Show recommendations for:
“1) There is a need of further research on social enterprise and networks in institutional complex transition economies, and in developing economies
2) Further comparison of networks across developed, emerging and developing economies, something which has hitherto been quite rare.
3) More Quantitative studies are still relatively few in number, as remains the case in wider social entrepreneurship scholarship
4). Future research could examine the role they play in building global social enterprise networks, we well as the personal networks/social capital of social entrepreneurs.
5) Future social enterprise and networks scholarship might also focus in on particular population segments and demographic groups. For example, examining how women social entrepreneurs use their social networks, deploy social capital and assessing whether this is different from male social entrepreneurs.”
1) Future research could examine the entire motivational process of social and commercial entrepreneurs – from underlying values and long-term vision to new venture emergence and success – in order to identify more ways in which the process may differ with respect to the two groups.
2) None have sought to examine whether and to what degree the motivations of social entrepreneurs differ from their commercial counterparts.
3) Future research could integrate these recent developments in motivation theory with a further examination of how and why commercial and social entrepreneurs might have different levels of self-efficacy and goals in order to develop a more comprehensive causal, explanatory model. This could also shed some light on whether the underlying motivational processes are similar or different for commercial and social entrepreneurs.
Given the above challenges, coupled with the high failure rates of emerging firms, in general (Kirchhoff, 1994), practicing social entrepreneurs would be unwise to undertake the task of creating a new organization without believing that they can and will succeed. Thus, prior to undertaking such an arduous task, social entrepreneurs should evaluate their experiences, innate abilities, and confidence in themselves in order to ascertain their level of entrepreneurial self-efficacy. It is important for nascent social entrepreneurs to remain grounded in reality in order to make a true difference in the world. Only if they are able to conclude from a clear-eyed assessment that they can and will succeed, are they likely to see their ideas come to fruition and, in turn, make an appreciable difference in the world. In light of these findings, practicing social entrepreneurs would be wise to complement their confidence in themselves as entrepreneurs and their high goals with an eye on the economic health of their organizations. It may be that social entrepreneurs who can combine their long-term visions for societal change with their own self-efficacy and ambitious short-term sales goals may be extremely well-poised to create and grow their organizations.
1) More research should focuse on what extent can the various social and governmental actors among which the fundamental role of universities and incubators can contribute to the promotion of research but also to supporting this new type of business in order to achieve an entrepreneurial Morocco?
Policy-makers need to pay due attention to the philanthropy orientation of their financial systems (rather than commercial orientation) to encourage individuals to invest their financial capital towards social enterprise. This could entail offering tax incentives and other benefits to philanthropic and charitable donors.
Secondly, improving educational standards is key for supporting the investment of individual human capital in social entrepreneurship, owing to potential inculcation of prosocial motivations through education.
Thirdly, given the significance of institutional support from the political system, policy-makers need to put in place legislations that enhance the legitimacy of social enterprise as an organizational form (e.g., Benefit corporations (Miller-Stevens, Taylor, Morris, & Lanivich, 2018)) and promulgate legislation that would offer resource support (e.g., the mandatory CSR policy in India (Agrawal & Sahasranamam, 2016).
1) Future research using longitudinal research designs that span a longer period could
unpack the dynamic relationships between individual capital and social enterprise. For instance, researchers could examine the combined role of individual capital and institutional context on social entrepreneurship across phases (nascent, new, and established).
2) Furthermore, given the differential effect of commercial and philanthropy-oriented financial systems that we observe, future research needs to consider different categories of external finance such as debt, equity, grants, social venture funds, and crowdfunding separately, and study both its direct and contingent effects on social entrepreneurship. Considering the insignificant moderating effect of political system on investment of social capital in social entrepreneurship entry, scholars could undertake a nuanced effort exploring the contingent effects on the relationship between different forms of social capital (such as bonding and bridging social capital) and social entrepreneurship entry.
3) This research considers only the contingent role of formal institutions; future research needs to explore the role of informal institutions such as culture in greater detail.
4) Future research could explore the role of sub-national institutions on social entrepreneurship. There is also need for greater quantitative research to study how social entrepreneurship emerges and thrives in contexts of formal institutional voids.
In terms of implications for practice, the research highlights competencies essential to developing social enterprise leaders, for example, creating programs aligned with these can help ensure leaders are prepared to bring to fruition their social ventures.