Rev Manag Sci (2014) 8:275–292 DOI 10.1007/s11846-013-0104-6 REVIEW PAPER
Social Entrepreneurship: An exploratory citation analysis Sascha Kraus • Matthias Filser • Michele O’Dwyer Eleanor Shaw
•
Received: 9 October 2012 / Accepted: 15 April 2013 / Published online: 28 April 2013 Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2013
Abstract Research on Social Entrepreneurship became a growing field of interest during the past decades. However, as the heterogeneity of investigated topics is rather large the purpose of this contribution is to provide an overview of the current state of research on Social Entrepreneurship. In doing so previous research is structured to identify major contributions and thereby key discussion lines within this field. Based on a bibliometric citation analysis of 129 core papers and 5,228 cited references, five topic clusters are identified within the field of Social Entrepreneurship: 1) Definitions and conceptual approaches, 2) Impetus, 3) Personality, 4) Impact and performance, and 5) Future research agenda. By reflecting the literature of each discussion line, a framework for the advancement of Social Entrepreneurship research is provided. Keywords Bibliometrics Citation analysis Social Entrepreneurship Entrepreneurship JEL Classification
L26 M14
S. Kraus (&) University of Liechtenstein, Fu¨rst-Franz-Josef-Strasse, 9490 Vaduz, Liechtenstein e-mail:
[email protected] M. Filser University of Turku, Turku, Finland M. Filser Utrecht University School of Economics, Utrecht, The Netherlands M. O’Dwyer University of Limerick, Limerick, Ireland E. Shaw University of Strathclyde Business School, Glasgow, UK
123
276
S. Kraus et al.
1 Introduction Social Entrepreneurship is an innovative field of scientific research which, as evidenced by the growing number of publications on the topic, is becoming recognized as a dominant discourse within entrepreneurship research. The past 10 years in particular have witnessed a worldwide, unprecedented surge in interest in the topic (Bornstein 2004), encouraged by significant political, economic and environmental changes in a dynamic global environment which have encouraged policy makers, environmentalists and disadvantaged communities to turn to social entrepreneurs in a search for more innovative, sustainable solutions to tackling the root causes of poverty and related problems created by inequality and the uneven distribution of the world’s wealth (Nicholls 2006; Shaw et al. 2011). ‘‘In a world that faces many social challenges and governments that in many cases are unable to provide solutions, motivated social entrepreneurs are often key to improving socially challenging situations’’ (Sassmannshausen and Volkmann 2013, p. 3). In tandem with growing policy, practitioner and public interest in alternative approaches to sustainable economic development, academic researchers have become increasingly interested in investigating such approaches, particularly the manifestation of entrepreneurial behaviors and practices within the context of social rather than personal gain (see Fig. 1). This article presents an exploratory citation analysis illustrating the extent to which Social Entrepreneurship has, to date, been the object of scientific research. This study contributes to the body of literature by identifying key research topics, influential papers and researchers, and highlights opportunities for a future research agenda. The paper discusses the concept of Social Entrepreneurship, highlighting alternative definitions, considering sources of Social Entrepreneurship, and the attributes of social entrepreneurs. Following this the methodology adopted is explored before findings are discussed. This exploratory analysis identifies 20 researchers/research groups as influential to the development of research on the topic of Social Entrepreneurship. The paper concludes by
Fig. 1 Number of articles per year
123
Social Entrepreneurship
277
identifying research gaps and suggesting a research agenda to advance knowledge of the theory and practice of social entrepreneurs and the process of Social Entrepreneurship.
2 Bibliometric survey: citation analysis To date there have been few bibliometric studies in the field of entrepreneurship (e.g., Gregoire et al. 2006; Reader and Watkins 2006; Schildt et al. 2006; Dos Santos et al. 2011; Kraus et al. 2011), moreover in the field of Social Entrepreneurship, to the knowledge of the authors, only three content analysis studies have been conducted so far (Danko and Brunner 2010; Cukier et al. 2011; Danko et al. 2011). This study explores definitions of Social Entrepreneurship, illustrates empirical insights and identifies the most influential publications. Findings are clustered in order to facilitate incisive discussion enabling a deeper understanding of this research by investigating every available double-blind reviewed publication published so far containing the terms ‘‘social entrepreneur(s)’’ or ‘‘social entrepreneurship’’ in its title. 2.1 Method The method used in this paper is a bibliometric survey which involves a citation analysis that investigates authors, journals, and the sources therein. Citation analysis is based on the premise that citations provide a valid and reliable indication of the scientific interaction between researchers and research institutions. Furthermore it is assumed that bibliographical references reflect interconnections between scholars and make conjunctions of scientific conceptions visible (Small 1978; Garfield 1979). With the help of the citation analysis, relationships between authors respective publications are investigated. In doing so the most cited/influential sources used by the publications analyzed are identified, the purpose of a citation analysis is the delineation of different author groups, also known as clusters (Chen and Carr 1999), which are based on the finding that authors cite other authors who write on the same topic. Connections can be established via these interrelationships, illustrating that the stronger the connections, the greater the interest is in the respective topic (Brew and Lucas 2009). The first step in a citation analysis is the collation of published material following which the relationship between studies is explored, noting the frequency of citations. This study used databases such as Emerald, EBSCO, ProQuest, ScienceDirect and Google Scholar undertaking a title search with the terms ‘‘social entrepreneur(s)’’ or ‘‘social entrepreneurship’’ which gave a total of 129 usable articles with 5,228 references. In line with studies by Leonidou et al. (2010), Pre´vot et al. (2010), Kraus et al. (2012), or Gundolf and Filser (2013), this study focuses on the Top 20 most cited articles.
