Social Enterprise Recommendations Overview

1. Future questions: how big should social enterprises get, what is a desirable level of proliferation of community energy social enterprises and what are the implications for community capabilities of upscaling?

Future research could apply multiple case studies in different socio-cultural contexts to overcome the limitations of single cases (Mair and Marti 2006; Parkinson and Howorth 2008; Short, Moss, and Lumpkin 2009) and add to the generalizability of our research findings. Furthermore, temporary breakdowns focus the researcher’s view on failures and contingencies and therefore overemphasize critical stages in organizing. Future research could look into practices of creative resourcing (Sonenshein 2014) or strategies of paradoxical intervention (Thorp 2014). We further suggest that investigating how social enterprises can creatively mobilize their hybrid identities to acquire resources or deal with problems is a promising avenue for future research.

Social entrepreneurs and organizations (e.g. business incubators) or government entities aiming to use social enterprise to advance community development may be using the capability approach for core needs identification. Results from this paper reveal various ways (e.g. surveys, interviews, focus groups) the capability approach is used to assess core areas of human need in order to specifically design social interventions with beneficiary needs in mind. Practitioners seeking to do this work may consider using Nussbaum (2004)’s central list of human capabilities or Weaver (2017)’s list of central social capabilities as a basis for knowing universal needs influencing human development. Both lists outline core human needs, but Weaver (2017)’s list is an adapted version of Nussbaum (2004)’s list that was developed for use by researchers and practitioners.

1) Future studies should explore ways to develop a definition of social value that is founded on the capability approach, as well as ways to measure social value using the capability approach. Such a definition would aid discussions about social value vs. social impact in the sense that there would be a distinction between whether social enterprises can foster capabilities and/or functioning.
2) Various studies suggest social enterprises are a tool for combating multidimensional poverty (Mair and Marti 2009; Seelos and Mair 2005), but few empirical studies explore this. Future research should explore the multiple dimensions of poverty that social enterprises, as a form of business, seek to address, along with the efficacy of their work.
3) Recent studies have found that the social and economic activities of social enterprises may substantially vary by country. Future studies may use the capability approach to assess how geographic context influences the kinds of social problems that social enterprises target (e.g. do social enterprises disperse some human capabilities more than others based on context?). One way to do this is to use the capability approach with global measures of social enterprise activities like the GEM. For instance, the GEM may be combined with Weaver (2017)’s Social Capability Measure, which examines the kinds of social issues that social enterprises target, their social programmes, their target beneficiaries, and the number of beneficiaries they serve annually.
4) Other studies should explore additional ways that the capability approach may be used in social enterprise practice.

These findings have implications for understanding the likely role and effect of social
enterprise and social innovation in welfare reform beyond the Scottish case. To have a more
substantial impact, social enterprises and social innovations would require public services to be reconfigured, and for governments to implement more radical and fundamental shifts in
provision. They seem incapable of generating such change themselves. There appear to be
structural limitations to the inherent impact that social innovations have on societies with
highly developed systems of social welfare, even in the country which boasts the “most
supportive environment in the world”.

“1) There is a need of more studies that can measure the direct and/or indirect health benefits regarding the health outcomes derived from (different types of) social enterprises, compared with other types of organisation, whether in the private, third or public sectors.

2) A more differentiated understanding of the effects of various social enterprise activities upon the health and wellbeing of intended beneficiaries, and other stakeholders should be incorporated into future studies.
“