A Research Agenda For Social Entrepreneurship

A research agenda for
social entrepreneurship
Dr. Helen Haugh is Course Director at the Judge Institute of Management

(University of Cambridge)
The dynamism and vitality of entrepreneurship research is reflected in the

flow of new ideas and themes in the entrepreneurship literature. For many,
mainstream entrepreneurship is inextricably bound with the creation of new
technology firms, however, this is only part of a wide and varied terrain. The
Downloaded by Newcastle University At 17:57 14 May 2018 (PT)
focus of this paper is social entrepreneurship - those activities associated with

the perception of opportunities to create social value and the creation of social
purpose organisations to pursue them. Social enterprises adopt financially
sustainable strategies to pursue social aims, and address a wide a range of
social problems, such as unemployment, inequalities in access to health and
social care services, low quality housing, high incidences of crime, deprivation
and social exclusion. Although organisations with a social purpose have
existed for many years, they have recently received increasing attention at
policy level, mainly due to their assumed potential to contribute to social,
economic and environmental regeneration. This renewed interest has been
policy-driven, rather than research-led, and many claims have been made
concerning their potential contribution to building social capacity, responding
to unmet needs, creating new forms of work (Amin et al 2002), promoting local
development, defining new goods and services, fostering integration, creating
jobs, improving attractiveness of an industry and locality, empowerment, and
consolidating local assets (ECOTEC 2001). However, robust evidence of
their value and contribution remains illusive, and theories concerning their
creation, management and performance have yet to be crafted.
This paper categorises the social entrepreneurship research agenda into

eight themes each of which would strengthen and deepen our knowledge
of social entrepreneurship: defining the scope of social entrepreneurship;
the environmental context; opportunity recognition and innovation;
modes of organisation; resource acquisition; opportunity exploitation;
performance measurement and training education and learning about
social entrepreneurship. To begin, the paper draws on existing research to
present a summary of the size of the non-profit sector, and where specifically
available, the social enterprise sector in the UK, Europe and US. The eight
research themes are then proposed. In conclusion, the paper endorses the
need for researchers to build on current knowledge and to work together to
generate theory and produce valid, reliable and comparable data that can
be shared by researchers, policy makers and those with an interest in social
entrepreneurship.
Social Enterprise Journal 1

THE SOCIAL ECONOMY
The social economy is a collective term for the part of the economy that is
neither privately nor publicly controlled. It includes non-profit organisations
as well as associations, co-operatives, mutual organisations and foundations.
Social enterprises are included in the social economy, however they are
distinctive from many non-profit organisations in their entrepreneurial
approach to strategy, their innovation in pursuit of social goals and their
engagement in trading.
Although global data on the non-profit sector is becoming more readily available
(Salamon and Anheier 1996), the size and scale of the social enterprise sector
in the UK, Europe and US have yet to be mapped conclusively. In the UK,
various databases have gathered information from social enterprises, however
some are listed by region, others by legal constitution, and a comprehensive
database of social enterprises has yet to be produced. Insight into the size
of the social enterprise sector is provided by the GEM survey (GEMUK 2004)
that included social enterprises for the first time in 2003, however the survey
does not provide reliable estimates of the size of the sector for the whole of
the UK. Overall, the survey revealed that 6.6 percent of the UK population
was engaged in some form of activity that has a social or community purpose,
compared to 6.4 percent for mainstream entrepreneurial activity.
In Europe, the EMES network (see endnote 1) was established in 1996 to

investigate social enterprise activity in Member countries and reported in 2000
(EMES 2000). Estimates for the size of the non-profit sector in the EU found
7.9 percent of salaried civil employees in full time employment in non-profit
enterprises, including co-operatives (CIRIEC 2000). In the US, there were
170 000 non-profit organisations with at least one employee in 1999, with
a total revenue generation of $685 billion (Williams 2003). Internationally,
the extent of non-profit activity has been mapped by the Johns Hopkins
Comparative Non-profit Sector Project (see endnote 2) which found that 3.6
percent of the working age population were in full time employment in the
sector, excluding co-operatives, in the 35 countries included in the study. The
variation between definitions and methodologies adopted in different studies
means that it is not possible to reliably comment on the size and scale of the
social economy, however, there appears to be a consensus that the number
and importance of social enterprises has increased in recent years.
DEFINING THE SCOPE OF SOCIAL ENTREPRENEURSHIP
The social entrepreneurship research arena is hindered by the many

terms and definitions adopted by researchers and policy-makers. Social
enterprises have been varyingly described as ‘a private enterprise conducted
in the public interest’ (OECD 1999:10), a for-profit social venture (Dees and
Anderson 2003), and a social purpose enterprise (Wallace 1999). Further,
social enterprises adopt differing legal formats and abide by different legal
frameworks and fiscal responsibilities and duties in different countries. These
factors make national and international comparisons of social enterprise
activity unreliable at present. Although universally acceptable definitions of
social entrepreneurship, social enterprise and social entrepreneur do not exist
(OECD 1999), there appears to be a converging consensus on the meaning
of social enterprise, and from this it is possible to draw out a definition of a
social entrepreneur and social entrepreneurship.
2 Social Enterprise Journal

There seems to be general agreement that a social enterprise is an
independent organisation with social and economic objectives that aims to
fulfil a social purpose as well as achieving financial sustainability through
trading (DTI 2001). Definitions of social enterprise differ in terms of the
amount of income that must be generated through trading (sales, contracts
and service level agreements), however a clear and useful benchmark is
50 percent (DTI 2002). Their distinctive features are that they combine
entrepreneurial strategy with social purpose (OECD 1999). In the terminology,
‘social’ relates to their aim of generating non-economic outcomes, and
‘enterprise’ is manifest in their financial structure (they aim to be self-financing
and independent and not reliant on donations and philanthropy), and their
innovation in trading goods and services to bring new responses to unmet
needs, and/or contracting to supply services on behalf of the state. In
bringing together social purpose and entrepreneurial spirit, social enterprises
might be described as hybrid organisations: they are autonomous (EMES
1999) and trade, they might generate profit, they employ people and engage
volunteers and adopt innovative strategies in pursuit of their social purpose.
In common with non-profit enterprises (Hansmann 1980), and unlike private
sector organisations, social enterprises are prevented from distributing their
profits to those who exercise control over them. Any surplus generated must
be retained in the organisation and/or community, either as direct services or

as grants to the service-targeted population (Wallace 1999). The benefits of
combining social purpose with enterprise have been found to include greater
market responsiveness, efficiency, innovation and leveraging of resources
(Dees and Anderson 2003). Social enterprises blur the boundaries between
for-profit enterprises and non-profit enterprises and research that investigated
how the tensions that arise from managing potentially conflicting aims would
be useful for practitioners and policy makers.
A shared understanding of the meaning of social enterprise is useful as

it can be used as the foundation for defining a social entrepreneur as an
individual who has created a social enterprise. However, an integral part
of exploring entrepreneurial behaviour is understanding what motivates an
entrepreneur to start their own venture (Kuratko et al 1997) and this definition
reveals little about the personal characteristics, attitudes and motivations of
the social entrepreneur. Case study evidence appears to show that social
entrepreneurs act decisively to fill market gaps left by the private and public
sectors (Leadbeater 1997), and it might be assumed that they employ
the same enterprise and imagination to social problems that mainstream
entrepreneurs bring to wealth creation. Research that explores the motivation
to be a social entrepreneur tends to be case study based (Thompson et al
2000) and/or anecdotal. An exception is the GEM survey (GEMUK 2004)
that found that social entrepreneurs possessed a mixture of positive and
negative attitudes. On the whole, social entrepreneurs are more positive
than the whole population and less likely to let lack of finance prevent them
from starting a business, however they are also less likely than mainstream
entrepreneurs to see good opportunities and to consider that they have the
skills to start a business. In terms of personal characteristics, the GEM
survey (GEMUK 2004) found that social entrepreneurs tended to be older,
employed, and on higher incomes than mainstream entrepreneurs, but they
were also to be found in high levels in disadvantaged groups such as those
on low incomes and/or unemployed. In addition, female and ethnic minority
entrepreneurs were more likely to be social entrepreneurs than mainstream
entrepreneurs. The GEM survey provides useful base line data and further