123
278
S. Kraus et al.
2.2 Results The most influential publication on Social Entrepreneurship research and concomitantly topical clusters identified within this framework are exposed and categorized into five clusters underpinned by seminal publications in Entrepreneurship, Business and Management. This grouping of seminal publications depicts a theoretical background which serves as the starting point for the emergence of Social Entrepreneurship as a research field (Fig. 2). Within this grouping four key authors provide insights into entrepreneurship theory: Dees (2001) (48 citations), Schumpeter (1934) (16 citations), Shane and Venkataraman (2000) (16 citations) and Drucker (1985) (13 citations). Dees’ (2001) article ‘‘The Meaning of Social Entrepreneurship’’ was cited 48 times, making it the most-cited source in this grouping. The aim of the article was to answer the question of what Social Entrepreneurship really is given that the terminology of ‘‘social entrepreneurship’’ has only recently been applied and not universally agreed upon. Dees’ (2001) definition of Social Entrepreneurship, based on publications by Say (1803), Schumpeter (1934) and Drucker (1985), identifies that the social entrepreneur displays the following characteristics and/or roles within the social sector: (1) taking on a task to create social value, (2) recognizing and taking advantage of opportunities, (3) providing a continual process of innovation, acclimation, and learning, (4) acting without worrying about limited resources, and (5) showing an increased level of accountability for the outcomes he/she has created. Shane and Venkataraman (2000) and Schumpeter (1934) are the next most-cited authors in this grouping. Shane and Venkataraman’s (2000, p. 217) article ‘‘The Promise of Entrepreneurship as a Field of Research’’, discusses the field of entrepreneurship as a research discipline. Based on existing studies, a ‘‘conceptual framework’’ is created to justify empirical phenomena and improve the quality of Fig. 2 Seminal publications in entrepreneurship, business and management
123
Social Entrepreneurship
279
research. This was the first paper to provide a definition of entrepreneurship as ‘‘the scholarly examination of how, by whom, and with what effects opportunities to create future goods and services are discovered, evaluated, and exploited’’ (Shane and Venkataraman 2000, p. 218). This definition involves the investigation of sources of opportunities; the process of discovery, evaluation, and maximization of opportunities; as well as the individuals needed to accomplish this. Shane and Venkataraman (2000) also describe how entrepreneurship should be researched; why entrepreneurial opportunities exist; and how, and by whom, these are discovered. Schumpeter’s (1934) The Theory of Economic Development is the oldest source within the citation analysis; discussing the maximization of opportunities and consideration of how entrepreneurs are able to revolutionize production structures. Drucker’s (1985) book Innovation and Entrepreneurship is another reference found in this cluster (cited thirteen times) providing insights into the question of what entrepreneurship is, and how innovation is presented. In his definition of entrepreneurship, Drucker (1985) describes individuals who recognize opportunities and use them to effect change. ‘‘Entrepreneurs see change as the norm and as healthy. Usually, they do not bring about the changes themselves. But—and this defines entrepreneur and entrepreneurship—the entrepreneur always searches for change, responds to it and exploits it as an opportunity’’ (Drucker 1985, p. 28). Because Drucker (1985, p. 26) sees innovation and the market as essential economic functions, he also argues that entrepreneurs are both market focused and market controlled, concluding that ‘‘Entrepreneurship then, is behavior rather than personality trait. And its foundation lies in concept and theory rather than in intuition’’. In the context of these statements, Drucker (1985) identifies seven sources of innovative opportunities including (1) the unexpected, (2) incongruities, (3) innovation based on process need, (4) changes in industry or market structure, (5) demographics, (6) changes in perception, mood, and meaning, (7) new knowledge - the first four sources of innovation can be attributed to a company or industry, but the last three cannot. 2.3 Cluster formation Having explored a citation analysis of the literature upon which Social Entrepreneurship is based, the Top 20 most cited publications in Social Entrepreneurship have been determined. These 20 publications are categorized in Table 1 according to topics, and sorted in descending order based on the number of citations. This analysis establishes five clusters which facilitates a grouping of the subtopics investigated within the field of Social Entrepreneurship. Figure 3 depicts this analysis and illustrates the foundational articles (solely the ones that cited at least one of the 20 most-cited publications) in a circular framework with the 20 mostcited authors and author groups found within the circle clustered around sub-topics (Cluster 1: Social Entrepreneurship—Definitions and conceptual approaches; Cluster 2: Social Entrepreneurship—Impetus; Cluster 3: Social Entrepreneurship—Personality; Cluster 4: Social Entrepreneurship—Impact and performance, and Cluster 5: Social Entrepreneurship—Future research agenda). The lines
123
280
S. Kraus et al.
Table 1 Topical clusters of the most influential publications on Social Entrepreneurship Author(s)
Years
Title
Journal
Ref type
Cites
Paper
48
Seminal publications in entrepreneurship, business and management Dees
2001
The Meaning of Social Entrepreneurship
Schumpeter
1934
The Theory of Economic Development
Shane, Venkataraman
2000
The promise of entrepreneurship as a field of research
Drucker
1985
Innovation and entrepreneurship
Academy of Management Review
Book
16
Article
16
Book
13
Cluster 1: Social Entrepreneurship—Definitions and conceptual approaches Dees
1998
Enterprising nonprofits
Harvard Business Review
Article
28
Austin, Stevenson, WeiSkillern
2006
Social and Commercial Entrepreneurship: Same, different, or both?
Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice
Article
27
Weerawardena, Sullivan Mort
2006
Investigating Social Entrepreneurship: A multi-dimensional model
Journal of World Business
Article
18
Martin, Osberg
2007
Social Entrepreneurship: The Case for Definition
Stanford Social Innovation Review
Article
17
Sullivan Mort, Weerawardena, Carnegie
2003
Social Entrepreneurship: Towards conceptualization
International Journal of Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Marketing
Article
17
Cluster 2: Social Entrepreneurship—Impetus Bornstein
2004
How to Change the World: Social Entrepreneurs and the Power of New Ideas
Book
35
Dees, Emerson, Economy
2001
Enterprising Nonprofits: A Toolkit for Social Entrepreneurs
Book
15
Waddock, Post
1991
Social entrepreneurs and catalytic change
Public Administration Review
Article
15
Cluster 3: Social Entrepreneurship—Personality Leadbeater
1997
The Rise of the Social Entrepreneur
Book
35
Thompson, Alvy, Lees
2000
Social Entrepreneurship: A new look at the people and the potential
Management Decision
Article
26
Thompson
2002
The world of the social entrepreneur
International Journal of Public Sector Management
Article
23
Cluster 4: Social Entrepreneurship—Impact and performance Alvord, Brown, Letts
2004
Social Entrepreneurship and Societal Transformation: An Exploratory Study
Journal of Applied Behavioral Science
Article
33
Dart
2004
The legitimacy of social enterprise
Nonprofit Management and Leadership
Article
15
Cluster 5: Social Entrepreneurship—Future research agenda Mair, Marti
2006
Social Entrepreneurship research: A source of explanation, prediction, and delight
Journal of World Business
Article
23
Peredo, McLean
2006
Social Entrepreneurship: A critical review of the concept
Journal of World Business
Article
17
Nicholls
2006
Social Entrepreneurship: New Model of Sustainable Social Change
Book
13
123
Social Entrepreneurship
281
Fig. 3 Citation analysis overview—Results
between the articles and references highlight the interrelations between the analyzed articles and the cited sources. The numbers in the box next to the influential authors indicate the number of citations. 2.3.1 Cluster 1: Social Entrepreneurship—Definitions and conceptual approaches Building on entrepreneurship theory, the second cluster addresses the theoretical foundations of Social Entrepreneurship, four key articles are identified; notably the oldest reference from this cluster is from 1998 (Fig. 4). Authors found in this cluster include Dees (1998) (28 citations), Austin et al. (2006) (27 citations), Weerawardena and Sullivan Mort (2006) (18 citations), Martin and Osberg (2007) (17 citations), and Sullivan Mort et al. (2003) (17 citations). Dees (1998) is the most-cited author in this cluster with his article ‘‘Enterprising Nonprofits,’’ which was cited 28 times. This article focuses on identifying new sources of finance for nonprofit organizations in light of a turbulent economy. Subsidies from public organizations that were once considered to be stable sources of funds, along with donations by private individuals, are no longer sufficient means of finance for an organization; therefore commercialization is an increasing priority to combat rising costs and competition in the face of decreased donations and government subsidies. Dees (1998, p. 56) notes ‘‘A new pro-business zeitgeist has made for-profit initiatives more acceptable in the nonprofit world’’. Social entrepreneurs indeed face a dynamic environment where nonprofit organizations
123
282
S. Kraus et al.
Fig. 4 Cluster 1: Social Entrepreneurship—Definitions and conceptual approaches
increasingly behave like profit-oriented companies as they strive to generate more income via additional business activities. Dees (1998) concludes that the challenge is found in achieving the right mixture of philanthropic and commercial thinking. For example, a mixture between donations and market capital can be achieved; and the staff of an organization can be a mix of volunteers and salaried workers. Successful nonprofit companies need to ‘‘pull out their entire bag of tricks’’ to put the right ideas into place at the right time (Dees 1998). ‘‘Social and Commercial Entrepreneurship: Same, Different, or Both?’’ by Austin et al. (2006) is the second most cited article in this cluster. This article is cited 27 times, and contains a comparative analysis of commercial and Social Entrepreneurship that applies a Social Entrepreneurship model which includes not only capital, but additional influential factors. Austin et al. (2006) generate a working definition of Social Entrepreneurship identifying that it is an innovative activity creating social value that can be applied in, and for, nonprofit, commercial, or public sectors (Austin et al. 2006). In their article, Martin and Osberg (2007) (17 citations) reflect different definitional attempts and categorize prevailing facets of Social Entrepreneurship. To provide a clear distinction between Entrepreneurship and Social Entrepreneurship the authors argue that the critical difference is the value proposition. In other words ‘‘the social entrepreneur aims for value in the form of large-scale, transformational benefit that accrues either to a significant segment of society or to society at large’’ (Martin and Osberg 2007, pp. 34–35). However, with the aim of achieving definition of Social Entrepreneurship, three components are recognized in this paper: (1) the identification of a fundamentally unbiased equilibrium that causes the elimination, relegation or suffering of humanitarian aspects by lacking of financial or political means to foster a transformative benefit itself, (2) the identification of an opportunity through which a social value proposition is developed that fosters ‘‘inspiration, creativity, direct action, courage, and fortitude’’ (Martin and Osberg 2007, p. 39) and thereby challenges the state’s hegemony, and finally, (3) the elaboration of a novel, consistent equilibrium that promotes concealed potential to
123
Social Entrepreneurship
283
