISSN 1842- 2845, 23-43.
  25. Drucker, P. 1979. The Practice of Management. London: Pan Books.
  26. Estrin, S., Mickiewicz, T., and Stephan, U. (2013). Entrepreneurship, social capital, and institutions: Social and commercial entrepreneurship across nations. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 37(3), 479-504.
  27. Fowler, A. (2000). NGDOs as a moment in history: beyond aid to social entrepreneurship or civic innovation?. Third World Quarterly, 21(4), 637-654.
  28. Friedman, V. J., and Desivilya, H. (2010). Integrating social entrepreneurship and conflict engagement for regional development in divided societies. Entrepreneurship and Regional Development, 22(6), 495-514.
  29. Gauca, O. (2015). The Educational Innovator. In Marketing and Business Development, Bucharest: Bucharest University of Economic Studies Publishing House. Gnyawali, D. R., and Fogel, D. S. (1994). Environments for entrepreneurship development: Key dimensions and research Implications. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 18(4), 43-62.
  30. Gras, D., and Mendoza-Abarca, K.I. (2014). Risky business? The survival implications of exploiting commercial opportunities by nonprofits. Journal of Business Venturing, 29(3), 392-404.
  31. Hockerts, K., Mair, J., and Robinson, J. (2010). Values and Opportunities in Social Entrepreneurship. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
  32. Kaneko, I. (2013). Social entrepreneurship in Japan: A historical perspective on current trends. Journal of Social Entrepreneurship, 4(3), 256-276.
  33. Kickul, J., and Lyons, T.S. (2012). Understanding Social Entrepreneurship: The Relentless Pursuit of Mission in an Ever Changing World. New York: Routledge.
  34. Ladeira, F.M.B., and Machado, H.V. (2013). Social entrepreneurship: A reflection for adopting public policies that support the third sector in Brazil. Journal of Technology Management and Innovation, 8(2), 188-196.
  35. Leadbeater, C. (1997). The Rise of the Social Entrepreneur. London: Demos.
  36. Luke, B., and Chu, V. (2013). Social enterprise versus social entrepreneurship: An examination of the 'why' and 'how' in pursuing social change. International Small Business Journal, 31(7), 764-784.
  37. Lumpkin, G.T., Moss, T.W., Gras, D.M., Kato, S., and Amezcua, A.S. (2013). Entrepreneurial processes in social contexts: How are they different, if at all? Small Business Economics, 40(3), 761-783.
  38. DOI: 10.1515/picbe-2017-0095, pp. 893-903, ISSN 2558-9652| Proceedings of the 11 th International Conference on Business Excellence PICBE | 902
  39. Maclean, M., Harvey, C., and Gordon, J. (2013).Social innovation, social entrepreneurship and the practice of contemporary entrepreneurial philanthropy. International Small Business Journal, 31(7), 747-763.
  40. Mair, J. and Marti, I. (2006), "Social entrepreneurship research: A source of explanation, prediction, and delight", Journal of World Business, Vol. 41, No. 1, pp. 36-44.
  41. McMullen, J.S. (2011). Delineating the domain of development entrepreneurship: A market-based approach to facilitating inclusive economic growth. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 35(1), 185-193.
  42. Meyskens, M., Robb-Post, C., Stamp, J.A., Carsrud, A.L., and Reynolds, P.D. (2010). Social Ventures from a Resource-Based Perspective: An Exploratory Study Assessing Global Ashoka Fellows. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 34(4), 661-680.
  43. Mort, S., Weerawardena, J., and Carnegie, K. (2003). Social entrepreneurship: Toward conceptualisation. International Journal of Non-profit and Voluntary Sector Marketing, 8(1), 76-88.
  44. Neck, H., Brush, C. and Allen, E. (2009).The landscape of social entrepreneurship. Business Horizons, 52(1), 13-19.
  45. Nga, J.K.H., and Shamuganathan, G. (2010). The influence of personality traits and demographic factors on social entrepreneurship start up intentions. Journal of Business Ethics, 95(2), 259-282.
  46. Nicholls, A. (2010), "The legitimacy of social entrepreneurship: reflexive isomorphism in a pre-paradigmatic field", Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, Vol. 34 No. 4, pp. 611-633.
  47. Nicholls, A. (2010a). The legitimacy of social entrepreneurship: Reflexive isomorphism in a pre-paradigmatic field. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 34(4), 611- 633. Nicholls, A. (2010b). The institutionalization of social investment: The interplay of investment logics and investor rationalities. Journal of Social Entrepreneurship, 1(1), 70-100.