research might explore the gender, educational qualifications, skills, and
motivations (intrinsic and extrinsic) of social entrepreneurs from a range of
social purpose organisations.
Building on a shared understanding of social enterprise, it is submitted that

social entrepreneurship is the process of creating a social enterprise. Drawing
on a mainstream entrepreneurship definition by Bygrave and Hofer (1991), the
process involves all activities associated with the perception of opportunities to
create social value and the creation of social enterprises to pursue them. This
definition therefore stipulates that the social entrepreneur actually creates an
enterprise to exploit an opportunity. Research that examined the process of
identifying and exploiting social enterprise opportunities, the barriers faced by
social entrepreneurs and how they have been overcome would be useful and
beneficial for the sector.
THE ENVIRONMENTAL CONTEXT
The environmental context refers to the political, economic, social, cultural

and technological trends that influence social entrepreneurship. Social
entrepreneurship has been recognised as a potentially beneficial strategy
for revitalising disadvantaged communities by improving the skills of the

unemployed and facilitating their return to work, generating additional jobs,
and countering welfare dependency and these targets have been included in
the specific policy remit for the UK (OECD 2003b). In places where there are
low levels of economic activity poor market conditions, ‘gaps’ have arisen from
market failure and the inability of the state to fulfil its social responsibilities
(OECD 1999). Market failure may be due to inadequate financial returns,
information asymmetries and other externalities (OECD 1999). Gaps in state
provision of services may be explained by financial limitations, bureaucracy,
inflexibility, inability to define societal and individual needs and heterogeneous
client needs. As a result, potential market opportunities are unattractive
to mainstream entrepreneurs and consumer demand remains unfulfilled.
Research in the UK has found the broad, but not universal, tendency for
disadvantaged areas to have comparatively low levels of enterprise creation
(Westall et al 2000). In these conditions, social enterprises perform a residual
function and are instrumental in garnering resources and capitalising sub-
market opportunities.
Nationally, Government preference for privatisation, decentralisation and

separation of funding from provision of services, is manifest most clearly in
the provision of welfare services in which the state has moderated its role
as the monopoly provider to act, where possible, as a facilitator of devolved
delivery of services. The financial and organisational difficulties of state
welfare provision (Borzaga and Santuari 2003), alongside structural changes
of rising unemployment and declining economic growth in the 1980’s, led
to privatisation policies and decentralisation of welfare services. These
factors created an environmental context favourable to the establishment
of enterprises that would prioritise social benefit above financial profit.
Social enterprises have been encouraged to move beyond philanthropy
and adopt entrepreneurial strategies to achieve financial independence and
sustainability.
An alternative explanation for the increased interest in social enterprises

proposes that the social economy has the potential to capitalise on its

differential capabilities (novel opportunity recognition, resource acquisition
and opportunity exploitation; shared values of caring, mutual help, community
and solidarity; legitimacy and client trust) and perform an integral role in
the economy. Their role in creating and benefiting from the relationship
between the organisation and the client generates ‘relational assets’ which
are stronger in the non-profit sector than the private or public sector (OECD
2003). The growing number of relationships between social enterprises and
the private sector is reflected in the potential of competition between them as
they compete for market share in the future. In the past, social enterprises
have tended to enter markets that the private sector had abandoned or never
been interested in, however the market development capacities of social
enterprises potentially might stimulate the creation of a market in which the
returns are attractive to the private sector.
Although many publications have provided an insight into the origins of social
enterprises in the UK, Europe and the US, a systematic analysis of social
entrepreneurship in relation to national and international macro-economic
trends has yet to be produced. This would be useful for comparing current,
and forecasting future, rates of social enterprise creation and establishing
the necessary support network and infrastructure requirements to encourage
them.
OPPORTUNITY RECOGNITION AND INNOVATION
According to the OECD (2003), the non-profit sector has become more
entrepreneurial, and social enterprises are more entrepreneurial than other
non-profit organisations (EMES 1999). For Schumpeter (1936) and Drucker
(1985) innovation is a fundamental part of entrepreneurship. Innovation is
the process through which something new and/or different (Drucker 1985),
and of value is created and made available to society that had previously not
been available. New combinations might involve the introduction of a new
economic good and a new method of production, the opening up of a new
market, the conquest of a new source of raw materials, and/or the creation of
the new organisation of an industry (Schumpeter 1936).
For social enterprises, there are many opportunities to address disadvantage,

poverty and social exclusion and many have been created to deliver health care,
arts, cultural, employment, housing, social care, education, environmental,
and recycling services. Innovation might exploit opportunities to generate
value in terms of delivering new services to the disadvantaged and excluded,
identifying new ways of delivering existing services, implementing new
strategies to generate income, delivering existing services to new individuals,
or exploiting novel resources. Pearce (2003) identifies the following
market opportunities in disadvantaged communities: local development
and regeneration (managed workspace, business incubation, enterprise
training programmes, business advice and support, local development and
infrastructure regeneration; working for the state by providing services which
were formally provided by the state (leisure and recreation, housing, child
care and domiciliary care); providing services to the community in response
to market demand; and market-driven businesses that provide goods and
services in direct competition with the public and private sectors. Dees and
Anderson (2003) approach opportunity recognition from the perspective of
the value chain (Porter 1985), and identify activities where the social business
might achieve their social purpose and create economic value from procuring

supplies to after sales care.
Innovation might also be pursued internally in their management, structure and

strategies, particularly in terms of multi-stakeholder engagement in strategy
development and implementation. Further research that examined the nature
and value of opportunities that have been exploited by social enterprises,
internal and external innovation, barriers to successful opportunity exploitation
and strategies for overcoming barriers would be useful for the sector and
policy makers.
MODES OF ORGANISATION
Social enterprises operate in many areas of the economy and assume a

legal format appropriate for their purpose and host country (Borzaga and
Defourny 2001). In the UK alone, the range of institutional format includes
mutual organisations, friendly societies, associations, co-operatives, social
co-operatives, social firms, social franchise, charities, foundations, trusts,
companies limited by guarantee, and in due course, the community interest
company. Unfortunately, consistent and comparable statistical data for
each type of organisation have yet to be produced, rendering national and
international comparisons unreliable. The Johns Hopkins Comparative Non-

profit Sector research project has generated important international statistical
information on non-profit organisations; however, it does not produce specific
data on social enterprises. The lack of national data on the size and scale of
the social enterprise sector is a major research opportunity for researchers
and would provide valuable information for academics, practitioners and
policy makers.
RESOURCE ACQUISITION
To successfully exploit an opportunity, an entrepreneur will need to garner and

deploy resources. Social enterprises aim to achieve financial sustainability by
combining financial, physical and human resources. These might be derived
from market sources (revenue from sale of goods and services), non-market
sources (Government grants and programme funding, and independent
grants, donations and philanthropy), and non-monetary resources (volunteer
labour, social capital) (OECD 1999).
Social enterprises require finance to fund complex, low-profit activities and

many are financed by a combination of different types of finance, usually
referred to as the funding mix. The trading requirement of social enterprises
necessarily means that their funding mix consists of earned revenue and
non-revenue sources. Earned revenue generates the most flexible finance
(Williams 2003) and is derived from the sale of goods and services of the
social enterprise, for example, tuition fees for education and training, ticket
sales for arts and cultural venues, fees for social services, income from
property rental and leasing. Non-revenue sources include venture capital,
commercial debt, and non-commercial debt (community-based funds, grants
from foundations, Community Development Financial Institutions, programme-
related investment (Williams 2003)), venture philanthropy (Letts et al 1999)
and Community Development Venture Capital. For funding organisations,
the transaction costs of large numbers of small grants are high, as is the cost
of meeting the requirements of a diverse target group with heterogeneous
demands, and these factors conspire to generate lower than commercial