generate a stable ecosystem through which a better prospect for the individual, group or on a larger scale, the society, is ensured. Finally the authors distinguish two of social venture types: social service provision and social activism. The difference between the two is the scale on which Social Entrepreneurship is carried out. While social service provision is based on the direct action of an individual, social activism is about influencing others to take action. Sullivan Mort et al. (2003) (17 citations) present a conceptualization of Social Entrepreneurship as establish of a multi-dimensional model behaviors and attitudes with a virtuous dimension. Next to entrepreneurial behaviors in the decision-making process, such as opportunity recognition, risk tolerance and judgment capacity it is argued that socially entrepreneurial virtue is achieved by ‘‘positive, morally good values such as love, integrity, honesty and empathy’’ (Sullivan Mort et al. 2003, p. 83). In other words, an entrepreneur becomes a social entrepreneur by exerting entrepreneurial as well as virtuous behaviors and consequently creates social value for an organization that is superior to its competition. The final article in this cluster by Weerawardena and Sullivan Mort (2006) (15 citations) further develops the multi-dimensional model of Social Entrepreneurship. Concomitantly they conceptualized questions to determine the social and entrepreneurial behavior found within an organization. Therefore a working definition of Social Entrepreneurship was developed as ‘‘a behavioral phenomenon expressed in a NFP organization context aimed at delivering social value thorough the exploitation of perceived opportunities’’ (Weerawardena and Sullivan Mort 2006, p. 25). Using key entrepreneurial aspects as innovativeness, proactiveness, and risk management, the authors add the interaction with sustainability, the social mission, and environmental factors to their model. It is argued that, ‘‘Social entrepreneurship is thus identified as a behavioral phenomenon operating within constraints’’ (Weerawardena and Sullivan Mort 2006, p. 33). The outcome of the multidimensional SE model can be summarized by: SVC = f (I, P, RM) subject to S, SM, E SVC: social value creation; I: innovativeness; P: proactiveness; RM: risk management; S: sustainability; SM: social mission; E: environment. 2.3.2 Cluster 2: Social Entrepreneurship—Impetus The second cluster ‘‘Social Entrepreneurship—Impetus’’ contains articles by Bornstein (2004) (35 citations), Dees et al. (2001) (15 citations) and Waddock and Post (1991) (15 citations), addressing the motivating elements found within the Social Entrepreneurship realm, and include practical aspects as well as theoretical implications (Fig. 5). A highly influential work in this citation analysis is Bornstein’s (2004) book ‘‘How to Change the World’’, cited 35 times, it was the joint second-most-cited source within the analysis. Bornstein (2004) provides insight into the practical implementation of Social Entrepreneurship by using international examples of social entrepreneurs who are attempting to make the lives of other people better. Bornstein (2004, p. 1) describes these individuals as ‘‘people with new ideas to address major problems who are relentless in the pursuit of their visions, people who
123
284
S. Kraus et al.
Fig. 5 Cluster 2: Social Entrepreneurship—Impetus
simply will not take ‘no’ for an answer, who will not give up until they have spread their ideas as far as they possibly can’’. Some of the examples mentioned include help organizations for AIDS patients in South Africa; college admission for lowincome students in North America; communities for the homeless in Europe; or the well-known Grameen Bank in Asia which provides micro-credit to people from poor backgrounds. The message Bornstein (2004) seeks to convey is that Social Entrepreneurship possesses the potential to promote important changes in society. Dees et al. (2001), appear in this cluster with their book ‘‘Enterprising Nonprofits: A Toolkit for Social Entrepreneurs’’ which was cited 15 times, and describes key elements of Social Entrepreneurship. The authors discuss familiar elements of Social Entrepreneurship such as the incorporation of mission and innovation, as well as resources and customers. The theoretical and practical aspects are also addressed (Dees et al. 2001). The final article in this cluster ‘‘Social Entrepreneurs and Catalytic Change’’ by Waddock and Post (1991) is the oldest reference in the Social Entrepreneurship realm and was cited 15 times. The discussion on the emergence of, and attempt at, defining entrepreneurship looks at the cooperation between private and public sectors. The central issue addressed deals with leadership qualities, noting three challenges that social entrepreneurs need to overcome: complexity, credibility, and commitment (Waddock and Post 1991). 2.3.3 Cluster 3: Social Entrepreneurship—Personality The three primary authors in this cluster—Leadbeater (1997) (35 citations), Thompson (2002) (23 citations) and Thompson et al. (2000) (26 citations)—focus on the social entrepreneur as a person. Of note here is the high number of total citations of these three articles, indicating the interest in this particular aspect of Social Entrepreneurship (Fig. 6). With 35 citations, The rise of the social entrepreneur by Leadbeater (1997) is the joint second-most-cited source in this analysis. Leadbeater’s (1997) discussion has a primarily practical foundation as he addresses the topic of Social Entrepreneurship with an eye on the past while at the same time looking at the changing
123
Social Entrepreneurship
285
Fig. 6 Cluster 3: Social Entrepreneurship—Personality
