Social Enterprise Recommendations Overview

“1. Public sector actions aimed at stimulating entrepreneurship can have different effects on both types of entrepreneurship: social entrepreneurship and general entrepreneurship.

2. Policies aimed at promoting human capital, employment, and investment aid would favour more social entrepreneurship, whereas those that increase innovation and improve institutions and are aimed at reducing corruption and making the market freer and more effective would have a greater impact on general entrepreneurship.

3. Redistributive policies aimed at improving income distribution would have a similar impact on both types of entrepreneurship.”

“1. This study is subject to improvement by introducing more countries in the sample to compare the situation of countries with different structures.

2. Likewise, as statistical information improves, it would be convenient to introduce more variables within the factors considered, especially those with an environmental nature, with particular focus on the role of green innovations in the process. “

“1. The study recognizes that the survey should be extended to more innovation and entrepreneurial
sectors. Current entrepreneurial observations are mostly related to government-funded projects, with strong socially missioned innovation initiatives. Economic interests are less prioritized and concerned. As such, this study results cannot account for entrepreneurial contexts with strong tensions between social and economic interests.

2. Future research should explore new sampling strategies to assess and compare “self” theories in different contexts of entrepreneurial motivation.”

“1. Policymakers and educators can provide more stimulus to drive individuals’ desire to act in the public interest through social entrepreneurship, such as through competitions (such as Ashoka Young Changemakers and the DBS Foundation Social Entrepreneurship Grant), workshops and socially relevant curricula (from engineering and science to business studies and social sciences programs), rather than merely focusing on the commercial knowledge or literacy aspects of social entrepreneurship (such as budgeting, opportunity evaluation, persuasion, and marketing skills).

2. More effort and resources could be invested in promoting social entrepreneurship through alternative media such as comics or games, and the clever use of social media to turn social entrepreneurship into a trendy but important activity that is good for individuals as well as for the wider public.

3. Policymakers and educators can also build more awareness of social entrepreneurship as an alternative career option for young people who have a strong passion for public service, beyond conventional careers in the public sector and non-profits.”

“1. Policymakers and educators can provide more stimulus to drive individuals’ desire to act in the public interest through social entrepreneurship, such as through competitions (such as Ashoka Young Changemakers and the DBS Foundation Social Entrepreneurship Grant), workshops and socially relevant curricula (from engineering and science to business studies and social sciences programs), rather than merely focusing on the commercial knowledge or literacy aspects of social entrepreneurship (such as budgeting, opportunity evaluation, persuasion, and marketing skills).

2. More effort and resources could be invested in promoting social entrepreneurship through alternative media such as comics or games, and the clever use of social media to turn social entrepreneurship into a trendy but important activity that is good for individuals as well as for the wider public.

3. Policymakers and educators can also build more awareness of social entrepreneurship as an alternative career option for young people who have a strong passion for public service, beyond conventional careers in the public sector and non-profits.”

“1. This study’s findings may be specific to Indonesia’s socioeconomic, political, and cultural context. Thus, their generalizability may be limited. Future research efforts directed at extending the present study could examine the effects of public service motivation and money ethics on social entrepreneurship intentions in other non-Western contexts.

2. The finding that entrepreneurial self-efficacy only partially mediated the effects of both public service motivation and money ethics on social entrepreneurial intention implies that other mediators exist that have yet to be investigated. For instance, entrepreneurial/ innovative passion may play an important mediating role. A comparison of the public service motivation and money ethics levels of millennials and different generations (e.g., Gen X, Gen Y, baby boomers) is also an area worth investigating.

3. Other important future research agendas include how and to what extent public service motivation and money ethics can explain the performance and governance of social entrepreneurship activities and staff retention in consistently creating public value and the kind of outcomes or changes they create in public service provision.
“

”
1. For start-ups we, e.g. see proactiveness as relevant for the social outcome. This can lead to various formats focusing on proactive behavior, e.g. strategically searching for social
entrepreneurial opportunities or designing idea generating concepts or concrete events that include the preemptive occupation of resources with social entrepreneurial relevance.

2. Study results also indicate that, for both start-ups and incumbents, socialness has a positive impact on economic performance. This is important for motivating and supporting social entrepreneurial activities, since it underlines that a social orientation is not opposed to financial orientation, but can even push and strengthen economic action (as a basis for social return). Knowing this can lead to different forms of integrating and fostering socialness as a motivational factor for both social and financial results. Considering this may also lead to implications for social entrepreneurship education.

3. It may also lead to new approaches in entrepreneurship education by taking into account foresighted and strategic thinking as another important social entrepreneurial competence. Results show that one should not concentrate on all or single Social Entrepreneurship Orientation dimensions, but their interplay.
There is a need for examining the specific circumstances and the individuals’ personality before focusing on a certain (combination of) SEO dimension(s). SEO, thus, can have many faces and still lead to social as well as economic success. Practitioners, thus, need to make sure, that they are aware of this and take into account which combinations are promising under which circumstances and how they can counterbalance each other. “

“1. Future reserach is required to explore Social entrepreneurship orientation in both start-up and established firm context.

2. Future research in emerging economy contexts would also be a welcome addition to this nascent literature.

3. Longitudinal research contrasting SEO behaviour from an international perspective would also offer novel insights.

4. It is suggested to integrate various national economies in future researh in order to analyze if the results still remain the same under different condiions.

5. Finally, when analyzing the SEO phenomenon at a variable level there is also argument for inclusion of further factors possibly influncing social entrepreneurship performance especially in terms of evaluating economic performance. This study offers more research opportunities of exploring the issue of self-perception of performance focussing on alternative ways of capturing social entrepreneurial performance , especially quantifying social impact.
“

1. Managers should not squander an investment in SEO simply by focusing only on financial performance.

“1. First, this study focused only on a sample small companies from Austria. Future research can test the model with samples in different. contexts such as emerging or developing markets and larger firms.

2. This research employed perceptual indicators of performance, future research can extend on the findings by including objective measures of performance.

3. An other interesting field of research would be the apparently differences in why and how social enterprises are started and managed, e.g. by women as also suggested by Rosca et al., 2020. “

“These findings have important practical implications for managers.

1. Results reveal that being socially entrepreneurially oriented is beneficial for the firm’s social performance, and if the firm is successful in its social performance, then it shall benefit economically (the mediating effect). In other words, success drives success. So, if a manager is passionate about the firm’s social impact or social performance, this will also mean higher financial success for the firm.

2. However, additional tests show that SEO does not have a direct positive effect on financial performance, but rather a negative one. This is compensated for by the positive financial performance effects of social performance. Managers should not squander an investment in SEO simply by focusing only on financial performance.”