rate returns. As a result, social enterprises might be considered unattractive
propositions to investors.
Although there are many publications that deal with funding social enterprise,
much of this work consists of practical manuals on how to fund raise and how
to write a funding proposal. A useful overview of financial tools for the non-
profit sector has been published by INAISE (see endnote 3). Research that
explores the financial structure of social enterprises, the impact of different
sources of finance on the strategy and management of the social enterprise,
and the relationship between the funding mix and success or failure of the
social enterprise would provide valuable information for the sector, funding
organisations and policy makers. Research that investigated the motivations
and investment choice process of social investors, either institutionally or as
social business angels, would also be valuable for the sector.
There are many research opportunities connected with the acquisition of non-
financial resources. In the UK, the strategy of physical asset acquisition has
been promoted as a means of generating an independent revenue stream
for the social enterprise. Research that investigated the impact of asset
transfer and asset development on success, or failure, of the social enterprise
would provide valuable information for the asset source and the sector. In
addition, problems and barriers to asset transfer, and their solution, would
also yield important information that could guide the long-term survival of
social enterprises. Further, many social enterprises rely on a combination of
employee and volunteer labour, however little is currently known about the
challenges of recruiting, managing and controlling employees and volunteers
together, and research in this area could generate new theories about
employee and volunteer motivation and rewards.
OPPORTUNITY EXPLOITATION
The process of creating an enterprise to exploit an opportunity will involve

managing the combination of resources that have been brought together,
creating an organisation, establishing shared values, crafting stakeholder-
led strategies, partnerships and collaboration, networking, marketing,
and organisational learning, growth and development. These managerial
aspects of the social enterprise generate many research opportunities for
entrepreneurship and management scholars, four of which are outlined
below.
For example, the social purpose of the organisation may appeal to specific
types of individuals and lead to innovation in management practice in terms
of policy, procedures and organisational culture. This has the potential to
establish new management models that capitalise on enterprise, reciprocity
and relational assets. New models of governance that accommodate the
plurality of stakeholders typically associated with social enterprises might also
be identified.
The decentralisation and privatisation of social services has created

opportunities for social enterprises to establish same-sector and cross-
sector partnerships to deliver social services locally, and to offer training and
employment opportunities to the disadvantaged and excluded. Partnerships
and collaborations bring benefits and challenges to all those involved (Austin
2000). The social enterprise may gain from access to resources, may improve

financial performance from market engagement and generate intangible
benefits from enhanced legitimacy. A partnering private organisation may
gain reputational benefits from consumer perceptions of enhanced corporate
social responsibility, improved access to special expertise and future talent,
and increased employee motivation derived from links with social purpose
organisations (Young 2003). There are however risks associated with
partnerships between social enterprises and for-profit organisations, including
reputational damage when the partnership is not successful, and loss of
independence and control that may arise from power imbalances between the
partners. Research that investigated the benefits, challenges, barriers and
facilitating factors associated with same-sector and cross-sector partnerships
would be very useful for practitioners and policy makers and might develop
theory useful to managing successful partnerships and collaborations.
The drive to be more entrepreneurial presents a managerial challenge in that

the social enterprise needs to carefully synchronise competing values of being
entrepreneurial and pursuing a social purpose that may not be profitable. The
combination of for-profit and social purpose skills in one person is difficult to
find (Dees and Anderson 2003), and successful social enterprises may have
to rely on building teams with the requisite shared values and skills profile.
Research that explored the managerial structure, skills and competencies

of managers of social enterprises in relation to organisational performance
would be useful and provide evidence of skills and competencies needed by
the sector.
Networks play a supporting role for organisations and as social enterprises

tend to be small and locally-situated, and they have the potential to draw
on non-market and non-monetary resources in their creation and operation.
Drawing on local knowledge of volunteers can reduce start-up costs, while
operating costs might be reduced by employing people interested in working
in the sector for less than market rate wages. At present, little is known
about the role of networks in identifying opportunities, providing resources
and business advice to social entrepreneurs and research that identified
their support needs and that evaluated the usefulness of current sources of
business advice would be valuable for the sector and could be used to shape
support infrastructure developments.
PERFORMANCE MEASUREMENT
Social enterprises mainly operate at the local level, providing goods and
services that have an impact individually, but which also have an impact
collectively for communities and society. By helping individuals to acquire
the skills needed to return to work, local disparities in service provision,
access to services and skills levels can contribute to building social capital
and cohesion. There are many research opportunities associated with social
enterprise performance measurement and some of these are outlined below.
Social enterprises are established to address complex problems and, for

many, their outcomes are likely to be uncertain (Paton 2003). This implies
that a range of measures and indicators might be required to assess
their performance. Standard quantitative performance measures already
operate for mainstream entrepreneurship and some of these might be
adapted for social enterprises. Typical criteria against which to measure
performance include inputs (e.g. income), direct outputs (e.g. jobs created)

and indirect outputs (e.g. number of unemployed that have returned to work).
However, such measures relate a narrow view of social entrepreneurship,
and underplay the significance of social and qualitative outputs. Bielefield
(2003) also suggests measuring opportunity costs, distributional effects and
multiplier effects. The collection of evidence to prove their performance needs
to acknowledge direct and indirect, short and longer-term outcomes, and
accommodate the resource constraints of the social enterprise. To maximise
usefulness, performance measures need to be cost-effective, universal,
comprehensive and comparable.
At the level of the firm, a standard performance measure of for-profit

organisations is shareholder return, however for social enterprises there
is debate surrounding both the nature of their returns and impact, and the
evaluation of returns and impact. In summary, social benefits are often
“intangible, hard to quantify, difficult to attribute to a single organisation, best
evaluated in the future and open to dispute” (Dees and Anderson, 2003:7).
However, to be accountable, social enterprises need to be able to demonstrate
their impacts on society and their cost effectiveness (Young 2003). Indicators
of performance are also important for providers of finance, and are essential
if social enterprises are to raise investment capital from venture capitalists
and commercial sources. As yet, evaluation tools to measure outputs and

enumerate intangible outcomes (social capital, citizenship, community
cohesion, relational assets, social well-being, quality of life, social and
economic regeneration of communities) are in the early stages of development
although social auditing and social return on investment have made important
contributions to the field.
The societal preference for monetary measures means that although some
social benefits may be converted to financial metrics (Dees and Anderson
2003), other social impacts and intangible returns are more difficult to quantify
and may in some cases be impossible to measure. Just as Putnam (2000)
used proxy measures for assessing social capital, proxy measures for social
benefits might be used, such as: changes in demand for specific services,
for example, for drug, alcohol, and medical services; raised educational
attainment; increased self-esteem and individual and community well-being;
reductions in neighbourhood disturbances.
The outputs of social enterprises are not restricted to firm level and extend
to the local and macro economy. Drawing on findings from mainstream
entrepreneurship, social enterprises might positively affect local development
in terms of employment, income growth, increases in tax revenue, enhanced
provision of services, increases in local income retention, and demonstration
and motivation effects (OECD 2003b). At macro-economic level, the outputs
of social enterprises contribute to welfare reform, perform a re-distributive
function for resources between different societal groups, stimulate social
innovations and generate employment opportunities (Borzaga and Santuari
2003).
In addition, it is also important to acknowledge that some social enterprises

might generate negative outcomes, such as increases in transaction and
contract costs and decline in the quality of jobs and services (Young 1999),
also that some may fail and cease to operate. Research that investigated
causes and consequences of social enterprise failure, and identified
strategies to avoid failure, would be extremely valuable for the practitioners