circumstances of today’s economy. He sees these changes as stimuli for the emergence of Social Entrepreneurship and provides three sources that might represent the origin of Social Entrepreneurship. The ‘‘public sector,’’ the ‘‘private sector,’’ and the ‘‘voluntary sector.’’ Supported by five case studies, Leadbeater (1997) describes social entrepreneurs as people who are ‘‘entrepreneurial,’’ ‘‘innovative,’’ and ‘‘transformatory.’’ displaying entrepreneurial thinking as they apply unused resources to meet unmet demands. They are also innovative in the creation of new products and services. Finally, social entrepreneurs possess the ability to transform company structures in such a way that they become dynamic and creative. The interplay of the different sectors (private, public, and volunteer) represents an opportunity that should be highlighted and promoted (Leadbeater 1997). Cited 26 times, the article published by Thompson et al. (2000) ‘‘Social entrepreneurship—a new look at the people and the potential’’ looks at the decisive role of the social entrepreneur, albeit with a focus on the private sector. As with the other authors in this cluster, Thompson et al. (2000) begin with a definition of Social Entrepreneurship, and take a closer look at its key elements as they conclude that social entrepreneurs create something innovative to form social capital; a process undertaken by a visionary who possesses the necessary leadership competencies. Thompson et al. (2000, p. 329) note that entrepreneurship has the following three key elements: ‘‘1 a vision; 2 someone with leadership skills who can operationalize the vision/which often involves finding a suitable partner, engaging the support of a range of, sometimes voluntary, helpers and dealing with the inevitable setbacks (…); and 3 a will to build something which will grow and endure’’. Thompson (2002) (23 citations) also presents the article ‘‘The world of the social entrepreneur’’, which determines to what degree social entrepreneurs can improve the life situations of disadvantaged people. To do this, Thompson (2002) presents two independent case studies in Great Britain illustrating that the social entrepreneurs investigated know the precise nature of the needs of their customers,
123
286
S. Kraus et al.
demonstrating the importance of the social entrepreneur in the nonprofit sector, as public organizations alone can no longer meet increasing societal needs they face. Thompson’s (2002) article therefore aims to increase the recognition of social entrepreneurs and Social Entrepreneurship. 2.3.4 Cluster 4: Social Entrepreneurship—Impact and performance The fourth cluster focuses on Impact and Performance (Fig. 7). The most-cited references are by Alvord et al. (2004) (33 citations) and Dart (2004) (33 citations). ‘‘Social Entrepreneurship and Societal Transformation An Exploratory Study’’ by Alvord et al. (2004) (33 citations) is based on an exploration of case studies comparing seven companies focusing on the success factors of successful social entrepreneurs. The results note findings on the aspects that innovation forms, leadership strategies, and scaling-up strategies have in common with each other. In the article ‘‘The Legitimacy of Social Enterprise,’’ Dart (2004) (33 citations) provides a contrast to traditional nonprofit organizations as he focuses on social enterprises as a new organizational form in the nonprofit sector. In developing a guideline supports the explanation of a social enterprise, the author presents suggestions for continued research on social enterprises. By explaining social enterprises in terms of a political ideology it is suggested to conduct ‘‘… crosssectional and cross-national studies to document the increased incidence of this kind of activity in neoconservative market-focused jurisdictions and in the jurisdictions they most influence’’ (Dart 2004, p. 422). Furthermore it is argued that the analysis of social enterprises with regard to a political ideology enables it to ‘‘… document key normative ‘‘should’’ elements in social enterprise that occur and are valued significantly beyond their basic and documented functional value’’ (Dart 2004, p. 422). Finally Dart (2004) points towards the consideration of tangible outcomes of value that is provided to key stakeholders.
Fig. 7 Cluster 4: Social Entrepreneurship—Impact and performance
123
Social Entrepreneurship
287
2.3.5 Cluster 5: Social Entrepreneurship—Future research agenda The category of ‘‘Future Research Agenda’’ is based on the three articles by Mair and Marti (2006), Peredo and McLean (2006) and Nicholls (2006), whose investigations examine the success factors of Social Entrepreneurship (Fig. 8). Mair and Marti (2006) sought to engage academic interest in Social Entrepreneurship with their article ‘‘Social entrepreneurship research: A source of explanation, prediction, and delight’’ cited 23 times. Starting with a working definition of Social Entrepreneurship they pose the central question of whether Social Entrepreneurship should be considered an individual research field. Their motivation in posing this question is the fact that the literature frequently cites entrepreneurship articles. Mair and Marti (2006) reject the implied notion of viewing Social Entrepreneurship as a sub-category of entrepreneurship given that a far greater priority is placed on social value creation, arguing that Social Entrepreneurship research is emergent. This article therefore concludes with a call for additional research, and provides examples of issues that should be examined in greater detail. Peredo and McLean (2006) (17 citations) deliver a critique of Social Entrepreneurship, addressing both ‘‘social’’ and ‘‘entrepreneurship’’, and take a closer look at the social aspect of Social Entrepreneurship. Their discussion opens by asking ‘‘… what makes social entrepreneurship social’’ (Peredo and McLean 2006, p. 57). Citing additional literature, they conclude that the aim of the social enterprise must be the achievement of social goals. However, the authors determine that social goals can vary depending on the different applications of the term ‘‘social entrepreneurship.’’ With one company, the social goal might simply comprise a part of their perspective, while for another company its sole focus may be on creating and achieving social value. The authors again refer to additional literature with their second question ‘‘What makes social entrepreneurship entrepreneurship?’’ (Peredo and McLean 2006, p. 57), reminding the reader about the lack of a universal definition of Social Entrepreneurship. In conclusion they propose that ‘‘…social