  48. O'Connor, A. (2013). A conceptual framework for entrepreneurship education policy: Meeting government and economic purposes. Journal of Business Venturing, 28(4), 546-563.
  49. Özdemir, O.G. (2013). Entrepreneurial marketing and social value creation in Turkish art industry: An ambidextrous perspective. Journal of Research in Marketing and Entrepreneurship, 15(1), 39-60.
  50. Renko, M. (2013). Early challenges of nascent social entrepreneurs. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 37(5), 1045-1069.
  51. Roy, A., Brumagim, A., and Goll, I. (2014). Predictors of social entrepreneurship success: A cross-national analysis of antecedent factors. Journal of Social Entrepreneurship, 5(1), 42-59.
  52. Salamzadeh, A., Azimi, M.A., and Kirby, D.A. (2013). Social entrepreneurship education in higher education: Insights from a developing country. International Journal of Entrepreneurship and Small Business, 20(1), 17-34.
  53. Sassmannshausen Sean Patrick Christine Volkmann (2013). A Bibliometric Based Review on Social Entrepreneurship and its Establishment as a Field of Research Schumpeter Discussion Papers.
  54. Seymour, R.G. (2012). Handbook of Research Methods on Social Entrepreneurship. Edward Elgar Publishing.
  55. Sharir, M., and Lerner, M. (2006). Gauging the success of social ventures initiated by individual social entrepreneurs. Journal of World Business, 41(1), 6-20.
  56. DOI: 10.1515/picbe-2017-0095, pp. 893-903, ISSN 2558-9652| Proceedings of the 11 th International Conference on Business Excellence PICBE | 903
  57. Short, J.C., Moss, T.W., and Lumpkin, G.T. (2009). Research in social entrepreneurship: Past contributions and future opportunities. Strategic Entrepreneurship Journal, 3(2), 161-194.
  58. Smallbone, D., Evans, M., Ekanem, I. and Butters, S. (2001). Researching Social Enterprise: Final Report to the Small Business Service. Centre for Enterprise and Economic Development Research, Middlesex University Business School, Middlesex University, UK.
  59. Smith, B.R., and Stevens, C.E. (2010). Different types of social entrepreneurship: The role of geography and embeddedness on the measurement and scaling of social value. Entrepreneurship and Regional Development, 22(6), 575-598.
  60. Smith, B.R., Cronley, M.L., and Barr, T.F. (2012). Funding implications of social enterprise: The role of mission consistency, entrepreneurial competence, and attitude toward social enterprise on donor behavior. Journal of Public Policy and Marketing, 31(1), 142-157.
  61. Thornton, P., Ribeiro-Soriano, D. and Urbano, D. (2011).Socio-cultural factors and entrepreneurial activity: An overview. International Small Business Journal, 29(2), 105-118.
  62. Tobias, J.M., Mair, J., and Barbosa-Leiker, C. (2013). Toward a theory of transformative entrepreneuring: Poverty reduction and conflict resolution in Rwanda's entrepreneurial coffee sector. Journal of Business Venturing, 28(6), 728-742.
  63. Urbano, D., Toledano, N., and Soriano, D. (2010). Analyzing social entrepreneurship from an institutional perspective: Evidence from Spain. Journal of Social Entrepreneurship, 1(1), 54-69.
  64. Veciana, J.M., and Urbano, D. (2008). The institutional approach to entrepreneurship research: Introduction. International Entrepreneurship and Management Journal, 4(4), 365-79.
  65. Volkmann C, Tokarski, KO and Ernst K (ed) (2012) Social Entrepreneurship and Social Business: An Introduction and Discussion with Case Studies, Wiesbaden etc.: Springer Gabler.
  66. Weerawardena, J., and Mort, G.S. (2006). Investigating social entrepreneurship: A multidimensional model. Journal of World Business, 41(1), 21-35.
  67. Williams, C.C., and Nadin, S. (2012). Entrepreneurship in the informal economy: Commercial or social entrepreneurs?. International Entrepreneurship and Management Journal, 8(3), 309-324.
  68. Zahra, S.A., Newey, L.R., and Li, Y. (2014). On the frontiers: The implications of social entrepreneurship for international entrepreneurship. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 38(1), 137-158.
  69. Zahra, S.A., Rawhouser, H.N., Bhawe, N., Neubaum, D.O., and Hayton, J.C. (2008). Globalization of social entrepreneurship. Strategic Entrepreneurship Journal, 2(2), 117-131.

