Conceptualizing the Role of Social Entrepreneurial Orientation in the Triple Bottom Line in the Social Enterprise Context: Developing Country Perspective.

Abstract

Social entrepreneurship is becoming widely recognized as essential to developing economies and societies. However, we find that the lack of a clear and cohesive conceptualization for understanding the distinctive context and reliable role of social entrepreneurship is a challenging aspect. Furthermore, the research is lacking in developing country perspectives. Accordingly, this study argues that a social entrepreneurship conceptual model needs to be developed from a developing country perspective to advance the literature on the social entrepreneurship notion. Specifically, this study followed a qualitative research approach and conducted in-person semi-structured interviews with 24 Sri Lankan social enterprises by adopting the maximum variation sampling technique. The data were analyzed using thematic analysis. Consequently, our model explicates how social entrepreneurial orientation leads to the triple bottom line through dynamic capability and social innovation. The proposed model anticipates that social entrepreneurial orientation alone cannot achieve the triple bottom line in social entrepreneurship. Thus, based on existing research evidence, we believe that the following constructs—social entrepreneurial orientation, dynamic capabilities, social innovations, and the triple bottom line—can be integrated to provide a solid conceptual model for social entrepreneurial ventures in developing countries.

References(109)

Covin, J.C.; Green, K.M.; Slevin, D.P. Strategic Process Effects on the Entrepreneurial Orientation–Sales Growth Rate Relationship. Entrep. Theory Pract. 2006, 30, 57–81. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]

Lurtz, K.; Kreutzer, K. Entrepreneurial orientation and social venture creation in nonprofit organizations: The pivotal role of social risk-taking and collaboration. Nonprofit Volunt. Sect. Q. 2017, 46, 92–115. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]

Miller, D. The correlates of entrepreneurship in three types of firms. Manag. Sci. 1983, 29, 770–791. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]

Kearney, C.; Dunne, P.; Wales, W.J. Entrepreneurial orientation and burnout among healthcare professionals. J. Health Organ. Manag. 2020, 34, 16–22. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]

Covin, J.G.; Lumpkin, G.T. Entrepreneurial Orientation Theory and Research: Reflections on a Needed Construc. Entrep. Theory Pract. 2011, 35, 855–872. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]

Xiang, X.; Wang, J.; Long, Z.; Huang, Y. Improving the Entrepreneurial Competence of College Social Entrepreneurs: Digital Government Building, Entrepreneurship Education, and Entrepreneurial Cognition. Sustainability 2023, 15, 69. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]

Austin, J.; Stevenson, H.; Wei-Skillern, J. Social and commercial entrepreneurship same, different or both. Entrep. Theory Pract. 2006, 30, 1–22. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]

Lumpkin, G.T.; Bacq, S.; Piduk, R.J. Where change happens: Community-level phenomina in social entrepreneuship research. J. Small Bus. Manag. 2018, 56, 24–50. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]

Shaw, E.; Carter, S. Social entrepreneurship: Theoretical antecedents and empirical analysis of entrepreneurial processes and outcomes. J. Small Bus. Enterp. Dev. 2007, 14, 418–434. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]

There are more references in the original article.