Fig. 8 Cluster 5: Social Entrepreneurship—Future research agenda
123
288
S. Kraus et al.
entrepreneurship is exercised where some person or group: (1) aim(s) at creating social value, either exclusively or at least in some prominent way; (2) show(s) a capacity to recognize and take advantage of opportunities to create that value (‘‘envision’’); (3) employ(s) innovation, ranging from outright invention to adapting someone else’s novelty, in creating and/or distributing social value; (4) is/are willing to accept an above-average degree of risk in creating and disseminating social value; and (5) is/are unusually resourceful in being relatively undaunted by scarce assets in pursuing their social venture’’ (Peredo and McLean 2006, p. 64). The book ‘‘Social Entrepreneurship: New Models of Sustainable Social Change’’ (based on the first Skoll World Forum at Oxford University in 2004, at the time, the largest ever meeting of scholars, consultants, and managers in this field) by Nicholls (2006) was cited thirteen times. Nicholls’ (2006) book is divided into four main sections that discuss ‘‘New Perspectives, New Theories, New Models, and New Directions’’. The first part provides a general overview illustrating real world perspectives. The second part of the book takes a more theoretical direction, as leading researchers in Social Entrepreneurship provide insight into five new perspectives (the structure of the field, the agency in a globalizing world, the solid foundation for the practice of Social Entrepreneurship, the value for corporations, and the exploration of a cultural mode). The third part of the book discusses social issues and values, and the fourth and final section deals with challenges and future research directions. Included here are recommendations for further research on, for example, the development of a market for social capital to expand the resources of Social Entrepreneurship, to take a closer look at social venture managers, as well as governance structures (Nicholls 2006). In conclusion, research in the clusters illustrates an emergent field of research with two key research areas dominating (1) success factors and key elements of Social Entrepreneurship, and (2) the creation and catalysts of social value. A citation analysis of the seminal literature suggests that Social Entrepreneurship has not been sufficiently researched in that although definition parameters exist, a single precise definition has yet to be established. Cluster one suggests that Social Entrepreneurship is a multi-faceted multidimensional concept which straddles the profit and non-profit sectors, while cluster two focuses on the impetus and catalysts for Social Entrepreneurship. Cluster three explores the social entrepreneur, their personality and motivations, delineating Social Entrepreneurship providing conceptual and practical examples of the ‘‘social’’ and ‘‘entrepreneurship’’ aspects of the term. The fourth cluster looks at the measurement and monitoring of Social Entrepreneurship success and the fifth and final cluster explores a future research agenda.
3 Discussion This literature and citation analysis provides insights into the current state of Social Entrepreneurship research. The analysis highlights the fact that Social Entrepreneurship as a research field is receiving increasing attention, a finding which echoes Sassmannshausen and Volkmann’s (2013) study which noted considerable evidence
123
Social Entrepreneurship
289
supporting the positioning of Social Entrepreneurship as a domain of entrepreneurship research. Such studies form the basis of a call for researchers to pursue Social Entrepreneurship studies, for example Alvord et al.’s (2004, p. 280) article aims ‘‘to provoke further exploration of the emerging phenomenon of social entrepreneurship, which we believe can make a great difference in the next century of human and societal development’’. Mair and Marti (2006, p. 36) explain that ‘‘to stimulate future research the authors introduce the concept of embeddedness as a nexus between theoretical perspectives for the study of social entrepreneurship’’. This is reflected in Thompson (2002, p. 430), who states a need to ‘‘stimulate further papers and published cases which widen the visibility of social entrepreneurs and social entrepreneurship’’. The result of this analysis creates a framework for future research in the Social Entrepreneurship realm. The majority of recent Social Entrepreneurship articles are conceptual, and empirical studies are rare. Many publications address the issue of what Social Entrepreneurship is, what its parameters should be, and, most importantly, how it can be defined. The fact that no one universal definition has been agreed is partly due to the newness of the topic, as well as how difficult it is to determine where the demarcation line is between Social Entrepreneurship and other fields such as commercial entrepreneurship and business management. However analysis has shown that in attempting to arrive at a definition, many authors mention value creation or value-increasing results (Waddock and Post 1991; Sullivan Mort et al. 2003; Austin et al. 2006; Zahra et al. 2009; Litzky et al. 2010), while others frequently include the concept of creating innovation via recognition of opportunities (Leadbeater 1997; Thompson et al. 2000; Thompson 2002). The core elements which have been defined and explored Social Entrepreneurship studies are applicable to both the private and public sectors, for example government organizations (Korosec and Berman 2006) and private companies (Alvord et al. 2004). Aspects such as the difference between commercial and Social Entrepreneurship (Spear 2006), the financing of social enterprises (Boschee 1995; Dees 1998), how performance is viewed (Dees 1998; Nicholls 2009), or management qualities (Waddock and Post 1991; Forno and Merlone 2009) have been explored to some extent. Furthermore an analysis of Social Entrepreneurship personalities has been the focus of some publications (e.g., Leadbeater 1997; Thompson et al. 2000; Thompson 2002). The two most-common topics in Social Entrepreneurship articles are success factors and key elements of Social Entrepreneurship, in addition to the creation of social value and the changes that accompany it (also frequently referred to as catalysts). These perspectives facilitate the compilation of a snapshot of Social Entrepreneurship literature illustrating that there are many areas that warrant further research. For example, •
the citation analysis does not identify a single article that addresses the goals of social enterprises. Although it’s clear that social value is at the forefront of this field, deeper insight into the specific goals of these organizations is needed. It would also be interesting to investigate the ambitions of internal and external stakeholders while including their commercial and non-commercial interests at