Related papers

A Comparative Analysis Between Social Entrepreneurship and Corporate Entrepreneurship
Liliana Moga

Annals of Dunarea de Jos University of Galati. Fascicle I. Economics and Applied Informatics

Social entrepreneurship can be described as a contemporary phenomenon that appears primarily in the social and economic development of a country, characterized by the identification of innovative solutions for the social problems by increasing social value and identifying new opportunities for the benefit of the society, leaving its own enriching. The main purposes of social entrepreneurship are creation of social welfare, creating added value through innovation, leadership and business risk management. The aim of this ongoing research is to identify if there are some certain elements that can be found in the corporate entrepreneurship and the extent in which they are applicable to social entrepreneurship. Moreover, the common elements are identified, along with the obvious differences among them. The research relies on the review of national and international literature, national strategies and legislation in the field, leaving open opportunities for further research. Stimulating the improvement of social entrepreneurship has a positive impact for the social and economic progress and development of a society, social entrepreneurs and possible financiers being guided for approaching social entrepreneurship in a more systematic and efficient manner.

View PDFchevron_right
Entrepreneurial Business and Economics Review CALL FOR PAPERS SOCIAL ENTREPRENEURSHIP IN THE GLOBAL CONTEXT
Marek Ćwiklicki

Nowadays Social Entrepreneurship attracts the attention of both academics and practitioners, as it is supported by the growth of the theoretical literature about the topic, as well as by the rise of new scientific and not scientific communities (Zahra et al., 2009; Chell, 2007; Wolstein, 2001). In spite of this, however, social entrepreneurship is a still misunderstood phenomenon, challenged by competing definitions and conceptual frameworks, gaps in the research literature, and limited empirical data (Mair & Marti, 2006; Nicholls, 2006). As Cukier et al. (2011) show, the available studies about social entrepreneurship lack for consistency in definitions and objects of focus, as well as for rigorous comparative analysis. In a content analysis of 567 unique articles concerning “social entrepreneur” or “social entrepreneurship”, the authors highlight the existing overlapping between and among different levels of analysis, including studies of individuals (micro), studies of organizations and processes (meso), and broader studies of the economic, political and societal context (macro). They also found that the majority of the journal articles focused are more theoretically grounded, than empirically based. Referring to its meaning, definitions of Social Entrepreneurship are often vague, covering a wide variety of activities and representing different models worldwide (Hogendoon and Hartog, 2011; Kerlin, 2009; Nicholls and Cho, 2006). The multiplicity of actors involved in innovative and social activities, as well as the variety of motives that lie upon their adoption (Baccarani and Pedrollo, 2015) also improve the complexity of the phenomenon. According to the above considerations, this special issue invites submissions and seeks papers belonging to the following topics: – empirical and conceptual papers investigating social entrepreneurship in an national and international contexts using multidisciplinary approaches, – tools and methods that may be undertaken to get social aims within the field of entrepreneurship – social entrepreneurship in both developing and developed nations, – drivers and opportunities of social entrepreneurship, – critical success factors and determinants of social entrepreneurship and its social impact, – intersection of management, business, and economics literature around social entrepreneurship. Other topics not included in the list, but relevant for the journal will be evaluated.

View PDFchevron_right
Social Entrepreneurship: Analytical Approach
Jehanzaib Akram

IOSR Journal of Business and Management, 2016

View PDFchevron_right
The Discussion of Social Entrepreneurship: Review of the Literature
shuhairimi abdullah

MATEC web of conferences, 2018

The purpose of this article is to explore the various discussion of social entrepreneurship. Social entrepreneurship provides a unique opportunity and assumptions to question, challenge and rethink from different perspective of management and business research. This article offers a comparative analysis of commercial entrepreneurship and social entrepreneurship using a prevailing analytical model from commercial entrepreneurship. The analysis highlights key differences and similarities between commercial entrepreneurship and social entrepreneurship. This article also presents a framework on how to approach the social entrepreneurial process more effectively and systematically. Social entrepreneurship is a process of creating value by combining resources in new concepts. These process are intended primarily to get the opportunities to create social value by stimulating social change or achieve social needs. When viewed as a process, social entrepreneurship involves the offering of products and services but can also refer to the creation of new organizations. This article focuses and analyses the literature finding of social entrepreneurship.

View PDFchevron_right
Delineating Social Entrepreneurship from Related Terminologies
yogita narang

2014

Purpose- Social entrepreneurship is gaining ground rapidly as a field of research and practice and attracting increasing interest within the policy-making authorities, research on social entrepreneur-ship still falls far behind the practice. The different concepts used by the literature are often defined unwell and can take on a variety of meanings with little consensus so far reached among scholars. The concept of social entrepreneurship continues to convey different things to different people and there is no clear understanding and uniformity on where to locate it and on how to qualify social entrepreneurs. The paper is an attempt to clarify the boundary of Social Entrepreneurship and differ-entiating it from related concepts like: Corporate Entrepreneurship, sustainability and self-sufficiency, earned income strategies and social purpose businesses etc. Design/methodology/approach- To do so, secondary data had been used. The methodology involved the extensive use of Literature re...

View PDFchevron_right

Related topics

  • Entrepreneurship
  • Social Entrepreneurship
  • Political Science
    • 580 California St., Suite 400
    San Francisco, CA, 94104
    © 2025 Academia. All rights reserved