Social Enterprise Recommendations Overview

“1) As the study covered practicing SnP’s from India, there is a need to further validate this instrument among other stakeholder as well as within different cultural contexts and in samples with different demographic characteristics.
2) Moreover attempts should be
undertaken to further validate the instrument using student samples.
3) Further, to confirm the newly established subscales and their relationship with the ISEO construct, there is need of conducting a confirmatory factor analysis. A longitudinal study
on ISEO could be conducted to measure the correlations with intentions to become a social entrepreneur and whether they become SnP’s or not.”

Practitioners such as social entrepreneurs, educators, accelerator programs, and impact investors funders may utilize the Social Capability Intervention Model to guide their understanding of how social enterprises may be designed, as there is a need for such models to guide their work (Weerawardena & Mort, 2006). For example, social entrepreneurs may use the tool to develop social programs and services in relation to one or more levels of positive social change related to different types of social capabilities or within specific core areas of human need. Educators and accelerators may also use the tool to illustrate how businesses can strive to combat social problems on macro and micro levels. Lastly, impact investors may use the guide as a reference when making decisions about the businesses they want to invest in.

1) The impact of social entrepreneurship on economic development, particularly through personal development and social upliftment.Research can consider the degree and factors of success, as well as best practices in this regard.
2) how social entrepreneurs teach and instruct entrepreneurs and entrepreneurship. In particular, how social entrepreneurs and social entrepreneurship assert and advocate the aspirant entrepreneur should get off the ground, given social entrepreneurs’ core competency of starting enterprises with very little resources.
3) how social entrepreneurs teach and instruct entrepreneurs and entrepreneurship. In particular, how social entrepreneurs and social entrepreneurship assert and advocate the aspirant entrepreneur should get off the ground, given social entrepreneurs’ core competency of starting enterprises with very little resources.
4)The commercialization of social entrepreneurship innovation.
5)The resourcefulness of social entrepreneurs: As already mentioned, social entrepreneurs generally possess a core competency of starting enterprises with very little resources.
6) Social impact, social responsibility, and competitive advantage: how organizations build and can build competitive advantage around social impact and social responsibility.
7) Social impact measurement. Enhancing social impact measurement.
8) Disruptive and radical social entrepreneurship: Further considering disruptive and radical social entrepreneurship as constructs, and the antecedents and factors thereof.
9) (National) social entrepreneurship (development) metrics: A measure of an organization’s or country’s development, maturity and competency, in terms of social entrepreneurship.
10) Government, corporations, and social entrepreneurship: government and corporate social entrepreneurship policy, programs, and implementation.
11) Social multipliers, as it relates to social entrepreneurship work, social impact, and economic multipliers.
12) The sophistication of entrepreneurs’ social awareness and perspective, and the impact thereof on opportunities and opportunity recognition.

1) Due to the small number of cases considered in this study, future studies should cover more cases for each crowdfunding model.
2) Consider crowdfunding platforms from other countries, while exploring similarities and differences in processes and mechanisms. This could be useful to highlight the possible effect of cultural differences.
3) Taking into account the perspective of intermediaries (i.e., the crowdfunding platforms). The perspective of creators and funders should also be adopted to consider the viewpoints of all crowdfunding actors.
4) Finally, future studies should compare the results from ths article with the perceptions of users to establish new crowdfunding procedures, tools, services, or even financing mechanisms for platforms to offer.

Institutions selecting social entrepreneurs to provide support to them may consider the main dimensions that we propose while interviewing the candidates; and measure the relevant characteristics, values, and motivations of the candidates. Such tests may be useful to detect candidates’ authenticity, grit, level of felt responsibility, and commitment. These characteristics of founders may in turn support the sustainability of the social enterprises.

Future studies should:
1) Use larger samples, different types of social organizations, and social entrepreneurs not included in the well-known lists are necessary to confirm our results and to add to the
generalizability of our findings.
2) Consider the relationships between our three main antecedents and other dimensions, and between other dimensions and factors that lead to intention.
3) Consider the impact of the antecedents of becoming a social entrepreneur on developmental levels or vice versa.
4) Analyzing social organizations from other countries would provide an opportunity to compare the characteristics of cases in different cultures, and the impact of context on such cases.