and communities served by social enterprises.
TRAINING, EDUCATION AND LEARNING ABOUT SOCIAL ENTREPRENEURSHIP
In the UK, a wide range of for-profit and non-profit organisations offer practical
training for employees and volunteers in social economy organisations. Many
of the courses teach the basics of creating and running a social enterprise
such as raising finance, marketing, and how to write a business plan. This
information is essential for practitioners and the profusion of training courses
is a reflection of the high level of demand. However, these courses tend not
to be concerned with theory development or policy implications, and their
material does not lend itself to academic courses.
In the last thirty years, mainstream entrepreneurship education has become

firmly established on the business school curriculum. Social entrepreneurship
is a relative newcomer, and only a small number of specialised courses for
potential social entrepreneurs and those considering working in the social
economy is available for under-graduate and post-graduate students. In
the US, Harvard and Stanford Universities have well established social and
community enterprise programmes and in the UK, Cambridge, Oxford and
Southampton Universities offer postgraduate courses in social and community

enterprise. In addition, a small number of social entrepreneurship special
interest groups have been created by academics in the UK and US. The
increase in interest in social enterprises at policy level is likely to stimulate the
development of more courses in this area, and further increase the demand
for robust and rigorous social entrepreneurship research. Research that
mapped the emerging social and community enterprise academic curricula,
patterns in student recruitment and performance, and internal and external
course evaluation and validation would provide essential benchmarking
criteria for academics and practitioners.
CONCLUSION
This paper has outlined eight social entrepreneurship research themes each
of which would provide valuable information for academics, practitioners and
policy makers. At present, research in social entrepreneurship in the UK is
hindered by the lack of standard and universally acceptable definitions of
social enterprise, social entrepreneur and social entrepreneurship as well as
the absence of a national register of social enterprises. It is likely that, in the
UK at least, these deficiencies will be overcome in the near future, enabling
future research that uses standard definitions and gathers survey data from
the national population to be more valid and reliable. To maximise value from
limited resources, the many research opportunities identified in this paper
need researchers from different institutions to work together to produce valid,
reliable and comparable data that can be shared by researchers, policy makers
and those with an interest in social entrepreneurship. To advance knowledge
and understanding, research should be grounded in existing management
and entrepreneurship theories. Although most social enterprises are small
organisations that serve a local constituency, international research is also
essential for generating and testing theory and sharing best practice between
countries. Rigorous and robust conceptual and empirical research will benefit
practitioners, academics and policy makers, but most of all, the individuals
and communities for whom social enterprises are created.

ENDNOTES
1. EMES (L’émergence des enterprises sociales, réponse novatrice à l’exclusion

social en Europe) established in 1996.
2. Johns Hopkins Comparative Non-profit Sector Project, Baltimore.
3. INAISE (International Association of Investors in the Social Economy)
www.inaise.org
REFERENCES
Amin A., Cameron A. and Hudson R. (2002) Placing the Social Economy. London:
Routledge.
Austin J. (2000) The Collaboration Challenge. San Francisco: Jossey Bass.
Bielefield W. (2003) Non-profit Sector Impact Evaluation: The View from the USA, in
OECD, 2003, The Non-Profit Sector in a Changing Economy. Paris: OECD, pp. 239-
267.
Borzaga C. and Defourny J. (2001) The Emergence of Social Enterprise. London:

Routledge.
Borzaga C. and Santuari A. (2003) New Trends in the Non-profit Sector in Europe:
The Emergence of Social Entrepreneurship, in OECD, 2003, The Non-Profit Sector in
a Changing Economy. Paris: OECD, pp. 31-59.
Bygrave W. D. and Hofer C., 1991, Theorising about Entrepreneurship,

Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 16, 2, pp.13-22.
CIRIEC. (2000) The Enterprises and Organisations of the Third System. A Strategic
Challenge for Employment. University of Liege. Referred to in OECD 2003:12.
Dees J. G. and Anderson B. B. (2003) For-Profit Social Ventures. In Social

Entrepreneurship, Eds. M. L. Kourilsky and W. B. Walstad. Birmingham, UK: Senate
Hall Academic Publishing.
Drucker P., 1985, Innovation and Entrepreneurship. New York: Harper Row.
DTI. (2001) Researching Social Enterprise, Final Report to the Small Business
Service, www.dti.gsi.gov.uk
DTI. (2002) Social Enterprise, Strategy for Success. HMSO: Department of Trade and
Industry www.dti.gsi.gov.uk
ECOTEC. (2001) External evaluation of the Third System and Employment Pilot
Action, Ecotec Research and Consulting Limited, Final Report, August. Referred to
in OECD 2003.
EMES. (2000) (1999) The Emergence of Social Enterprises in Europe, New Answers
to Social Exclusion. Brussels.
GEMUK. (2004) Social Enterprise Monitor United Kingdom 2004, R. Harding and M.
Cowling, London Business School www.gemconsortium.org
Hansmann H. B. (1980) The Role of Non-profit Enterprise, The Yale Law Journal, 89,
5, pp.835-901.
Kuratko D., Hornsby J. and Naffziger D. (1997) An Examination of Owner’s Goals

in Sustaining Entrepreneurship, Journal of Small Business Management, January,
pp.24-33.
Leadbeater C. (1997) The Rise of the Social Entrepreneur. London: Demos.
Letts C., Ryan W. P. and Grossman A. (1999) Virtuous Capital: What Foundations can
learn from Venture Capitalists, Harvard Business Review, March/April, pp.2-7.
OECD. (1999) Social Enterprises. Paris: OECD.
OECD. (2003) The Non-Profit Sector in a Changing Economy. Paris: OECD.
OECD. (2003b) Entrepreneurship and Local Economic Development. Paris: OECD.
Paton R. (2003) Managing and Measuring Social Enterprises. London: Sage.
Pearce J. (2003) Social Enterprise in Anytown. London: Calouste Gulbenkian

Foundation.
Porter, Michael E. (1985) Competitive advantage: creating and sustaining superior

performance. New York: Free Press.
Putnam R. D. (2000) Bowling Alone, The Collapse and Revival of American

Community. New York: Touchstone.
Roberts Foundation. (1999) Social Purpose Enterprises and Venture Philanthropy in

the New Millennium, San Francisco, 1:2.
Salamon, Lester M. and Helmut K. Anheier. (1996) The Nonprofit Sector: A New
Global Force. Working Papers of the Johns Hopkins Comparative Nonprofit Sector
Project, 21, edited by Lester M. Salamon and Helmut K. Anheier. Baltimore: The
Johns Hopkins Institute for Policy Studies.
Schumpeter J. A. (1936) The Theory of Economic Development. Cambridge MA:

Harvard University Press. Reproduced in Entrepreneurship, Ed. M. Casson, 1990.
Aldershot: Edward Elgar, pp. 105-134.
Thompson J., Alvy G. and Lees A. (2000) Social Entrepreneurship – a new look at
people and potential, Management Decision, 38, 5, pp.328-338.
Wallace S. L. (1999) Social Entrepreneurship: The role of social purpose enterprises

in facilitating community economic development, Journal of Developmental
Entrepreneurship, 4, 2, pp.153-174.
Westall A., Ramsden P. and Foley J. (2000) Micro-entrepreneurs: creating enterprising

communities, Institute of Public Policy Research and New Economics Foundation.
Williams C. (2003) New Trends in Financing the Non-profit Sector in the United States.
In OECD, 2003, The Non-Profit Sector in a Changing Economy. Paris:OECD.
Young D. (1999) Non-profit management studies in the United States: Current