123
290
•
•
S. Kraus et al.
the same time. This information would help achieve not only a better understanding of SE, but could also be applied in the comparison and selection of company structure and models. the inclusion of social capital in Social Entrepreneurship literature. An investigation of the integration of the social capital concept could suggest findings on the performance of social enterprises, particularly in light of the fact that similar investigations have been undertaken in strategic entrepreneurship where results showed that social resources are important determining factors when it comes to competitive advantage (Mair and Marti 2006). the motivating factors for the creation of social enterprises. The personal characteristics of social entrepreneurs are frequently explored where social entrepreneurs are described as exceptionally innovative, willing to take high risks, and outstanding leadership qualities. However their motivation in starting social enterprises has not yet been explored nor have the differences (if any) between the moral consciousness of social entrepreneurs and non-social entrepreneurs.
4 Limitations Although the research methodology was constructed in a manner to minimize limitations it is acknowledged that there are three limitations which need to be considered. First, the search-terms used in constructing the database focused on those articles whose title included the term ‘‘social entrepreneur(s)’’ or ‘‘social entrepreneurship’’. This decision was made given that the aim of this article is to generate a profound, representative and focused overview of the most influential articles focusing on Social Entrepreneurship. Second, the cluster assortment is based on the authors’ subjective evaluation; other scholars might have grouped the articles differently. Last, bibliometrics are accompanied by their own limitations such as the difficulty in deriving qualitative estimations from quantitative analyses. In addition, the frequency of citations allows conclusions to be drawn regarding their appeal by other authors. The reasons they are cited, regardless of whether they were positive or negative, are not identified via quantitative analysis (Brew and Lucas 2009). Furthermore articles need a particular period of time to unfold their potential influence. Therefore it is solely possible to see trends rather than latest developments.
5 Conclusion This paper presented an exploratory citation analysis of Social Entrepreneurship research to date. The results show that in the years 2009 and 2010 in particular, the number of empirical research articles published rose significantly. Findings show that a wide palette of different Social Entrepreneurship sub-topics have been discussed, although all authors agree that Social Entrepreneurship research is still in
123
Social Entrepreneurship
291
its infancy. This citation analysis identified 20 publications as being highly influential in this field. All of them provided insight into the topic of Social Entrepreneurship regarding aspects such as finance, performance, or the personalities found within social enterprise. Topics were also discussed which reveal differences, for example, the comparison between Social Entrepreneurship and leadership, or the general differences and similarities between commercial and Social Entrepreneurship. The two most-discussed issues were social value and the definition of Social Entrepreneurship success factors. Based on the findings and discussion of these analyses, there is strong impetus for additional research in this field particularly in three areas. First, additional research on the goals and motivation of social enterprises would help not only to provide deeper insight into the topic, but would also have practical applications as well. Second, the inclusion of social capital into Social Entrepreneurship literature would facilitate a more comprehensive understanding of the performance of social enterprises. Finally, the motivation for the creation of social enterprises is without question a topic that should be the focus of future investigation. Although these calls for additional research are merely echoes of what many scientists have already stated, further empirical investigations remain without question an essential requirement for additional insight into the exciting field of Social Entrepreneurship.
References Alvord SH, Brown LD, Letts CW (2004) Social Entrepreneurship and societal transformation. J Appl Behav Sci 40(3):260–282 Austin J, Stevenson H, Wei-Skillern J (2006) Social and Commercial Entrepreneurship: same, different, or both? Entrep Theory Pract 30(1):1–22 Bornstein D (2004) How to change the world: social entrepreneurs and the power of new ideas. Oxford University Press, Oxford Boschee J (1995) Social Entrepreneurship. Across Board 32(3):20–25 Brew A, Lucas L (2009) Academic research and researchers. Open University Press, Berkshire Chen C, Carr L (1999) Trailblazing the literature of hypertext: author co-citation analysis (1989–1998). In: Proceedings of the 10th ACM conference on hypertext and hypermedia. ACM, New York, pp 51–60 Cukier W, Trenholm S, Carl D, Gekas G (2011) Social Entrepreneurship: a content analysis. J Strateg Innov Sustain 7(1):99–119 Danko A, Brunner C (2010) Social Entrepreneurship—Zum State-of-the-Art der aktuellen Forschung. Z KMU Entrep 58(2):157–174 Danko A, Brunner C, Kraus S (2011) Social Entrepreneurship—an overview of the current state of research. Eur J Manag 11(1):82–90 Dart R (2004) The legitimacy of social enterprise. Nonprofit Manag Leadersh 14(4):411–424 Dees JG (1998) Enterprising nonprofits. Harv Bus Rev 76(1):54–67 Dees JG (2001) The Meaning of ‘‘Social Entrepreneurship’’. Duke University, Durham. http://www. caseatduke.org/documents/dees_sedef.pdf. Accessed Oct 2012 Dees JG, Emerson J, Economy P (2001) Enterprising nonprofits: a toolkit for social entrepreneurs. Wiley, New York Dos Santos BL, Holsapple CW, Ye Q (2011) The intellectual influence of entrepreneurship journals: a network analysis. Entrep Theory Pract 35(4):735–754 Drucker PF (1985) Innovation and entrepreneurship. Butterworth-Heinemann, Oxford Forno AD, Merlone U (2009) Social Entrepreneurship effects on the emergence of cooperation in networks. Emerg Complex Organ 11(4):48–58
