Show recommendations for:
Future studies should:
1)Explore the differential effects of entrepreneurial passion and product passion in predicting individual, team, and venture-level outcomes in entrepreneurship, ranging from intentions and behaviors to venture performance/growth and venture roles.
2) It would also be interesting to study whether different combinations of passion play a role in the exit or harvest of the venture by investors.
3) consider such extreme cases and examine the extent to which these attributes may lead to maladaptive outcomes, and to what extent the relationships we observe may be curvilinear in nature when these extreme levels are breached.
4) finally, crowdfunding is an increasingly common source of financial capital for startup ventures. Scholars have begun to study the effect of passion on prospective crowdfunding investors in terms of general displays of enthusiasm and perceptions of such enthusiasm (Davis et al., 2017; Li et al., 2017), but have not yet specified different targets of entrepreneurs’ passions, and how different types of passions may be differentially communicated and interpreted by prospective investors.
1) Since the focus of this study was on prosocial organizing, entrepreneurs undergoing B Corp certification were sampled. This sample was particularly appropriate for examining the role of identity in opportunity evaluation, given the setting’s tendency to make salient various individual values, but it also begs the question of whether findings would generalize to other certification procedures. Whereas some certifications may be purely functional and instrumental, others such as LEED certification appear to offer both value-related and values-related dimensions as well. It seems reasonable to assume that the latter would trigger the same identity-related opportunity evaluation process as observed with regards to B Corp certification, but would the former? In other words, does the opportunity/self nexus have the same explanatory power for other categories or subcategories as it does for the prosocial context? Do all certifications undergo assessment regarding personal authenticity concerns when being evaluated as opportunities, or does their evaluation tend to stop at a firm-related financial assessment?
2) Future research should investigate whether prosocial opportunities tend to reflect the self-concepts of elites. If so, these opportunities may not offer the best solutions for the people they aim to help. Consequently, a closer examination of the relationship between identity and prosocial organizing could shed light on the dark side of social entrepreneurship by explaining the potential disenfranchisement of beneficiaries.
1) More research that focuses on everyday activities perceived as SE and framed as post-growth organising, and the experiences of people navigating the diverse economy.
2) Further research could analyse in-depth, for example with a participatory research design, how actors move in the diverse economy and what kinds of paradoxes emerge. Also, exploring everyday practices reveals the different modalities and combinations that exist between two often mentioned extremes: namely, waged work under corporate control with a sufficient income and unpaid labour in emancipated self-governed collectives. Analysis in greater detail would be illuminating for the development of research on post-growth organising.
1) Data from more countries would allow more generalized findings. Further, a larger number of developed and developing countries would allow more generalization in our supplementary analysis of the comparison between developed and developing countries.
2) Our study considers only income mobility. Future research may consider complementing the results from the present study with the effects of mobility in class and status to further understand the likelihood of social entrepreneurship.
3) Future research may examine the longitudinal effects of the relationship between mobility and income inequality on the likelihood of social entrepreneurship. In other words, longitudinal studies could examine the question of whether reducing inequality as a consequence of improved mobility would reduce opportunities for social entrepreneurs in the long run.
4) Future research may therefore examine the longitudinal effects of the relationship between mobility and income inequality on the likelihood of social entrepreneurship.
In other words, longitudinal studies could examine the question of whether reducing inequality as a consequence of improved mobility would reduce opportunities for social entrepreneurs in the long run.
5) Political structure (e.g., decentralized democratic vs. centralized structure) or the role of the state may also moderate the influence of economic inequality (Lee & Bankston, 1999). Future research may examine the effect of political structures on conditions of economic inequality that influence the likelihood of social entrepreneurship.
6) Supplementary results also suggest a detailed comparison with the likelihood of commercial entrepreneurship. A comparative longitudinal study in this regard may help to tease out the underlying mechanisms and boundary conditions that drive the relationship between economic inequality and both forms of entrepreneurial activity.