Development and future prospects, Journal of Public Affairs Education, 5, 1.
Young D. (2003) New trends in the US Non-profit sector: Towards market integration?
In OECD, 2003, The Non-Profit Sector in a Changing Economy. Paris: OECD.
This paper was presented at the Social Enterprise workshop, British Academy of
Management Annual Conference, St Andrews University, Scotland. To order reprints
please contact the author at 44 (0) 1223 766592 or e-mail [email protected]

This article has been cited by:
1. Katarzyna Cieslik. 2018. The quandaries of social entrepreneurship studies – a discursive review of the discipline. Review of
Social Economy 1, 1-25. [Crossref]
2. BullMike, Mike Bull. 2018. Reconceptualising social enterprise in the UK through an appreciation of legal identities.
International Journal of Entrepreneurial Behaviour & Research 24:3, 587-605. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
3. GranadosMaria Luisa, Maria Luisa Granados, RiveraAna Magdalena, Ana Magdalena Rivera. 2018. Assessing the value
dimensions of social enterprise networks. International Journal of Entrepreneurial Behaviour & Research 24:3, 734-754.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
4. PetrovskayaIrina, Irina Petrovskaya, MirakyanAraksya, Araksya Mirakyan. 2018. A mission of service: social entrepreneur as
a servant leader. International Journal of Entrepreneurial Behaviour & Research 24:3, 755-767. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
5. PalakshappaNitha, Nitha Palakshappa, GrantSuzanne, Suzanne Grant. 2018. Social enterprise and corporate social
responsibility. International Journal of Entrepreneurial Behaviour & Research 24:3, 606-625. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
6. Kevin McDermott, Elizabeth C. Kurucz, Barry A. Colbert. 2018. Social entrepreneurial opportunity and active stakeholder
participation: Resource mobilization in enterprising conveners of cross-sector social partnerships. Journal of Cleaner Production
183, 121-131. [Crossref]
7. Marianna Sigala. 2018. A market approach to social value co-creation. Marketing Theory 2, 147059311877220. [Crossref]
8. IlacEmerald Jay D., Emerald Jay D. Ilac. Exploring social enterprise leadership development through phenomenological
analysis. Social Enterprise Journal, ahead of print. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
9. Sean Patrick Sassmannshausen, Christine Volkmann. 2018. The Scientometrics of Social Entrepreneurship and Its
Establishment as an Academic Field. Journal of Small Business Management 56:2, 251-273. [Crossref]
10. Li Cai, Xiuqing Peng, Ling Wang. 2018. The characteristics and influencing factors of entrepreneurial behaviour: The case
of new state-owned firms in the new energy automobile industry in an emerging economy. Technological Forecasting and
Social Change . [Crossref]
11. David Littlewood, Diane Holt. 2018. Social Entrepreneurship in South Africa: Exploring the Influence of Environment.
Business & Society 57:3, 525-561. [Crossref]
12. JacksonBrad, Brad Jackson, NicollMatthew, Matthew Nicoll, RoyMichael J., Michael J. Roy. 2018. The distinctive challenges
and opportunities for creating leadership within social enterprises. Social Enterprise Journal 14:1, 71-91. [Abstract] [Full
Text] [PDF]
13. DohertyBob, Bob Doherty. 2018. Research in the Social Enterprise Journal – from the margins to the mainstream. Social
Enterprise Journal 14:1, 108-116. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
14. Martine Hlady-Rispal, Vinciane Servantie. 2018. Deconstructing the Way in which Value Is Created in the Context of Social
Entrepreneurship. International Journal of Management Reviews 20:1, 62-80. [Crossref]
15. Vanessa Ratten. System Processes in Sport Entrepreneurship 97-109. [Crossref]
16. Aalt COLENBRANDER, Aikaterini ARGYROU, Tineke LAMBOOY, Robert J. BLOMME. 2017. INCLUSIVE
GOVERNANCE IN SOCIAL ENTERPRISES IN THE NETHERLANDS - A CASE STUDY. Annals of Public and
Cooperative Economics 88:4, 543-566. [Crossref]
17. Farhana Ferdousi. Understanding Consumer Behavior toward Social Enterprise Products . [Crossref]
18. Rejoice Shumba. 2017. South Africa’s Community Work Programme as Social Entrepreneurship: A Sociological Perspective.
South African Review of Sociology 48:4, 82-100. [Crossref]
19. Muhammad Azizul Islam. 2017. Disclosures of Social Value Creation and Managing Legitimacy: A Case Study of Three
Global Social Enterprises. Australian Accounting Review 27:3, 297-314. [Crossref]
20. Mauksch Stefanie, Stefanie Mauksch, Dey Pascal, Pascal Dey, Rowe Mike, Mike Rowe, Teasdale Simon, Simon Teasdale.
2017. Ethnographies of social enterprise. Social Enterprise Journal 13:2, 114-127. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
21. SecundoGiustina, Giustina Secundo, SchiumaGiovanni, Giovanni Schiuma, PassianteGiuseppina, Giuseppina Passiante. 2017.
Entrepreneurial learning dynamics in knowledge-intensive enterprises. International Journal of Entrepreneurial Behaviour &
Research 23:3, 366-380. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
22. , , . 2017. The Relationship between Effective and Equitable Water Allocation, Local Rice Farmer Participation and Economic
Well-Being: Insights from Thailand’s Chiang Mai Province. Water 9:5, 319. [Crossref]
23. GranadosMaria L., Maria L. Granados, MohamedSouad, Souad Mohamed, HlupicVlatka, Vlatka Hlupic. 2017. Knowledge
management activities in social enterprises: lessons for small and non-profit firms. Journal of Knowledge Management 21:2,
376-396. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
24. Thomas G. Pittz, Laura T. Madden, David Mayo. 2017. Catalyzing Social Innovation: Leveraging Compassion and Open
Strategy in Social Entrepreneurship. New England Journal of Entrepreneurship 20:2, 37-52. [Abstract] [PDF]
25. ReinschRoger, Roger Reinsch, Jones, IIIRaymond J., Raymond J. Jones, III, SkalbergRandy, Randy Skalberg. 2017. The
Hobby Lobby decision: legal formation for social enterprises made easier. Social Enterprise Journal 13:1, 4-16. [Abstract]
[Full Text] [PDF]
26. Theodore Tarnanidis, Jason Papathanasiou, Demetres Subeniotis. 2017. How Far the TBL Concept of Sustainable
Entrepreneurship Extends Beyond the Various Sustainability Regulations: Can Greek Food Manufacturing Enterprises Sustain
Their Hybrid Nature Over Time?. Journal of Business Ethics . [Crossref]
27. Babita Bhatt, Israr Qureshi, Suhaib Riaz. 2017. Social Entrepreneurship in Non-munificent Institutional Environments and
Implications for Institutional Work: Insights from China. Journal of Business Ethics . [Crossref]
28. Karen Maas, Cecilia Grieco. 2017. Distinguishing game changers from boastful charlatans: Which social enterprises measure
their impact?. Journal of Social Entrepreneurship 8:1, 110-128. [Crossref]
29. Mun-Gyung Jeong. 2016. A Study on the Satisfaction Recognition of the Employees of the Social Enterprise in JeollaNamdo.
Journal of Digital Convergence 14:12, 133-140. [Crossref]
30. Allan Butler, Matt Lobley. 2016. Training as a social purpose: are economic and social benefits delivered?. International
Journal of Training and Development 20:4, 249-261. [Crossref]
31. Wendy L. Tate, Lydia Bals. 2016. Achieving Shared Triple Bottom Line (TBL) Value Creation: Toward a Social Resource-
Based View (SRBV) of the Firm. Journal of Business Ethics . [Crossref]
32. MswakaWalter, Walter Mswaka, Armindo dos Santos de SousaTeodósio, Teodósio Armindo dos Santos de Sousa, CaiHuifen,
Huifen Cai, LouwsMargie, Margie Louws. 2016. Understanding social enterprises in the United Kingdom: the case of South
Yorkshire. European Business Review 28:6, 676-689. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
33. Jennifer Ruskin, Richard G. Seymour, Cynthia M. Webster. 2016. Why Create Value for Others? An Exploration of Social
Entrepreneurial Motives. Journal of Small Business Management 54:4, 1015-1037. [Crossref]