123
292
S. Kraus et al.
Garfield E (1979) Is citation analysis a legitimate evaluation tool? Scientometrics 1(4):359–375 Gregoire DA, Noel MX, Dery R, Bechard J-P (2006) Is there conceptual convergence in entrepreneurship research? A co-citation analysis of Frontiers of Entrepreneurship Research, 1981–2004. Entrep Theory Pract 30(3):333–373 Gundolf K, Filser M (2013) Management research and religion: a citation analysis. J Bus Ethics 112(1):177–185 Korosec RL, Berman EM (2006) Municipal support for Social Entrepreneurship. Public Adm Rev 66(3):448–462 Kraus S, Filser M, Go¨tzen T, Harms R (2011) Familienunternehmen—Zum State-of-the-Art der betriebswirtschaftlichen Forschung. Betrieb Forsch Praxis 6:587–605 Kraus S, Filser M, Eggers F, Hills GE, Hultman CM (2012) The entrepreneurial marketing domain: a citation and co-citation analysis. J Res Market Entrep 14(1):6–26 Leadbeater C (1997) The rise of the social entrepreneur. Demos, London Leonidou LC, Katsikeas CS, Coudounaris DN (2010) Five decades of business research into exporting: a bibliographic analysis. J Int Manag 16(1):78–91 Litzky BE, Godshalk VM, Walton-Bongers C (2010) Social Entrepreneurship and community leadership. J Manag Educ 34(1):142–162 Mair J, Marti I (2006) Social Entrepreneurship research: a source of explanation, prediction, and delight. J World Bus 41(1):36–44 Martin RL, Osberg S (2007) Social Entrepreneurship: the case for definition. Stanf Soc Innov Rev Spring, 29–39 Nicholls A (2006) Social Entrepreneurship: New Models of Sustainable Social Change. Oxford University Press, New York Nicholls A (2009) We do good things, don’t we?: ‘Blended Value Accounting’ in Social Entrepreneurship. Acc Organ Soc 34(6–7):755–769 Peredo AM, McLean M (2006) Social Entrepreneurship: a critical review of the concept. J World Bus 41(1):56–65 Pre´vot F, Branchet B, Boissin J-P, Castagnos J-C, Guieu G (2010) The intellectual structure of the competence-based management: A bibliometric analysis. In: Sanchez R, Heene A, Zimmermann TE (eds) Research in competence-based management—a focused issue on identifying, building, and linking competences. Emerald Group Publishing Limited, Bingley, pp 231–258 Reader D, Watkins D (2006) The social and collaborative nature of entrepreneurship scholarship: a cocitation and perceptual analysis. Entrep Theory Pract 30(3):417–441 Sassmannshausen SP, Volkmann CK (2013) A bibliometric based review on Social Entrepreneurship and its establishment as a field of research. Schumpeter Discussion Papers, University of Wuppertal Say JB (1803) Traite´ d’Economie Politique. Crapelet, Paris Schildt HA, Zahra SA, Sillanpa¨a¨ A (2006) Scholarly communities in entrepreneurship research: a cocitation analysis. Entrep Theory Pract 30(3):399–415 Schumpeter JA (1934) The theory of economic development. Harvard University Press, Cambridge Shane S, Venkataraman S (2000) The promise of entrepreneurship as a field of research. Acad Manag Rev 25(1):217–226 Shaw E, Gordon J, Harvey C, Maclean M (2011) Exploring contemporary entrepreneurial philanthropy. Int Small Bus J (forthcoming) Small HG (1978) Co-citation context analysis and the structure of paradigms. J Doc 36(3):183–196 Spear R (2006) Social Entrepreneurship: a different model? Int J Soc Econ 33(5–6):399–410 Sullivan Mort G, Weerawardena J, Carnegie K (2003) Social Entrepreneurship: towards conceptualisation. Int J Nonprofit Volunt Sect Mark 8(1):76–88 Thompson J (2002) The world of the social entrepreneur. Int J Public Sect Manag 15(5):412–431 Thompson J, Alvy G, Lees A (2000) Social Entrepreneurship—a new look at the people and the potential. Manag Decis 38(5–6):328–338 Waddock SA, Post JE (1991) Social entrepreneurs and catalytic change. Public Adm Rev 51(5):393–401 Weerawardena J, Sullivan Mort G (2006) Investigating Social Entrepreneurship: a multidimensional model. J World Bus 41(1):21–35 Zahra SA, Gedajlovic E, Neubaum DO, Shulman JM (2009) A typology of social entrepreneurs: motives, search processes and ethical challenges. J Bus Ventur 24(5):519–532
123