34. DiochonMonica, Monica Diochon, GhoreYogesh, Yogesh Ghore. 2016. Contextualizing a social enterprise opportunity
process in an emerging market. Social Enterprise Journal 12:2, 107-130. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
35. Fredrik O. Andersson, Michael R. Ford. 2016. Social Entrepreneurship Through an Organizational Ecology Lens: Examining
the Emergence and Evolution of the Voucher School Population in Milwaukee. VOLUNTAS: International Journal of
Voluntary and Nonprofit Organizations 27:4, 1760-1780. [Crossref]
36. Lisbeth Lindström. 2016. The case of open leisure activities organized in Swedish local councils: The role of citizenship and
entrepreneurship skills development. Citizenship, Social and Economics Education 15:2, 104-116. [Crossref]
37. SigalaMarianna, Marianna Sigala. 2016. Learning with the market. International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality
Management 28:6, 1245-1286. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
38. Stela Valchovska, Gerald Watts. 2016. Interpreting Community-Based Enterprise: A Case Study from Rural Wales. Journal
of Social Entrepreneurship 7:2, 211-235. [Crossref]
39. Syed Abidur Rahman, Azlan Amran, Noor Hazlina Ahmad, Seyedeh Khadijeh Taghizadeh. 2016. Enhancing the Wellbeing
of Base of the Pyramid Entrepreneurs through Business Success: The Role of Private Organizations. Social Indicators Research
127:1, 195-216. [Crossref]
40. Ronit Yitshaki, Fredric Kropp. 2016. Motivations and Opportunity Recognition of Social Entrepreneurs. Journal of Small
Business Management 54:2, 546-565. [Crossref]
41. Ignacio De Los Ríos-Carmenado, Mauricio Ortuño, María Rivera. 2016. Private–Public Partnership as a Tool to Promote
Entrepreneurship for Sustainable Development: WWP Torrearte Experience. Sustainability 8:3, 199. [Crossref]
42. Karla I. Mendoza-Abarca, Hillary N. Mellema. 2016. Aligning economic and social value creation through pay-what-you-
want pricing. Journal of Social Entrepreneurship 7:1, 101-125. [Crossref]
43. J. Gregory Dees. Social Entrepreneurship 1-4. [Crossref]
44. Aikaterini Argyrou, Tineke Elisabeth Lambooy, Robert Jan Blomme, Henk Kievit, Guus Nieuwenhuijzen Kruseman, Duco
Hora Siccama. An Empirical Investigation of Supportive Legal Frameworks for Social Enterprises in Belgium: A Cross-
Sectoral Comparison of Case Studies Concerning Social Enterprises in the Social Housing, Finance and Energy Sector
151-185. [Crossref]
45. James Bostock, Richard Cooper, Gareth Roberts. Rising to the Challenge of Sustainability: Community Events by the
Community, for the Community 16-33. [Crossref]
46. Stuart James Richards. The Queer Film Festival as a Social Enterprise 99-142. [Crossref]
47. Mohammed Ziaul Hoque, Kulsuma Akter Nahid. 2015. Business format in social entrepreneurships for Bangladesh’s water
sector. Journal of Global Entrepreneurship Research 5:1. . [Crossref]
48. 박박박, Dong-Keun Yoo, Yong-Ki Lee. 2015. Effect of Perceived Value on Memories, Attitudes, and Loyalty: Social Enterprise
Products. Journal of Distribution Science 13:12, 73-84. [Crossref]
49. Barbara Imperatori, Dino Cataldo Ruta. 2015. Designing a social enterprise. Social Enterprise Journal 11:3, 321-346. [Abstract]
[Full Text] [PDF]
50. Rama Krishna Reddy Kummitha, Satyajit Majumdar. 2015. Dynamic curriculum development on social entrepreneurship –
A case study of TISS. The International Journal of Management Education 13:3, 260-267. [Crossref]
51. GARIMA GARIMA. 2015. Successful social entrepreneurship in India: Does higher education matters?.
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF COMMERCE AND BUSINESS MANAGEMENT 8:2, 274-279. [Crossref]
52. Fredrik O. Andersson, Michael Ford. 2015. Reframing Social Entrepreneurship Impact: Productive, Unproductive and
Destructive Outputs and Outcomes of the Milwaukee School Voucher Programme. Journal of Social Entrepreneurship 6:3,
299-319. [Crossref]
53. Sarah Easter, Mary Conway Dato-On. 2015. Bridging Ties Across Contexts to Scale Social Value: The Case of a Vietnamese
Social Enterprise. Journal of Social Entrepreneurship 6:3, 320-351. [Crossref]
54. Fara Azmat, Ahmed Shahriar Ferdous, Paul Couchman. 2015. Understanding the Dynamics Between Social Entrepreneurship
and Inclusive Growth in Subsistence Marketplaces. Journal of Public Policy & Marketing 34:2, 252-271. [Crossref]
55. Juita-Elena (Wie) Yusuf, Margaret F. Sloan. 2015. Effectual Processes in Nonprofit Start-Ups and Social Entrepreneurship.
The American Review of Public Administration 45:4, 417-435. [Crossref]
56. Boris Urban. 2015. An Exploratory Study on Outcomes of Social Enterprises in South Africa. Journal of Enterprising Culture
23:02, 271-297. [Crossref]
57. Sudheer Gupta, Stefanie Beninger, Jai Ganesh. 2015. A hybrid approach to innovation by social enterprises: lessons from
Africa. Social Enterprise Journal 11:1, 89-112. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
58. Adam Richards, John Reed. 2015. Social capital’s role in the development of volunteer-led cooperatives. Social Enterprise
Journal 11:1, 4-23. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

59. Colette Henry. 2015. Doing Well by Doing Good: Opportunity Recognition and the Social Enterprise Partnership. Journal
of Social Entrepreneurship 6:2, 137-160. [Crossref]
60. Yoonmi Choi, Oh,Hun-Seok, 박박박, 박박박, 박박박. 2015. 박박박박박박박박박 박박박박박 박박박박박 박박 박박. The Korean Journal of Human Resource
Development Quarterly 17:1, 189-221. [Crossref]
61. Yung-kai Yang, Shu-ling Wu. 2015. An Exploratory Study to Understand the Internationalization Strategies of Social
Enterprises. Journal of Social Entrepreneurship 6:1, 31-41. [Crossref]
62. Sri Rahayu Hijrah Hati, Aida Idris. 2014. Antecedents of customers’ intention to support Islamic social enterprises in
Indonesia. Asia Pacific Journal of Marketing and Logistics 26:5, 707-737. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
63. Shari Daya. 2014. Saving the Other: Exploring the social in social enterprise. Geoforum 57, 120-128. [Crossref]
64. Rachael Smith, Robin Bell, Helen Watts. 2014. Personality trait differences between traditional and social entrepreneurs.
Social Enterprise Journal 10:3, 200-221. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
65. Adesuwa Omorede. 2014. Exploration of motivational drivers towards social entrepreneurship. Social Enterprise Journal 10:3,
66. Urs P. Jäger, Andreas Schröer. 2014. Integrated Organizational Identity: A Definition of Hybrid Organizations and a Research
Agenda. VOLUNTAS: International Journal of Voluntary and Nonprofit Organizations 25:5, 1281-1306. [Crossref]
67. Ankita Tandon. 2014. Investigating learning in social enterprises: a boundary perspective. Social Enterprise Journal 10:2,
68. 박박박, Chul Woo Moon, Yuhyung Shin, 박박박. 2014. A Review of Social Entrepreneurship:Towards a Theory of Process
Perspectives. Journal of Strategic Management 17:2, 155-184. [Crossref]
69. Susan Marlow. 2014. Exploring future research agendas in the field of gender and entrepreneurship. International Journal of
Gender and Entrepreneurship 6:2, 102-120. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
70. Frédéric Dufays, Benjamin Huybrechts. 2014. Connecting the Dots for Social Value: A Review on Social Networks and Social
Entrepreneurship. Journal of Social Entrepreneurship 5:2, 214-237. [Crossref]
71. David Gras, Karla I. Mendoza-Abarca. 2014. Risky business? The survival implications of exploiting commercial opportunities
by nonprofits. Journal of Business Venturing 29:3, 392-404. [Crossref]
72. Nia Choi, Satyajit Majumdar. 2014. Social entrepreneurship as an essentially contested concept: Opening a new avenue for
systematic future research. Journal of Business Venturing 29:3, 363-376. [Crossref]
73. David Sarpong, Clayton Davies. 2014. Managerial organizing practices and legitimacy seeking in social enterprises. Social
74. Roberto Linzalone, Antonio Lerro. 2014. Between solidarism and business management: assessing management factors for
social enterprise: a survey in Italy. Measuring Business Excellence 18:1, 66-77. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
75. Seng P. Yeoh. Entrepreneurs in Private Higher Education: A Case Study of Education Entrepreneurs in a Middle Income
Economy 209-249. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] [PDF]
76. Juan Carlos Perez de Mendiguren Castresana. 2013. Social enterprise in the development agenda. Opening a new road map
or just a new vehicle to travel the same route?. Social Enterprise Journal 9:3, 247-268. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
77. Aida Idris, Rahayu Hijrah Hati. 2013. Social Entrepreneurship in Indonesia: Lessons from the Past. Journal of Social
Entrepreneurship 4:3, 277-301. [Crossref]
78. Dominic M. Chalmers, Eva Balan-Vnuk. 2013. Innovating not-for-profit social ventures: Exploring the microfoundations of
internal and external absorptive capacity routines. International Small Business Journal 31:7, 785-810. [Crossref]
79. Ross Millar, Kelly Hall. 2013. Social Return on Investment (SROI) and Performance Measurement. Public Management
Review 15:6, 923-941. [Crossref]
80. Rachel Doern, David Goss. 2013. From barriers to barring: Why emotion matters for entrepreneurial development.
International Small Business Journal 31:5, 496-519. [Crossref]
81. Othmar M. Lehner, Juha Kansikas. 2013. Pre-paradigmatic Status of Social Entrepreneurship Research: A Systematic
Literature Review. Journal of Social Entrepreneurship 4:2, 198-219. [Crossref]
82. Fara Azmat. 2013. Sustainable Development in Developing Countries: The Role of Social Entrepreneurs. International Journal
of Public Administration 36:5, 293-304. [Crossref]
83. Geoffrey Desa, Sandip Basu. 2013. Optimization or Bricolage? Overcoming Resource Constraints in Global Social
Entrepreneurship. Strategic Entrepreneurship Journal 7:1, 26-49. [Crossref]
84. Chris R. Meyer, Jeffrey Gauthier. 2013. Navigating Challenging Fitness Landscapes: Social Entrepreneurship and the
Competing Dimensions of Sustainability. Journal of Social Entrepreneurship 4:1, 23-39. [Crossref]
85. Rory Ridley‐Duff, Cliff Southcombe. 2012. The Social Enterprise Mark: a critical review of its conceptual dimensions. Social
86. Toyah L. Miller, Matthew G. Grimes, Jeffery S. McMullen, Timothy J. Vogus. 2012. Venturing for Others with Heart and
Head: How Compassion Encourages Social Entrepreneurship. Academy of Management Review 37:4, 616-640. [Crossref]
87. Aparna Katre, Paul Salipante. 2012. Start-Up Social Ventures: Blending Fine-Grained Behaviors From Two Institutions for
Entrepreneurial Success. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice 36:5, 967-994. [Crossref]
88. Charlene Zietsma, Richard Tuck. 2012. First, Do No Harm: Evaluating Resources for Teaching Social Entrepreneurship.
Academy of Management Learning & Education 11:3, 512-517. [Crossref]
89. 2012. A comprehensive understanding of Social and Sustainable Entrepreneurship. Management Decision 50:4, 744-748.
[Citation] [Full Text]
90. Janina von der Weppen, Janet Cochrane. 2012. Social enterprises in tourism: an exploratory study of operational models and
success factors. Journal of Sustainable Tourism 20:3, 497-511. [Crossref]
91. 박박박, 박박박, 박박박. 2012. A Theoretical Analysis on Social Enterprise's Formation Strategy on Local Community Resources
–Focusing on Reestablishing Networks and Sustainable Development-. The Korean Governance Review 19:1, 125-151.
[Crossref]
92. Edward Nissan, Maria-Soledad Castaño, Inmaculada Carrasco. 2012. Drivers of non-profit activity: a cross-country analysis.
Small Business Economics 38:3, 303-320. [Crossref]
93. Dorothy M Kirkman. 2012. Social enterprises: An multi-level framework of the innovation adoption process. Innovation:
Management, Policy & Practice 14:1, 143-155. [Crossref]
94. O. M. Lehner, J. Kansikas. 2012. Opportunity Recognition in Social Entrepreneurship: A Thematic Meta Analysis. Journal
of Entrepreneurship 21:1, 25-58. [Crossref]
95. Per Blenker, Steffen Korsgaard, Helle Neergaard, Claus Thrane. 2011. The Questions We Care About: Paradigms and
Progression in Entrepreneurship Education. Industry and Higher Education 25:6, 417-427. [Crossref]
96. Maria L. Granados, Vlatka Hlupic, Elayne Coakes, Souad Mohamed. 2011. Social enterprise and social entrepreneurship
research and theory. Social Enterprise Journal 7:3, 198-218. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
97. Steffen Korsgaard. 2011. Opportunity formation in social entrepreneurship. Journal of Enterprising Communities: People and
Places in the Global Economy 5:4, 265-285. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
98. S. Bacq, F. Janssen. 2011. The multiple faces of social entrepreneurship: A review of definitional issues based on geographical
and thematic criteria. Entrepreneurship & Regional Development 23:5-6, 373-403. [Crossref]
99. Courtenay Sprague, Stu Woolman. 2011. VidaGás: delivering better health to Northern Mozambique with LPG. Journal of
Enterprising Communities: People and Places in the Global Economy 5:1, 41-57. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
100. Othmar M. Lehner. 2011. The Phenomenon of Social Enterprise in Austria: A Triangulated Descriptive Study. Journal of
Social Entrepreneurship 2:1, 53-78. [Crossref]
101. Monica Diochon, Alistair R. Anderson. 2011. Ambivalence and ambiguity in social enterprise; narratives about values in
reconciling purpose and practices. International Entrepreneurship and Management Journal 7:1, 93-109. [Crossref]
102. Chitvan Trivedi, Daniel Stokols. 2011. Social Enterprises and Corporate Enterprises. The Journal of Entrepreneurship 20:1,
1-32. [Crossref]
103. Monica Diochon, Gabrielle Durepos, Alistair R. Anderson. Understanding Opportunity in Social Entrepreneurship as
Paradigm Interplay 73-110. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] [PDF]
104. David Gras, Elaine Mosakowski, G.T. Lumpkin. Gaining Insights from Future Research Topics in Social Entrepreneurship:
A Content-Analytic Approach 25-50. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] [PDF]
105. Matt Grimes. 2010. Strategic Sensemaking Within Funding Relationships: The Effects of Performance Measurement on
Organizational Identity in the Social Sector. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice 34:4, 763-783. [Crossref]
106. Chantal Hervieux, Eric Gedajlovic, Marie‐France B. Turcotte. 2010. The legitimization of social entrepreneurship. Journal
of Enterprising Communities: People and Places in the Global Economy 4:1, 37-67. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
107. Chitvan Trivedi. 2010. Towards a Social Ecological Framework for Social Entrepreneurship. The Journal of Entrepreneurship
19:1, 63-80. [Crossref]
108. Chitvan Trivedi. 2010. A Social Entrepreneurship Bibliography. The Journal of Entrepreneurship 19:1, 81-85. [Crossref]
109. Monica Diochon, Alistair R. Anderson. 2009. Social enterprise and effectiveness: a process typology. Social Enterprise Journal
5:1, 7-29. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
110. Dan van der Horst. 2008. Social enterprise and renewable energy: emerging initiatives and communities of practice. Social
111. Yoeng‐Taak Lee, Jae‐Young Moon. 2008. An Exploratory Study on the Balanced Scorecard Model of Social Enterprise. Asian
Journal on Quality 9:2, 11-30. [Abstract] [PDF]
112. Rory Ridley‐Duff. 2008. Social enterprise as a socially rational business. International Journal of Entrepreneurial Behaviour &
Research 14:5, 291-312. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

113. Tim Curtis. 2008. Finding that grit makes a pearl. International Journal of Entrepreneurial Behaviour & Research 14:5, 276-290.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
114. Ken Peattie, Adrian Morley. 2008. Eight paradoxes of the social enterprise research agenda. Social Enterprise Journal 4:2,
115. Mike Bull, Helen Crompton, Dilani Jayawarna. 2008. Coming from the heart (the road is long). Social Enterprise Journal
4:2, 108-125. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
116. Breda McCarthy. 2008. Case study of an artists' retreat in Ireland: an exploration of its business model. Social Enterprise
Journal 4:2, 136-148. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
117. 박박박. 2008. A Study on a Case of Social Enterprise in the U.K. and Some Implications for Korea. Social Welfare Policy null:33,
135-157. [Crossref]
118. Kean Birch, Geoff Whittam. 2008. The Third Sector and the Regional Development of Social Capital. Regional Studies 42:3,
437-450. [Crossref]
119. Jane Gibbon, Arthur Affleck. 2008. Social enterprise resisting social accounting: reflecting on lived experiences. Social
120. Suzanne Grant. 2008. Contextualising social enterprise in New Zealand. Social Enterprise Journal 4:1, 9-23. [Abstract] [Full
Text] [PDF]
121. Mike Bull. 2007. “Balance”: the development of a social enterprise business performance analysis tool. Social Enterprise Journal
3:1, 49-66. [Abstract] [PDF]
122. Rory Ridley-Duff. 2007. Communitarian Perspectives on Social Enterprise. Corporate Governance: An International Review
15:2, 382-392. [Crossref]
123. Clare Sharpen. 2006. Social enterprise under the microscope: comparing and contrasting Green‐Works and ReBoot. Social
Enterprise Journal 2:1, 101-113. [Abstract] [PDF]
124. Salaheddine M. Chukri. Social and Civic Entrepreneurship in Lebanon and the Middle East 1037-1050. [Crossref]
125. Philippe W. Zgheib. Cooperative Entrepreneurship in the Middle East 21-36. [Crossref]
126. Salaheddine M. Chukri. Social and Civic Entrepreneurship in Lebanon and the Middle East 267-285. [Crossref]
127. In Lee. A Social Enterprise Business Model and a Case Study of Pacific Community Ventures (PCV) 182-204. [Crossref]
128. Leona Achtenhagen, Bengt Henoch, Quang Luong. The Role of ICT in Supporting Transnational Diaspora
Entrepreneurship 1442-1459. [Crossref]
129. Kowtha Rao, Rajesh Rajaguru. Legitimacy Acquisition and Social Enterprises 405-416. [Crossref]
130. Leona Achtenhagen, Bengt Henoch, Quang Luong. The Role of ICT in Supporting Transnational Diaspora
Entrepreneurship 148-164. [Crossref]

A Research Agenda For Social Entrepreneurship

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

A Research Agenda For Social Entrepreneurship

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

A research agenda for

Dr. Helen Haugh is Course Director at the Judge Institute of Management

The dynamism and vitality of entrepreneurship research is reflected in the

focus of this paper is social entrepreneurship - those activities associated with

This paper categorises the social entrepreneurship research agenda into

Social Enterprise Journal 1

In Europe, the EMES network (see endnote 1) was established in 1996 to

DEFINING THE SCOPE OF SOCIAL ENTREPRENEURSHIP

The social entrepreneurship research arena is hindered by the many

2 Social Enterprise Journal

be retained in the organisation and/or community, either as direct services or

A shared understanding of the meaning of social enterprise is useful as

Social Enterprise Journal 3

Building on a shared understanding of social enterprise, it is submitted that

THE ENVIRONMENTAL CONTEXT

The environmental context refers to the political, economic, social, cultural

for revitalising disadvantaged communities by improving the skills of the

Nationally, Government preference for privatisation, decentralisation and

An alternative explanation for the increased interest in social enterprises

4 Social Enterprise Journal

OPPORTUNITY RECOGNITION AND INNOVATION

For social enterprises, there are many opportunities to address disadvantage,

Social Enterprise Journal 5

Innovation might also be pursued internally in their management, structure and

Social enterprises operate in many areas of the economy and assume a

international comparisons unreliable. The Johns Hopkins Comparative Non-

To successfully exploit an opportunity, an entrepreneur will need to garner and

Social enterprises require finance to fund complex, low-profit activities and

6 Social Enterprise Journal

The process of creating an enterprise to exploit an opportunity will involve

The decentralisation and privatisation of social services has created

Social Enterprise Journal 7

The drive to be more entrepreneurial presents a managerial challenge in that

Research that explored the managerial structure, skills and competencies

Networks play a supporting role for organisations and as social enterprises

Social enterprises are established to address complex problems and, for

8 Social Enterprise Journal

At the level of the firm, a standard performance measure of for-profit

and commercial sources. As yet, evaluation tools to measure outputs and

In addition, it is also important to acknowledge that some social enterprises

Social Enterprise Journal 9

TRAINING, EDUCATION AND LEARNING ABOUT SOCIAL ENTREPRENEURSHIP

In the last thirty years, mainstream entrepreneurship education has become

Southampton Universities offer postgraduate courses in social and community

10 Social Enterprise Journal

1. EMES (L’émergence des enterprises sociales, réponse novatrice à l’exclusion

Austin J. (2000) The Collaboration Challenge. San Francisco: Jossey Bass.

Borzaga C. and Defourny J. (2001) The Emergence of Social Enterprise. London:

Bygrave W. D. and Hofer C., 1991, Theorising about Entrepreneurship,

Dees J. G. and Anderson B. B. (2003) For-Profit Social Ventures. In Social

Kuratko D., Hornsby J. and Naffziger D. (1997) An Examination of Owner’s Goals

Social Enterprise Journal 11

Leadbeater C. (1997) The Rise of the Social Entrepreneur. London: Demos.

OECD. (1999) Social Enterprises. Paris: OECD.

OECD. (2003) The Non-Profit Sector in a Changing Economy. Paris: OECD.

OECD. (2003b) Entrepreneurship and Local Economic Development. Paris: OECD.

Paton R. (2003) Managing and Measuring Social Enterprises. London: Sage.

Pearce J. (2003) Social Enterprise in Anytown. London: Calouste Gulbenkian

Porter, Michael E. (1985) Competitive advantage: creating and sustaining superior

Putnam R. D. (2000) Bowling Alone, The Collapse and Revival of American

Roberts Foundation. (1999) Social Purpose Enterprises and Venture Philanthropy in

Schumpeter J. A. (1936) The Theory of Economic Development. Cambridge MA: