Social Entrepreneurship Measurement Framework for Developing Countries

ABSTRACT

Objective:

this study aims to propose and validate with experts a framework with elements for measuring social entrepreneurship for developing countries.

Theoretical framework:

social entrepreneurship is approached based on elements from the three main schools of thought: European, American, and of developing countries.

Methods:

the proposed framework was designed based on a literature review of entrepreneurship models indexed in Web of Science and Scopus databases. The dimensions associated with social entrepreneurship and their potential analysis categories were identified, composing a preliminary framework of indicators validated by a panel of experts using the Delphi technique.

Results:

the model includes elements of entrepreneurship measurement related to the individual and organizational levels, composing four dimensions, namely: social entrepreneurial intention, social entrepreneurial orientation, processes, and outcomes. It shows that social entrepreneurship in developing countries depends on an orientation toward the social, which is reflected in the desire to solve society’s problems. Thus, in addition to economic value, it generates social and environmental value.

Conclusions:

among the study’s contributions, the development of a form of assessment for social entrepreneurship in a specific context stands out, since no models for measuring social entrepreneurship were found within this context. The results also tend to contribute to the advance of the field, given that it can become a tool, a measurement model that includes the main characteristic elements of both the entrepreneur and the social enterprise.

Keywords:
social entrepreneurship; measurement elements; Delphi method

RESUMO

Objetivo:

este estudo objetiva propor e validar com especialistas um framework com os elementos de mensuração do empreendedorismo social para países em desenvolvimento.

Marco teórico:

o empreendedorismo social é abordado com base em elementos das três principais escolas de pensamento: europeia, americana e dos países em desenvolvimento.

Métodos:

o framework proposto foi concebido a partir da revisão bibliográfica dos modelos de empreendedorismo indexados nas bases Web of Science e Scopus. Foram extraídas as dimensões associadas ao empreendedorismo social e as suas potenciais categorias de análises, compondo um quadro preliminar de indicadores validados por um painel de especialistas através da técnica Delphi.

Resultados:

o modelo inclui elementos de mensuração do empreendedorismo relacionados aos níveis individual e organizacional, compondo quatro dimensões, a saber: intenção social empreendedora, orientação social empreendedora, processos, e resultados. Reconhece que o empreendedorismo social nos países em desenvolvimento depende de uma orientação para o social, que se reflete na vontade de solucionar problemas da sociedade, gerando, assim, além de valor econômico, os valores social e ambiental.

Conclusões:

entre as contribuições deste estudo, destaca-se a promoção de uma forma de avaliação para o empreendedorismo social em países em desenvolvimento, visto que não foram encontrados modelos de mensuração do empreendedorismo social abrangendo este contexto. Além disso, colabora para o avanço do campo, no sentido de que pode se tornar uma ferramenta de mensuração que contempla de forma integrativa os principais elementos característicos ao empreendedor e ao empreendimento social.

Palavras-chave:
empreendedorismo social; elementos de mensuração; método Delphi

INTRODUCTION

Social entrepreneurship (ES) represents a subfield that creates innovative solutions to social problems and mobilizes ideas, skills, and resources for social transformation (Adro & Fernandes, 2021). It is demonstrated as one of the leading solutions to complex and diverse social issues (Phan Tan, 2021) faced by society in contemporary times, especially in developing countries.

The emergence and expansion of social enterprises in the world make this phenomenon a focus of study, both to know its empirical characteristics and to extend its knowledge of organizational theory and the possibilities of shaping appropriate management tools (Comini, 2016). A multiplicity of theoretical approaches has accompanied the growing recognition of social entrepreneurship. Literature indicates the existence of at least three approaches to social entrepreneurship: European, American, and of developing countries. Despite representing social entrepreneurship from different organizational contexts, they tend to complement each other.

From a theoretical point of view, we refer to social entrepreneurship based on elements of the three approaches. In the European view, it was considered the perspective Defourny and Nyssens (2010), who defined social entrepreneurship based on aspects such as income generation, social innovation, employability, and collective decision-making, with an emphasis on creating social value. From the point of view of the American school, aspects of the social entrepreneur figure were considered, supported by Dees and Anderson (2006). They emphasize the ability of these entrepreneurs to explore opportunities and find innovative solutions to social problems.

The characteristics of social entrepreneurship in developing countries were supported by the perspective of social and hybrid businesses, exposed by Comini et al. (2012), including the issue of social inequality and poverty reduction in the discussion, with the focus on the base of the pyramid, based on Prahalad and Hart (2002).

Although social entrepreneurship represents an emerging field with a growing presence in the management literature (García-Jurado et al., 2021), more broad conclusions about the characteristics of social entrepreneurs and the dynamics of their activities are still necessary. One of the gaps to be overcome concerns the limitation of the instruments of measurement of social entrepreneurial characteristics, as few research projects used scales that allow measuring the exact nature of social entrepreneurship (Capella-Peris et al., 2020; Kannampuzha & Hockerts, 2019). Moreover, the few instruments developed considered the dimensions of social entrepreneurship, referring to the individual and the organization (Capella-Peris et al., 2020; Hockerts, 2015; Kraus et al., 2017; Kuratko et al., 2017; Satar & Natasha, 2019). It is also noteworthy that investigations into social entrepreneurship are more centered on developed nations (Gupta et al., 2020; Pangriya, 2019), with fewer investigations into this phenomenon within developing countries.

Given this context, this study aims to propose and validate with experts a framework for measuring social entrepreneurship in developing countries. The relevance of the development of studies in the context of these nations is emphasized since social entrepreneurship can respond to many of the problems they face.

Thus, the analysis instruments proposed in this work may be helpful to society, governments, and managers in general. It allows a view of social entrepreneurial characteristics for developing countries, offering subsidies to social actors who want to support and promote social enterprises in this context.

This study also tends to contribute to the advancement of the field in the sense that it can become a tool, a measurement model that integratively contemplates the main elements characteristic of the entrepreneur and social enterprise since they are commonly investigated in an isolated way in literature (Kannampuzha & Hockerts, 2019), but entrepreneur and entrepreneurship are inseparable.

SOCIAL ENTREPRENEURSHIP, LEVELS OF ANALYSIS, AND ELEMENTS OF MEASUREMENT

Social entrepreneurship is based on the distinctive characteristics of social entrepreneurs, their sphere of operations, the processes and resources used in the entrepreneurial activity, and the results associated with the social entrepreneur (Dacin et al., 2010). Thus, investigations on social entrepreneurship can occur at two levels: individual and organizational.

One of the focuses of the individual-associated approaches directs its investigations available to individuals to become social entrepreneurs (Pangriya, 2019), as well as their behavioral characteristics (Gupta et al., 2020). One of its main lines of research concerns social entrepreneurial intention, which deals with the individual conviction and will to create a social enterprise (Naveed et al., 2021; Tran & Korflesch, 2016).

Mair and Noboa (2003; 2006) were the first to present theoretical propositions about the antecedents of social entrepreneurship intentions, demonstrating how perceptions of desirability are affected by emotional and cognitive attitudes. These researchers propose four antecedents of social entrepreneurship intentions: ‘empathy’, ‘moral judgment’, ‘self-efficacy’, and ‘social support’. According to Mair and Noboa (2006), these variables help individuals with behaviors aimed at improving human well-being to help others in vulnerable conditions.

‘Empathy’ was identified as the ability to intellectually recognize and share the emotions or feelings of others (Mair & Noboa, 2003), and is considered a personality trait common to social entrepreneurs (Dees, 2012). Mair and Noboa (2003) define moral judgment as a cognitive process that motivates an individual to help others in the search for a common good, while ‘self-efficacy’ represents the perceived capacity for efficient use of resources to meet the social purpose (Hockerts, 2015; Mair & Noboa, 2003). Finally, ‘social support’ comprises trust and cooperation between actors derived from social networks (Mair & Noboa, 2003). It can play an essential role in individual intention for social entrepreneurship (Nga & Shamuganathan, 2010) because social entrepreneurs seek solutions that increase social value through long-term investment.

The model proposed by Mair and Noboa (2003; 2006) was the basis for further studies, with their hypotheses being tested and improved. Because motivation can better reflect individuals’ beliefs, attitudes, and perceptions (Ajzen & Madden, 1986), prosocial motivation was also linked to the social entrepreneurial intention construct (Hockerts, 2017). This is defined as the desire to conduct actions based on the concern to benefit, help, or connect with others (Shepherd, 2015). Empirically, Yu et al. (2020) investigated how prosocial motivation affects social entrepreneurial intention. In a similar theoretical line, Bacq and Alt (2018), based on the approach of prosocial motives, analyzed the willingness of individuals to develop ‘empathy’ for others.

Another dimension of entrepreneurial behavior commonly explored in social entrepreneurship literature concerns ‘individual entrepreneurial orientation’. Weerawardena et al. (2003) and Weerawardena and Mort (2006) presented the construct of entrepreneurial social orientation as a multidimensional concept that involves the expression of virtuous business behavior to fulfill ‘social missions’. They also considered that social entrepreneurship is the ability to recognize opportunities capable of creating ‘social value’ involving key characteristics, such as ‘innovation’, ‘proactivity’, and ‘risk assumption’.

From this, much of the studies developed within the scope of entrepreneurial social orientation have been dedicated to verifying an individual’s perceptions of his behavior, especially the willingness to take risks, socially innovate, and being proactive (Dwivedi & Weerawardena, 2018; Hu & Pang, 2013; Kraus et al., 2017; Satar & Natasha, 2019). Moreover, more recent studies have sought to analyze how entrepreneurial social guidance and social entrepreneurial intention relate (Al-Harasi et al., 2021; Naveed et al., 2021).

At the organizational level, the literature presents two main approaches. The first relates social entrepreneurship to ‘non-profit’, ‘voluntary’, and ‘government organizations’ seeking a ‘social mission’ (Borzaga & Defourny, 2001; Defourny & Nyssens, 2010). The European strand of social entrepreneurship influenced them. Another perspective, which in a broader sense combines ‘initiatives of profit’ with ‘social value creation’, considers that social entrepreneurship can also manifest itself in the business context (Austin et al., 2012; Dees & Anderson, 2006; Nicholls, 2006), presenting characteristics of the American strand of social entrepreneurship. The perspective of hybrid business has also been gaining ground; in this perspective, ‘individual and corporate aspects of traditional business activity are used to apply to social needs and problems’ (Peris-Ortiz et al., 2016; Urbano et al., 2010).

Regarding measurement models at the organizational level, Kannampuzha and Hockerts (2019) proposed a measurement scale for the administrative processes of social entrepreneurship composed of the following elements: ‘intention for social change’, ‘commercial activity’, and ‘inclusive governance’. These components are derived from the work of Dees (1998) and Dees and Anderson (2006). It also presents the ‘social mission subdimensions, interaction changes, salaried employees, democratic decision-making, and stakeholder participation’.

Kuratko et al. (2017) developed the social corporate entrepreneurship scale (SCES), allowing managers to analyze whether the perceived organizational environment favors promoting attitudes intended for social value creation besides the financial ones Peris-Ortiz et al. (2016) designed a scale with elements inherent to social entrepreneurial activity applied to for-profit companies, reflecting the idea that companies can address customer and environmental service while still generating profit.

One of the main points highlighted in these studies is that they consider social enterprises as organizations of a commercial nature that combine the pursuit of ‘profit and the social objective’. Given this perspective, the view that social enterprises tend to rely exclusively on investments and resources from donations from individuals, foundations and corporations, government contracts, and voluntary work is overcome (Lumpkin et al., 2013; Wilsker & Young, 2010). In this sense, financial sustainability is considered a prerequisite for these models of social enterprises (Dacin et al., 2011; Teodósio & Comini, 2012; Weerawardena et al., 2010), which by combining ‘financial sustainability and generation of social value’, demonstrate potential for ‘creating shared value’ (Driver & Porter, 2012; Leal et al., 2015).

Therefore, based on the literature analyzed, the elements cited as inherent to the entrepreneur and the set of skills attributed to them, as well as the processes and results generated by social entrepreneurship, were gathered in a framework, as shown below.

PROPOSAL OF A FRAMEWORK OF THE ELEMENTS OF MEASUREMENT OF SOCIAL ENTREPRENEURSHIP IN DEVELOPING COUNTRIES

It is noteworthy that the multiplicity of looks for analysis of social entrepreneurship should include the perspective of each region’s economic, social, and political contexts (Bacq & Janssen, 2011). Therefore, although US and European approaches are dominant in the characterization of social entrepreneurship, for the elaboration of the proposed framework, the conception of developing countries was also considered, which has an emphasis on market activities that promote poverty reduction and social transformation in the living conditions of marginalized or excluded individuals (Comini et al., 2012), given the specific needs of the context analyzed.

Thus, for this proposal, social entrepreneurship was evidenced as a process led by individuals motivated to generate innovations that promote solutions to social demands not met by the conventional market, so-called social entrepreneurs. These individuals are characterized by risking a context of uncertainty, spending efforts to attract and mobilize resources to create and support social value beyond economic value, and contributing to social transformation (Comini et al., 2012; Dees, 1998; Huda et al., 2019; Weerawardena & Mort, 2006; Yunus, 2009) of the contexts in which they are inserted. Such aspects are presented in the proposition of a framework for measuring social entrepreneurship in developing countries.

The proposed model was conceived from the bibliographic review of entrepreneurship models indexed in Web of Science and Scopus between 1945 and 2019, covering the entire period of publications on the respective bases until the survey occurred. It was considered the fact that traditional entrepreneurship is used as a fundamental theory to capture elements of social entrepreneurship (Parente et al., 2011). The selection of articles for the composition of the analysis model proposed in this study first sought to identify the main elements related to entrepreneurship that are aspects of measurement, to then extract the dimensions associated with social entrepreneurship. Therefore, as a selection criterion, the article should present in its title one of the following terms: entrepreneur and characteristics, entrepreneur and scale, entrepreneur and measure, or entrepreneur and indicators.

After verifying the duplicate files, the number of final documents was 756 articles. A strict reading of their summaries was made to select only the studies related directly to the measurement of entrepreneurship and its characteristics. Given this criterion, 67 articles composed the sample of analysis. From there, they have stratified only the dimensions associated with social entrepreneurship and their potential categories of research, including the individual and the organization measurements, as represented in Figure 1.

Figure 1
Proposal of a framework of the elements of measurement of social entrepreneurship in developing countries.

From the elaboration of the dimensions, the variables that compose them were defined, and the theoretical bases for their support were specified. Table 1 presents the main dimensions and theoretical foundations of each determinant, and explains the intended verification with the elements proposed within the scope of the individual, including behaviors of the social entrepreneur.

Table 1
Elements of analysis of social entrepreneurship at the level of the individual.

Dimension	Definition of variables	Theoretical basis
Entrepreneurial social intent	Empathy - Sensitivity to other people’s feelings/needs.	Bacq & Alt, 2018; Forster & Grichnik, 2013; Mair & Noboa, 2003; 2006; Miller et al., 2012; Teise & Urban, 2015
	Prosocial motivation - Motivation of an individual to help another in the pursuit of the common good.	Bacq & Alt, 2018; Forster & Grichnik, 2013; Hockerts, 2015; Mair & Noboa, 2003; 2006; Miller et al., 2012; Yu et al., 2020
	Self-efficacy - Perceived ability to efficiently use resources to meet social purpose.	Ernst, 2018; Fitzsimmons & Douglas, 2011; Forster & Grichnik, 2013; Hassan, 2020; Mair & Martí, 2006; Mair & Noboa, 2003; Urban, 2020
	Social support - Trust and cooperation between actors derived from social networks.	Forster & Grichnik, 2013; Hockerts, 2015; Mair & Noboa, 2006; Nga & Shamuganathan, 2010
Entrepreneurial social orientation	Social innovation - Ability to innovate socially.	Dwivedi & Weerawardena, 2018; Ghalwash et al., 2017; Nga & Shamuganathan, 2010; Rao-Nicholson et al., 2017; Weerawardena & Mort, 2006
	Social risk-taking - Level of propensity to take risks.	Ghalwash et al., 2017; Hu & Pang, 2013; Satar & Natasha, 2019; Weerawardena & Mort, 2006
	Social proactivity - Exploitation of opportunities, and initiative to generate social benefits.	Hu & Pang, 2013; Lumpkin & Dess, 1996; Mort et al., 2003; Peredo & McLean, 2006; Weerawardena & Mort, 2006
	Social value orientation - Degree to which an entrepreneur focuses on creating social value.	Dees, 1998; Kraus et al., 2017; Mair & Martí, 2006; Martin & Osberg, 2007; Nga & Shamuganathan, 2010; Weerawardena & Mort, 2006

• Note. Source: Elaborated by the authors.

Similarly, Table 2 exposes the characteristic elements of social entrepreneurship, which are related to the organizational level with their specific dimensions and variables for processes and results.

Table 2
Elements of analysis of social entrepreneurship at the organizational level.

Dimension	Definition of variables	Theoretical basis
Processes	Resources - Ability to access the necessary resources for the operation of the social enterprise.	Alvord et al., 2004; Austin & Seitanidi, 2012; Lumpkin et al., 2013; Wilsker & Young, 2010
	Partnerships - Formation of inter-organizational arrangements in search of benefits for the social enterprise	Kolk & Lenfant, 2015; Michelini & Fiorentino, 2012; Ojo & Mellouli, 2018; Sagawa & Segal, 2000
	Shared value - Strategy for ensuring financial sustainability and generating social value.	Austin & Seitanidi, 2012; Bittencourt & Figueiró, 2019; Dees, 1998; Michelini & Fiorentino, 2012; Yunus et al., 2010
Results	Social transformation - Valuing individuals through the principles of inclusion, equity, and justice.	Alvord et al., 2004; Certo & Miller, 2008; Comini et al., 2012; Dees, 1998; Marquez et al., 2009; Yunus, 2009
	Social empowerment - Mobilization to encourage the capacities of the beneficiaries of the social enterprise.	Ansari et al., 2012; Datta & Gailey, 2012; Mongelli & Rullani, 2017; Santos, 2012
	Social problem-solving - Development of solutions to socioeconomic problems.	Alvord et al., 2004; Comini et al., 2012; Dees, 1998; Nicholls, 2006; Seelos & Mair, 2005

• Note. Source: Elaborated by the authors.

Table 3
Delphi result for the variables of the entrepreneurial social intention dimension.

Variables/Indicators		1st round		2nd round	Final result
		Average/ Standard deviation	Consensus	Consensus
Empathy	1. I make myself available to people to understand their social needs, impasses, and difficulties.	6.00	90.32%	-	Included
		0.9666
	2. I seek to find ways to meet the social demands of individuals.	6.23	96.77%	-	Included
		0.805
	3. I am in solidarity with the social problems faced by vulnerable groups.	6.13	90.32%	-	Included
		1.204
	4. I identify with my target audience.	5.35	74.19%	66.67	Excluded
		1.404
Prosocial motivation	5. I care about benefiting others through my work.	6.16	90.32%	-	Included
		1.098
	6. My personal beliefs and values contribute to my desire to benefit vulnerable individuals.	6.39	93.55%	-	Included
		0.882
	7. I seek to fight the causes of social problems to produce changes in people’s lives.	6.35	96.77%	-	Included
		0.877
	8. My involvement in social entrepreneurship practices is a motivation to achieve self-realization.	5.87	87.10%	-	Included
		1.284
	9. I consider that promoting people’s well-being through initiatives involving social issues is a reason for personal satisfaction.	6.48	96.77%	-	Included
		0.769
Self-efficacy	10. I believe I have the skills necessary to be a social entrepreneur.	5.61	87.10%	-	Included
		1.022
	11. I am confident in my ability to effectively use available resources for the proper functioning of the social enterprise.	5.81	90.32%	-	Included
		0.980
	12. I persist in the search for mechanisms to achieve the social mission of the enterprise, even in the face of challenging circumstances.	6.19	93.55%	-	Included
		0.910
Social support	13. I try to get support from my social contacts to make my social enterprise operational.	6.13	96.77%	-	Included
		0.957
	14. I receive help from different segments of society for my social enterprise.	5.35	77.42%	50.00%	Excluded
		1.170
	15. My good reputation helps attract trust from supporters and partners.	5.97	93.55%	-	Included
		0.836
	16. I think it is important to have a wide network of contacts that can contribute to the development of my social enterprise.	6.35	100%	-	Included
		0.798

• Note. Source: Survey data.

Table 4
Delphi result for the variables of the social entrepreneurial orientation dimension.

Variables/Indicators		1st round		2nd round	Final result
		Average/ Standard deviation	Consensus	Consensus
Social innovation	1. I am always willing to develop innovative ideas/solutions based on social needs.	6.13	87.10%	-	Included
		1.176
	2. I offer innovative products and/or services in order to promote beneficial changes in society.	6.00	87.10%	-	Included
		1.095
	3. I keep myself informed about the news in the area of activity of my enterprise.	6.03	90.32%	-	Included
		1.016
	4. I make creative use of resources to generate social value (impact and transformation in society).	5.94	100%	-	Included
		0.814
Social risk-taking	5. Even with uncertain returns, I am willing to expend effort and/or invest resources to solve social problems.	5.81	90.32%	-	Included
		1.276
	6. I believe that it is necessary to act boldly to achieve a social purpose.	5.94	90.32%	-	Included
		0.998
	7. I have the ability to act in the face of risk.	5.58	90.32%	-	Included
		1.119
	8. I accept taking risks by getting involved in initiatives with potential social returns.	5.71	93.55	-	Included
		1.160
Social proactivity	9. I visualize opportunities where others only see social problems.	6.00	90.32%	-	Included
		0.966
	10. Normally, in situations of need for social change, I seek to act in advance.	5.58	83.87%	-	Included
		1.177
	11. I am able to foresee social problems before other people.	5.03	67.74%	28.57%	Excluded
		1.303
	12. I take the initiative to implement projects instead of waiting for someone else to do it.	5.87	87.10%	-	Included
		1.024
	13. I explore opportunities with the purpose of generating social value (impact and transformation in society).	5.97	90.32%	-	Included
		0.948
Orientation to social value	14. I carry out my activities with enthusiasm and commitment aimed at creating social value (impact and transformation in society).	6.32	100%	-	Included
		0.702
	15. I have a focus on creating social value in addition to economic value.	6.16	90.32%		Included
		1.098
	16. I am committed to social and collective interests.	6.45	100%	-	Included
		0.675
	17. I prefer to make decisions with benefits for the collective rather than decisions solely focused on personal benefits.	5.97	87.10%	-	Included
		1.10

• Note. Source: Survey data.

Table 5
Delphi result for the variables of the processes dimension.

Variables/Indicators		1st round		2nd round	Final result
		Average/ Standard deviation	Consensus	Consensus
Access to resources	1. It is possible to attract investors to an organization that seeks to solve social problems.	5.52	70.97%	75.00%	Excluded
		1.525
	2. Social enterprises attract volunteer workers.	5.26	74.19%	79.17%	Excluded
		1.316
	3. The main source of financial capital for the social enterprise comes from donations from third parties.	4.03	41.94%	33.33%	Excluded
		1.683
	4. Government agencies promote social enterprises.	4.19	45.16 %	45.83%	Excluded
		1.515
	5. It is important for social enterprises to have access to relevant information about the context in which they carry out their activities.	6.45	96.77	-	Included
		0.888
	6. Social capital is associated with trust, values, and beliefs that individuals share, expressing coordinated actions toward a common goal. It is possible that this is a relevant phenomenon for the operationalization of the social enterprise.	5.87	90.32%	-	Included
		1.310
Partnerships	7. The new ideas of social entrepreneurship come from the direct interaction with the community involved in the social purpose.	6.71	100%	-	Included
		0.461
	8. The region has incubators or accelerators that provide assistance to social enterprises.	5.00	61.29%	56.52%	Excluded
		1.862
	9. The government facilitates the development of social entrepreneurship through support structures and appropriate policy formulation.	4.35	45.16%	52.17%	Excluded
		1.959
	10. It is possible to obtain support from the private sector through innovations to meet the social purpose of the enterprise.	5.00	58.06%	73.91%	Excluded
		1.571
	11. Universities in the region partner through educational training and research programs on topics related to social entrepreneurship.	4.87	54.84%	60.87	Excluded
		1.727
Shared value generation	12. Social entrepreneurship uses co-creation techniques, that is, it allows the involvement and active interaction of the beneficiaries, from the conception of the product and/or service to its consumption.	5.84	83.87%	-	Included
		1.157
	13. The social enterprise promotes social benefits linked to economic gains to guarantee its sustainability.	6.32	96.77%	-	Included
		0.909
	14. The management of social entrepreneurship meets the social demands, interests, and expectations of the beneficiaries, creating shared value for the parties involved.	6.06	90.32%	-	Included
		0.964

• Note. Source: Survey data.

Table 6
Delphi result for the variables of the results dimension’.

Variables/Indicators		1st round		2nd round	Final result
		Average/ Standard deviation	Consensus	Consensus
Social Empowerment	1. Social entrepreneurial activity enables community participation to change the scenario of social problems with which they live.	5.68	74.19%	90.91%	Included
		1.514
	2. The decisions of the social enterprise are taken collectively, considering the opinion of its beneficiaries.	5.03	70.97%	76.19%	Excluded
		1.472
	3. Training opportunities are created with a view to building the capacities of beneficiaries.	5.35	67.74%	60.00%	Excluded
		1.253
	4. The social enterprise develops projects that seek to guarantee the autonomy of individuals in situations of social and economic vulnerability.	5.58	77.42%	90.48%	Included
		1.285
Social problem-solving	5. Strategies are adopted to ensure the growth of the proposed solutions, aiming to disseminate them and adapt them to different contexts.	5.52	77.42%	85.71%	Included
		1.387
	6. Products and/or services are developed that satisfy social needs not met by conventional means (markets/governments).	6.0	90.32%	-	Included
		1.155
	7. Social entrepreneurial activity seeks to overcome social problems such as: poverty, inequalities, education, health, access to technology, and the environment.	6.42	100%	-	Included
		0.765
Social transformation	8. Social entrepreneurship seeks to meet the specific social needs of the context in which it is inserted.	6.06	93.55%	-	Included
		1.263
	9. Social entrepreneurship helps promote local development.	6.45	96.77%	-	Included
		0.850
	10. Social entrepreneurship aims to promote equity and social justice.	6.26	96.77%	-	Included
		0.893
	11. Social entrepreneurship aims to generate employment and income opportunities for groups with low or no insertion in the labor market.	5.81	80.65%	-	Included
		1.400
	12. The activities inherent to social entrepreneurship provide the inclusion of vulnerable individuals in the production and consumption chain.	5.87	83.87%	-	Included
		1.176

• Note. Source: Survey data.

These elements were detailed through a questionnaire and subjected to validation through a Delphi panel with a set of specialists, as described in the following methodology section.

METHODOLOGICAL ASPECTS

This research used the Delphi methodology in its conventional modality, which involves the interaction between researchers/geographically diverse experts, to seek to define and consolidate opinions on a particular theme or event (McPherson et al., 2018). The instrument of analysis was a questionnaire composed of four dimensions and subdimensions that resulted in 59 variables being submitted to the trial of a group of experts. It was made available in Portuguese and English, allowing international participation, and sent via email to the respondents. The evaluation scale was Likert type with a variation of one to seven, with one to the slightest importance and seven to the largest importance for the indicator. At the end of each group of questions, an open question was included for suggestions and comments.

The criterion to participate in this panel was: specialists with knowledge in social entrepreneurship investigating the phenomenon in the context of developing countries. In pairs, they revised scientific journals with publications on the theme in the last 10 years.

A number between 10 and 30 experts is considered sufficient to generate relevant information. (Grisham, 2009; Osborne et al., 2003). Seventy-five researchers who attended to the established criteria were invited; of these, 31 answered the first round of the questionnaire, reducing to 24 in the second round. The final sampling featured researchers from the following countries: Brazil, India, Malaysia, Morocco, the United Kingdom, and Saudi Arabia. These steps took place in October and December 2020, respectively.

The number of rounds necessary for the Delphi implementation depends on the degree of consensus desired by the researcher (Hsu & Sandford, 2007). At least two rounds are sufficient; a much larger number is not advisable due to time restrictions, and does not tend to generate significant changes in opinion (Kayo & Securato, 2010). For this study, the intended objectives were obtained from two rounds.

Regarding predefined consensus levels, for the first round of Delphi, it was established as a criterion for insertion of the indicator that it obtained an average equal to or greater than five by at least 80% of the respondents. After analyzing and synthesizing the first round of data, they were subjected to a second round, in which experts were asked to reaffirm or modify their answers. Initially, the indicators were exposed with a consensus equal to or greater than 80%, followed by the issues that did not reach consensus in the first round. In both cases, the expert was asked to choose to include or exclude the proposed indicator. The analysis of the second round responses used the same level of consensus as the first round (80%) for inclusion and exclusion of the item in the model.

DELPHI DASHBOARD RESULTS FOR INDIVIDUAL ANALYSIS LEVEL

At the individual level, 33 indicators were proposed that represent the performance of the respective social entrepreneur and the set of skills attributed to them in the context of developing countries. After two Delphi rounds, 30 variables were kept, as detailed below.

The first dimension, entrepreneurial social intention, aimed to verify the reasons or inspirations that lead an individual to undertake social enterprises and comprised the variables empathy, prosocial motivation, self-efficacy, and social support. In the first round of the Delphi panel, two indicators were pointed for exclusion in the two evaluation rounds. At the same time, 14 of the 16 indicators obtained a consensus level above 80% and were indicated for inclusion in the model.

The results indicate that the components formed by the variables empathy, prosocial motivation, self-efficacy, and social support are essential for the entrepreneurial social intention dimension, corroborating the literature according to which these elements are predictors of social entrepreneurial behavior (Mair & Noboa, 2006; Yu et al., 2020). According to Bacq and Alt (2018), Mair and Noboa (2003; 2006) and Teise and Urban (2015), social entrepreneurship is mainly driven by intentions and influenced by the combination of motives and cognitions (Sharir & Lerner, 2006).

The indicators that made up the empathy variable addressed aspects related to the social entrepreneur’s ability to understand the community and its problems and propose solutions, which follows the perspectives of Mair and Noboa (2003; 2006). In this case, only one indicator was not associated by the experts as a measure that reflects empathy - identifying the social entrepreneur with his target audience. This result can be related to the experts’ perception that the social entrepreneurs can share other people’s emotions and feelings to develop the desire to solve social problems, even though they are not part of the focus context of the enterprise.

Prosocial motivation comprises cognitive and emotional elements that lead the social entrepreneur to create value in the community and to help people facing challenging circumstances. Among these motivations are personal beliefs and values, as well as the social entrepreneur’s need to feel good about himself and thus improve his well-being (Farny et al., 2019). For this variable, all indicators showed consensus, being able to be included in the model, thus corroborating the literature in the area.

As for self-efficacy, indicators that reflect the beliefs in the social entrepreneur’s abilities to organize and execute the actions necessary for the development of their enterprise were evidenced. All indicators reached consensus and were included in the model, supporting the theoretical approaches that consider self-efficacy as one of the factors that best explain the intentions of social entrepreneurship (Hockerts, 2017; Mair & Noboa, 2003; 2006; Teise & Urban, 2015).

Social support was also considered a relevant predictor of entrepreneurial social intention, as exposed by Mair and Noboa (2006). This variable presented aspects related to the network of connections established by the social entrepreneurs to reach their goals. In this case, unanimously, all specialists considered it essential to have a vast network of contacts, as it contributes to the development of the social enterprise. Of the four indicators presented in this dimension, only one did not show consensus - receiving help from different segments of society, so it was not included in the model. Some experts did not consider the indicator appropriate for the social context since social entrepreneurs depend more on informal networks than traditional entrepreneurs, who rely on a more diverse range of support segments (Trivedi & Stokols, 2011).

The entrepreneurial social orientation dimension aims to verify characteristic behaviors and drivers of social entrepreneurship and comprises four variables: social innovation, social risk-taking, social proactivity, and social value orientation. Consensus above 80% was obtained for 16 of the 17 proposed indicators.

Entrepreneurial social orientation is considered the result of a combination of factors categorized for the proposed model: social innovation, risk-taking, proactivity, and value orientation. All these variables were deemed valid by the experts to compose the dimension in question.

Social innovation comprised the first variable of the entrepreneurial social orientation dimension and reflected elements related to promoting new ideas/solutions to social needs. The experts considered the four proposed indicators suitable for inclusion in the model. In addition, they all linked social innovation to creating resources to generate social value and promote societal impact and transformation. This result is consistent with the literature, which indicates that this is the main characteristic that differentiates social from traditional entrepreneurial activity (Austin et al., 2012).

As for the social risk-taking variable, which included characteristics related to the acceptance of risk by the social entrepreneur in the face of opportunities for social return, all indicators reached consensus, since it is typical for the social entrepreneur to accept risk with potential social returns (Weerawardena & Mort, 2006). This characteristic tends to encourage social entrepreneurs to act boldly when viewing new opportunities, being able to venture into the unknown to solve persistent social problems, despite the uncertain environment in which they are inserted.

Five indicators were proposed for the social proactivity variable, related to anticipation and direct action in the face of social entrepreneurial opportunity. The result of the Delphi panel pointed out four indicators as apt to be included in the model. They are related to the social entrepreneurs’ ability to see opportunities where others see mere social problems and their potential to act in anticipation of social issues, needs, or changes (Peredo & McLean, 2006; Weerawardena & Mort, 2006; Satar & Natasha, 2019). Although pioneering behavior in response to social problems is typical for social entrepreneurs, experts do not consider that these individuals can predict social issues, so this indicator did not reach a consensus. The exclusion of the model was indicated.

The social value orientation variable was composed of four indicators and represented one of the main goals of entrepreneurial social orientation (Nga & Shamuganathan, 2010; Weerawardena & Mort, 2006). For this variable, all indicators reached consensus and were included in the model. Here, the specialists mainly pointed to the social entrepreneur character of privileging the collective over the individual and the effort to generate impact and social transformation.

DELPHI DASHBOARD RESULTS FOR THE ORGANIZATIONAL LEVEL OF ANALYSIS

At the organizational level, 26 variables were proposed that represent social entrepreneurial activity in the context of developing countries in terms of processes and results. After two rounds of Delphi, 16 variables were kept, detailed below.

The process dimension sought to verify elements related to the development and implementation of a social enterprise, including variables, access to resources, partnerships, and generation of shared value, totaling 14 indicators. In the first round of the panel, a consensus above 80% was obtained for only six of the 14 proposed indicators. Thus, eight indicators did not present consensus in the first round, and even in the second round, they kept the inclusion levels below the established criterion. Therefore, exclusion from the model was indicated.

The access to resources variable deals with the availability of access to the various types of resources necessary for the operation of the social enterprise. The indicators related to attracting investors, volunteer workers, donations, and government support did not reach a consensus. They were, therefore, indicated to be excluded from the model by experts, despite the literature on the subject presenting these resources as inherent in specific contexts of social entrepreneurship (Lumpkin et al., 2013; Wilsker & Young, 2010).

Corroborating the results of the last variable, the consensus of experts pointed to the need to consider a more significant market logic for social enterprise in developing countries. This result demonstrates that it is necessary to think of the social enterprise as a sustainable business that does not depend exclusively on donations and voluntary work. On the other hand, the operationalization of the social enterprise was considered a relevant resource: access to contextual information on where the entrepreneur will act and the social capital. These two indicators were the only ones to reach a consensus on the access to resources variable.

The second variable analyzed for the process dimension refers to partnerships, including inter-organizational and/or interpersonal arrangements that seek to promote benefits for the social enterprise. This was one of the variables with the most critical results since four of the five proposed indicators did not reach consensus by the experts. The only indicator with consensus, unanimously, was referring to community involvement in social purpose as a source of innovation. However, in the experts’ perception, this indicator better reflects the shared value variable and should therefore be reallocated, as shown in Figure 2.

Figure 2
Design of the social entrepreneurship measurement model for developing countries and its indicators.

The indicators that did not reach consensus concern the support offered by incubators and accelerators, governments, the private sector, and universities. Despite representing elements of partnership in the social entrepreneurial process (Lumpkin et al., 2013; Wilsker & Young, 2010), in the experts’ perception, these partnerships tend to vary according to each region. Again, the results suggest that social enterprise in the context of developing countries should be conceived through a market and long-term logic to not depend only on donations of resources, whether in the governmental or private sphere. Therefore, developing strategies for the autonomous generation of resources are necessary.

The generation of shared value represents the last variable that makes up the process dimension, consisting of three indicators, all of which showed consensus by the experts. This demonstrates that, from the perspective of generating shared value, social entrepreneurship uses co-creation techniques; that is, it counts on the active participation of its beneficiaries when elaborating on goods or services to be offered (Petrini et al., 2016). Also noteworthy, as a typical characteristic of social entrepreneurship, is the generation of social benefits linked to economic gain (Teodósio & Comini, 2012). Finally, the generation of mutual benefits is included, considering that social entrepreneurial activity tends to favor both the social entrepreneur and its beneficiaries.

The last dimension of analysis of the proposed model, results in social entrepreneurship, verified elements related to the impacts of social entrepreneurial activity. Three variables initially offered this: social empowerment, Social problem-solving, and social transformation, where consensus above 80% was obtained for 10 of the 12 proposed indicators.

The first variable of the social entrepreneurship results dimension was social empowerment, which refers to the stimulation of capacity building of the local group, analyzing its situation, and identifying problems and solutions (Santos, 2012). This was composed of four indicators, of which two reached a consensus - enabling community participation to change the scenario of social problems faced and guaranteeing the autonomy of individuals in situations of risk and social and economic vulnerability. One of the indicators that did not reach consensus for the variable in question addresses aspects related to collective participation in decision-making processes. The experts considered that this aspect is not a measure of social empowerment, being more linked to the co-creation process exposed in the processes dimension presented above. The other indicator without consensus on the part of the specialists refers to the construction of the beneficiaries’ capacities, being considered closer to the social transformation variable. Thus, such indicators were indicated for exclusion to avoid repetitions.

The resolution of social problems was the second variable proposed in the results dimension and is related to the solutions developed to the problems that social entrepreneurship offers to overcome, whether they are of a social, economic, or environmental nature. Experts suggested renaming the variable to solve socio-environmental issues, including ecological solutions. All three indicators proposed for this variable reached consensus; that is, they are related to the ability to disseminate the proposed solutions, satisfy needs not met by the conventional market, and overcome problems related to poverty, inequalities, education, health, access to technology, and environment (Comini et al., 2012; Dees, 1998; Prahalad & Hart, 2002). In the latter case, the proposed indicator presented a level of 100% consensus; this may be related to the fact that these problems are common to developing countries, highlighting the role of social entrepreneurship in overcoming these contextual situations.

Finally, the social transformation variable was presented, related to the valorization of human development through the principles of inclusion, equality, and social justice. Initially, five indicators were proposed, reaching a consensus for all. The results focused on aspects related to meeting social needs specific to the context in which social entrepreneurship is inserted, and in the promotion of local development generated from social entrepreneurship, as contributing elements to the generation of equity and social justice and, thus, effective social transformation.

The generation of employment and income through social entrepreneurship, including marginalized individuals in the production and consumption chain, is also considered an element that promotes social transformation. These last elements are commonly presented from the theoretical perspective of analysis of social entrepreneurship in developing countries (Comini et al., 2012).

Discussion of the social entrepreneurship measurement framework for developing countries

Figure 2 presents the model design that resulted from this research, exposing in detail the indicators that best met the constructs presented in each dimension, validated by experts as relevant for measuring social entrepreneurship in developing countries.

The dimensions of the individual level (entrepreneurial social intention and entrepreneurial social orientation) did not undergo significant changes and maintained the structure of their variables after validation. At the organizational level, some changes were made due to the results presented. For the processes dimension, for example, the partnership variable was excluded, as it presented consensus for only one of its indicators (community involved in the social purpose as a source of innovation). This was reallocated to the shared value dimension. The social problem-solving variable was renamed as socio-environmental problem-solving.

According to the research findings, the indicators included in the model, within the scope of entrepreneurial behavior and the results of social entrepreneurship validated by experts, align with what is advocated in the literature. However, regarding the process dimension, the findings showed greater variations, as a more significant number of items were indicated to be excluded from the model. The lack of consensus for a more substantial number of indicators of the process dimension can be explained by the limitations in the literature about the processual thinking of social entrepreneurship, as evidenced by Bacq and Janssen (2011) and Olinsson (2017), who indicate a scarcity of studies related to the development of social entrepreneurship and how it can be replicated and managed.

The results also suggest that, in the opinion of specialists, in developing countries the perspective of social and hybrid businesses prevails to favor the autonomy of individuals through income generation and the resolution of socioeconomic problems faced by these countries. Social entrepreneurs in this context manifest themselves as agents of change and social transformation; they have a profile similar to traditional entrepreneurs in terms of behaviors and processes but with differences in the objectives of their actions.

CONCLUSIONS

This research sought to minimize the gap in the literature related to the absence of instruments to measure social entrepreneurship, mainly aimed at developing countries. A proposal with dimensions and categories of analysis of social entrepreneurship was elaborated and submitted to the validation of a group of specialists. Indicators for social entrepreneurship at the individual level were proposed, including aspects inherent to the behavior of the social entrepreneur, and indicators at the organizational level, covering elements related to the processes and results of social entrepreneurship.

Considering the proposal’s originality, the Delphi technique was used with 24 experts who research social entrepreneurship in the context of developing countries. After two rounds of Delphi questionnaires, it was possible to synthesize the essential elements for what was intended to be evaluated. Thus, the 59 indicators initially proposed were reduced to 46 by the consensus of experts, representing 77.97% of the most significant indicators to explain social entrepreneurship in developing countries.

This study tends to contribute to the advancement of the field in the sense that it provides a basis for creating a measurement instrument for social entrepreneurship in a specific context. In addition, with the detailed theoretical bases of the selected indicators, it was possible to demonstrate the profile of entrepreneurs and social enterprises in developing countries, a valuable aspect for social actors (society, governments, and managers in general) who already work or who wish to invest in social enterprises in this context.

One of the limitations of this study was the dispersion of experts at the conclusion of Delphi, since between one round of the panel some experts did not respond, resulting in a reduction in the number of participants. Even so, the number of final participants was sufficient to validate the proposal and met the criteria indicated in the literature for the reliability of the result. In addition, the data were analyzed descriptively to assess their statistical reliability quantitatively. The dispersion and position measures indicated statistically acceptable values.

As a suggestion for future research, two main ideas are recorded: the empirical application of this model with social entrepreneurs located in developing countries to carry out a second validation using confirmatory multivariate statistics, also generating the levels of importance of each component in the model, and the replication of this same procedure with specialists from developed countries to verify if there are changes in the structure of the model.

The results suggest that the experts’ perception, when taking into account contextual elements of developing countries, is closer to the perspective of hybrid businesses, which favors the autonomy of individuals and the resolution of socioeconomic problems faced by these nations, with the generation of social benefit linked to economic gain.

Thus, the framework of social entrepreneurship in developing countries is that of social and hybrid businesses that analyze the individual and organizational levels. The individual one is focused on entrepreneurial intention and orientation, and the organizational one focuses on the processes and results of social entrepreneurial activity. This framework recognizes that social entrepreneurship in developing countries depends on a direction toward the social, which is reflected in the desire to solve society’s problems, thus generating, in addition to economic value, social and environmental values.

REFERÊNCIAS

• Adro, F. D., & Fernandes, C. (2021). Social entrepreneurship and social innovation: Looking inside the box and moving out of it. Innovation: The European Journal of Social Science Research, 1-27. https://doi.org/10.1080/13511610.2020.1870441
  » https://doi.org/10.1080/13511610.2020.1870441
• Ajzen, I., & Madden, T. J. (1986). Prediction of goal-directed behavior: Attitudes, intentions, and perceived behavioral control. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 22(5), 453-474. https://doi.org/10.1016/0022-1031(86)90045-4
  » https://doi.org/10.1016/0022-1031(86)90045-4
• Al-Harasi, A. H., Surin, E. F., Rahim, H. L., Abdulrab, M., Al-Mamary, Y. H., Al-Shammari, S. A., ... & Grada, M. (2021). The impact of social entrepreneurial personality on social entrepreneurial intention among university graduates in Yemen: a conceptual framework. Holos, 1, 1 -17. https://doi.org/10.15628/holos.2021.11420
  » https://doi.org/10.15628/holos.2021.11420
• Alter, K. (2007). Social enterprise typology. Virtue Ventures LLC, 12(1), 1-124. http://www.4lenses.org/setypology
  » http://www.4lenses.org/setypology
• Alvord, S. H., Brown, L. D., & Letts, C. W. (2004). Social Entrepreneurship and Societal Transformation: An exploratory study. The Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 40(3), 260-282. https://doi.org/10.1177/0021886304266847
  » https://doi.org/10.1177/0021886304266847
• Ansari, S., Munir, K., & Gregg, T. (2012). Impact at the “Bottom of the Pyramid”: The role of social capital in capability development and community empowerment. Journal of Management Studies, 49(4), 813-842. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-6486.2012.01042.x
  » https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-6486.2012.01042.x
• Austin, J. E., & Seitanidi, M. M. (2012). Collaborative value creation: A review of partnering between nonprofits and businesses: Part I. Value creation spectrum and collaboration stages. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 41(5), 726-758. https://doi.org/10.1177/0899764012450777
  » https://doi.org/10.1177/0899764012450777
• Austin, J., Stevenson, H., & Wei-Skillern, J. (2012). Social and commercial entrepreneurship: Same, different, or both? Entrepreneurship: Theory and Practice, 30(1), 1-22. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-6520.2006.00107.x
  » https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-6520.2006.00107.x
• Bacq, S., & Alt, E. (2018). Feeling capable and valued: A prosocial perspective on the link between empathy and social entrepreneurial intentions. Journal of Business Venturing, 33(3), 333-350. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusvent.2018.01.004
  » https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusvent.2018.01.004
• Bacq, S., & Janssen, F. (2011). The multiple faces of social entrepreneurship: A review of definitional issues based on geographical and thematic criteria. Entrepreneurship & Regional Development, 23(5-6), 373-403. https://doi.org/10.1080/08985626.2011.577242
  » https://doi.org/10.1080/08985626.2011.577242
• Barberá-Tomás, D., Castelló, I., De Bakker, F. G. A., & Zietsma, C. (2019). Energizing through visuals: How social entrepreneurs use emotion-symbolic work for social change. Academy of Management Journal, 62(6), 1789-1817. https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2017.1488
  » https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2017.1488
• Barki, E., Comini, G., Cunliffe, A., Hart, S., & Rai, S. (2015). Social entrepreneurship and social business: Retrospective and prospective research. RAE Revista de Administracao de Empresas, 55(4), 380-384. https://doi.org/10.1590/S0034-759020150402
  » https://doi.org/10.1590/S0034-759020150402
• Bittencourt, B. A., & Figueiró, P. S. (2019). A criação de valor compartilhado com base em um ecossistema de inovação. Cadernos EBAPE.BR, 17(4), 1002-1015. https://doi.org/10.1590/1679-395174403
  » https://doi.org/10.1590/1679-395174403
• Borzaga, C., & Defourny, J. (2001). Conclusions. Social enterprises in Europe: A diversity of initiatives and prospects. The Emergence of Social Enterprise, 350-370. https://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.469.831&rep=rep1&type=pdf
  » https://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.469.831&rep=rep1&type=pdf
• Canestrino, R., Ćwiklicki, M., Magliocca, P., & Pawełek, B. (2020). Understanding social entrepreneurship: A cultural perspective in business research. Journal of Business Research, 110, 132-143. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2020.01.006
  » https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2020.01.006
• Capella-Peris, C., Gil-Gómez, J., Martí-Puig, M., & Ruíz-Bernardo, P. (2020). Development and validation of a scale to assess social entrepreneurship competency in higher education development and validation of a scale to assess social. Journal of Social Entrepreneurship, 11(1), 1-17. https://doi.org/10.1080/19420676.2018.1545686
  » https://doi.org/10.1080/19420676.2018.1545686
• Certo, S. T., & Miller, T. (2008). Social entrepreneurship: Key issues and concepts. Business Horizons, 51(4), 267-271. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bushor.2008.02.009
  » https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bushor.2008.02.009
• Comini, G. M. (2016). Negócios sociais e inovação social: Um retrato de experiências brasileiras [Tese de doutorado]. Universidade de São Paulo.
• Comini, G., Barki, E., & Aguiar, L. T. de. (2012). A three-pronged approach to social business: a Brazilian multi-case analysis social businesses. Revista de Administração, 47(3), 385-397. https://doi.org/10.5700/rausp1045
  » https://doi.org/10.5700/rausp1045
• Cunha, J., & Benneworth, P. (2014). Social entrepreneurship and social innovation: Are both the same? ICOPEV International Conference on Project Economic Evaluation, Portugal. https://repositorium.sdum.uminho.pt/handle/1822/36913
  » https://repositorium.sdum.uminho.pt/handle/1822/36913
• Dacin, M. T., Dacin, P. A., & Tracey, P. (2011). Social Entrepreneurship: A Critique and Future Directions. Organization Science, 22(5), 1203-1213. https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.1100.0620
  » https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.1100.0620
• Dacin, P. A., Dacin, T., & Matear, M. (2010). Social entrepreneurship: Why we don’t need a new theory and how we move forward from here. Academy of Management Executive, 28(1), 37-57. https://www.jstor.org/stable/29764973
  » https://www.jstor.org/stable/29764973
• Datta, P. B., & Gailey, R. (2012). Empowering women through social entrepreneurship: Case study of a women’s cooperative in India. Entrepreneurship: Theory and Practice, 36(3), 569-587. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-6520.2012.00505.x
  » https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-6520.2012.00505.x
• Dees, J. G. (1998). The meaning of social entrepreneurship. Kauffman Center for Entrepreneurial Leadership.
• Dees, J. G. (2012). A tale of two cultures: Charity, problem solving, and the future of social entrepreneurship. Journal of Business Ethics, 111(3), 321-334. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10551-012-1412-5
  » https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10551-012-1412-5
• Dees, J. G., & Anderson, B. (2006). “Framing a theory of social entrepreneurship: building on two schools of practice and thought”, research on social entrepreneurship. ARNOVA Occasional Paper Series, 1(3), 39-66.
• Defourny, J., & Nyssens, M. (2010). Conceptions of social enterprise and social entrepreneurship in Europe and the United States: Convergences and divergences. Journal of Social Entrepreneurship, 1(1), 32-53. https://doi.org/10.1080/19420670903442053
  » https://doi.org/10.1080/19420670903442053
• Driver, M., & Porter, M. E. (2012). An Interview with Michael Porter: Social Entrepreneurship and the Transformation of Capitalism. Harvard Business School. https://www.hbs.edu/faculty/Pages/item.aspx?num=47422
  » https://www.hbs.edu/faculty/Pages/item.aspx?num=47422
• Dwivedi, A., & Weerawardena, J. (2018). Conceptualizing and operationalizing the social entrepreneurship construct. Journal of Business Research, 86, 32-40. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2018.01.053
  » https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2018.01.053
• Ernst, K. (2018). Heart over mind-An empirical analysis of social entrepreneurial intention formation on the basis of the theory of planned behaviour [Dissertation]. University of Wuppertal. https://d-nb.info/1022899309/34
  » https://d-nb.info/1022899309/34
• Farny, S., Kibler, E., Hai, S., & Landoni, P. (2019). Volunteer retention in prosocial venturing: The role of emotional connectivity. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 43(6), 1094-1123. https://doi.org/10.1177/1042258718769055
  » https://doi.org/10.1177/1042258718769055
• Fitzsimmons, J. R., & Douglas, E. J. (2011). Interaction between feasibility and desirability in the formation of entrepreneurial intentions. Journal of Business Venturing, 26(4), 431-440. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusvent.2010.01.001
  » https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusvent.2010.01.001
• Forster, F., & Grichnik, D. (2013). Social Entrepreneurial Intention Formation of Corporate Volunteers. Journal of Social Entrepreneurship, 4(2), 153-181. https://doi.org/10.1080/19420676.2013.777358
  » https://doi.org/10.1080/19420676.2013.777358
• García-Jurado, A., Pérez-Barea, J. J., & Nova, R. (2021). A new approach to social entrepreneurship: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Sustainability, 13(5), 2754. https://doi.org/10.3390/su13052754
  » https://doi.org/10.3390/su13052754
• Ghalwash, S., Tolba, A., & Ismail, A. (2017). What motivates social entrepreneurs to start social ventures?: An exploratory study in the context of a developing economy. Social Enterprise Journal, 13(3), 268-298. https://doi.org/10.1108/SEJ-05-2016-0014
  » https://doi.org/10.1108/SEJ-05-2016-0014
• Grisham, T. (2009). The Delphi technique: a method for testing complex and multifaceted topics. International Journal of Managing Projects in Business, 2(1), 112-130. https://doi.org/10.1108/17538370910930545
  » https://doi.org/10.1108/17538370910930545
• Gupta, P., Chauhan, S., Paul, J., & Jaiswal, M. P. (2020). Social entrepreneurship research: A review and future research agenda. Journal of Business Research, 113, 209-229. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2020.03.032
  » https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2020.03.032
• Hassan, H. M. K. (2020). Intention towards social entrepreneurship of university students in an emerging economy: The influence of entrepreneurial self-efficacy and entrepreneurship education. On the Horizon, 28(3), 133-151. https://doi.org/10.1108/OTH-04-2020-0012
  » https://doi.org/10.1108/OTH-04-2020-0012
• Hockerts, K. (2015). The Social Entrepreneurial Antecedents Scale (SEAS): A validation study. Social Enterprise Journal, 11(3), 260-280. https://doi.org/10.1108/SEJ-05-2014-0026
  » https://doi.org/10.1108/SEJ-05-2014-0026
• Hockerts, K. (2017). Determinants of social entrepreneurial intentions. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 41(1), 105-130. https://doi.org/10.1111/etap.12171
  » https://doi.org/10.1111/etap.12171
• Hoogendoorn, B., Pennings, E., & Thurik, R. (2010). What do we know about social entrepreneurship: An analysis of empirical research. ERIM Report Series. https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1462018
  » https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1462018
• Hu, Y., & Pang, X. (2013). Social entrepreneurial orientation and performance of nonprofit organizations: an empirical study in China. Journal of Applied Sciences, 13(19), 3989-3994. https://doi.org/10.3923/jas.2013.3989.3994
  » https://doi.org/10.3923/jas.2013.3989.3994
• Hsu, C. C., & Sandford, B. A. (2007). The Delphi technique: Making sense of consensus. Practical Assessment, Research, and Evaluation, 12(12), 10. https://scholarworks.umass.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1177&context=pare
  » https://scholarworks.umass.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1177&context=pare
• Huda, M., Qodriah, S. L., Rismayadi, B., Hananto, A., Kardiyati, E. N., Ruskam, A., & Nasir, B. M. (2019). Towards cooperative with competitive alliance: Insights into performance value in social entrepreneurship. In Creating business value and competitive advantage with social entrepreneurship (pp. 294-317). IGI Global.
• Kannampuzha, M., & Hockerts, K. (2019). Organizational social entrepreneurship: Scale development and validation. Social Enterprise Journal, 15(3), 290-319. https://doi.org/10.1108/SEJ-06-2018-0047
  » https://doi.org/10.1108/SEJ-06-2018-0047
• Kayo, E. K., & Securato, J. R. (2010). Método Delphi: Fundamentos, críticas e vieses. REGE Revista de Gestão, 4(1), 51-61. https://repositorio.usp.br/item/000981336
  » https://repositorio.usp.br/item/000981336
• Kolk, A., & Lenfant, F. (2015). Partnerships for peace and development in fragile states: Identifying missing links. Academy of Management Perspectives, 29(4), 422-437. https://doi.org/10.5465/amp.2013.0122
  » https://doi.org/10.5465/amp.2013.0122
• Kraus, S., Filser, M., O’Dwyer, M., & Shaw, E. (2014). Social entrepreneurship: An exploratory citation analysis. Review of Managerial Science, 8(2), 275-292. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11846-013-0104-6
  » https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11846-013-0104-6
• Kraus, S., Niemand, T., Halberstadt, J., Shaw, E., & Syrjä, P. (2017). Social entrepreneurship orientation: Development of a measurement scale. International Journal of Entrepreneurial Behaviour and Research, 23(6), 977-997. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJEBR-07-2016-0206
  » https://doi.org/10.1108/IJEBR-07-2016-0206
• Kuratko, D. F., Mcmullen, J. S., Hornsby, J. S., & Jackson, C. (2017). Is your organization conducive to the continuous creation of social value ? Toward a social corporate entrepreneurship scale. Business Horizons, 60(3), 271-283. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bushor.2016.12.003
  » https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bushor.2016.12.003
• Leal, A. L. C. A., Freitas, A. A. F. de, & Fontenele, R. E. S. (2015). Value creation in social entrepreneurship: Evidence from a comparison with the commercial entrepreneurship. Revista de Gestao Social e Ambiental, 9(1), 51-65. https://doi.org/10.5773/rgsa.v9i1.1009
  » https://doi.org/10.5773/rgsa.v9i1.1009
• Lumpkin, G. T., & Dess, G. G. (1996). Clarifying the entrepreneurial orientation construct and linking it to performance. Academy of management Review, 21(1), 135-172. https://www.jstor.org/stable/258632
  » https://www.jstor.org/stable/258632
• Lumpkin, G. T., Moss, T. W., Gras, D. M., Kato, S., & Amezcua, A. S. (2013). Entrepreneurial processes in social contexts: How are they different, if at all? Small Business Economics, 40(3), 761-783. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11187-011-9399-3
  » https://doi.org/10.1007/s11187-011-9399-3
• Mair, J., & Martí, I. (2006). Social entrepreneurship research: A source of explanation, prediction, and delight. Journal of World Business, 41(1), 36-44. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jwb.2005.09.002
  » https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jwb.2005.09.002
• Mair, J., & Noboa, E. (2003). Social Entrepreneurship: How Intentions to Create a Social Enterprise Get Formed. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.462283
  » https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.462283
• Mair, J., & Noboa, E. (2006). Social entrepreneurship: How intentions to create a social venture are formed. Social Entrepreneurship, 121-135. https://doi.org/10.1057/9780230625655
  » https://doi.org/10.1057/9780230625655
• Marquez, P., Reficco, E., & Berger, G. (2009). Inclusive businesses in Latin America (Spanish Version). Harvard Business Review.
• Martin, R. L., & Osberg, S. (2007). Social entrepreneurship: The case for definition. Stanford Social Innovation Review, 5(2), 29-39. https://doi.org/10.48558/TSAV-FG11
  » https://doi.org/10.48558/TSAV-FG11
• McPherson, S., Reese, C., & Wendler, M. C. (2018). Methodology update: Delphi studies. Nursing Research, 67(5), 404-410. https://doi.org/10.1097/nnr.0000000000000297
  » https://doi.org/10.1097/nnr.0000000000000297
• Michelini, L., & Fiorentino, D. (2012). New business models for creating shared value. Social Responsibility Journal, 8(4), 561-577. https://doi.org/10.1108/17471111211272129
  » https://doi.org/10.1108/17471111211272129
• Miller, T. L., Grimes, M. G., McMullen, J. S., & Vogus, T. J. (2012). Venturing for others with heart and head: How compassion encourages social entrepreneurship. Academy of Management Review, 37(4), 616-640. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.2010.0456
  » https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.2010.0456
• Mongelli, L., & Rullani, F. (2017). Inequality and marginalisation: social innovation, social entrepreneurship and business model innovation: The common thread of the DRUID Summer Conference 2015. Industry and Innovation, 24(5), 446-467. https://doi.org/10.1080/13662716.2017.1295365
  » https://doi.org/10.1080/13662716.2017.1295365
• Mort, G. S., Weerawardena, J., & Carnegie, K. (2003). Social entrepreneurship: towards conceptualisation. International Journal of Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Marketing, 8(1), 76-88. https://doi.org/10.1002/nvsm.202
  » https://doi.org/10.1002/nvsm.202
• Naveed, M., Zia, M. Q., Younis, S., & Shah, Z. A. (2021). Relationship of individual social entrepreneurial orientations and intentions: role of social entrepreneurship education. Asia Pacific Journal of Innovation and Entrepreneurship, 15(1), 39-50. https://doi.org/10.1108/APJIE-07-2020-0118
  » https://doi.org/10.1108/APJIE-07-2020-0118
• Nga, J. K. H., & Shamuganathan, G. (2010). The influence of personality traits and demographic factors on social entrepreneurship start up intentions. Journal of Business Ethics, 95(2), 259-282. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-009-0358-8
  » https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-009-0358-8
• Nicholls, A. (2006). “Introduction.” In A. Nicholls (Ed.), Social Entrepreneurship: New Models of Sustainable Social Change. Oxford University Press.
• Ojo, A., & Mellouli, S. (2018). Deploying governance networks for societal challenges. Government Information Quarterly, 35(4), S106-S112. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.giq.2016.04.001
  » https://doi.org/10.1016/j.giq.2016.04.001
• Olinsson, S. B. (2017). Social Entrepreneurship-Committing Theory to Practice. Journal of Social Entrepreneurship, 8(2), 225-247. https://doi.org/10.1080/19420676.2017.1375547
  » https://doi.org/10.1080/19420676.2017.1375547
• Osborne, J., Collins, S., Ratcliffe, M., Millar, R., & Duschl, R. (2003). What “ideas‐about‐science” should be taught in school science? A Delphi study of the expert community. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 40(7), 692-720. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.10105
  » https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.10105
• Pangriya, R. (2019). Hidden aspects of social entrepreneurs’ life: A content analysis. Journal of Global Entrepreneurship Research, 9(1). https://doi.org/10.1186/s40497-019-0199-6
  » https://doi.org/10.1186/s40497-019-0199-6
• Phan Tan, L. (2021). Mapping the social entrepreneurship research: Bibliographic coupling, co-citation and co-word analyses. Cogent Business & Management, 8(1), 1896885. https://doi.org/10.1080/23311975.2021.1896885
  » https://doi.org/10.1080/23311975.2021.1896885
• Parente, C., Santos, M., Chaves, R. R., & Costa, D. (2011, maio). Empreendedorismo social: Contributos teóricos para a sua definição. 14º Encontro Nacional de Sociologia Industrial, das Organizações e do Trabalho, Lisboa, Portugal. https://repositorio-aberto.up.pt/bitstream/10216/61862/2/cparenteempreendedorismo000151867.pdf
  » https://repositorio-aberto.up.pt/bitstream/10216/61862/2/cparenteempreendedorismo000151867.pdf
• Peredo, A. M., & McLean, M. (2006). Social entrepreneurship: A critical review of the concept. Journal of World Business, 41(1), 56-65. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jwb.2005.10.007
  » https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jwb.2005.10.007
• Peris-Ortiz, M., Rueda-Armengot, C., & Palacios-Marqués, D. (2016). Is it possible to measure social entrepreneurship in firms? Cuadernos de Gestion, 16(2), 15-28. https://doi.org/10.5295/cdg.140469mp
  » https://doi.org/10.5295/cdg.140469mp
• Petrini, M., Scherer, P., & Back, L. (2016). Modelo de negócios com impacto social. Revista de Administração de Empresas, 56(2), 209-225. https://doi.org/10.1590/s0034-759020160207
  » https://doi.org/10.1590/s0034-759020160207
• Prahalad, C. K., & Hart, S. L. (2002). The fortune at the bottom of the pyramid. Strategy+ Business, New York, 26, 1-14. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/260943834_The_Fortune_at_the_Bottom_of_the_Pyramid
  » https://www.researchgate.net/publication/260943834_The_Fortune_at_the_Bottom_of_the_Pyramid
• Rao-Nicholson, R., Vorley, T., & Khan, Z. (2017). Social innovation in emerging economies: A national systems of innovation based approach. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 121, 228-237. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2017.03.013
  » https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2017.03.013
• Sagawa, S., & Segal, E. (2000). Common interest, common good: Creating value through business and social sector partnerships. California Management Review, 42(2), 105-122. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/272553941_Common_Interest_Common_Good_Creating_Value_Through_Business_and_Social_Sector_Partnerships
  » https://www.researchgate.net/publication/272553941_Common_Interest_Common_Good_Creating_Value_Through_Business_and_Social_Sector_Partnerships
• Santos, F. M. (2012). A Positive Theory of Social Entrepreneurship. Journal of Business Ethics, 111(3), 335-351. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-012-1413-4
  » https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-012-1413-4
• Satar, M. S., & Natasha, S. (2019). Individual social entrepreneurship orientation: Towards development of a measurement scale. Asia Pacific Journal of Innovation and Entrepreneurship, 13(1), 49-72. https://doi.org/10.1108/apjie-09-2018-0052
  » https://doi.org/10.1108/apjie-09-2018-0052
• Seelos, C., & Mair, J. (2005). Social entrepreneurship: Creating new business models to serve the poor. Business Horizons, 48(3), 241-246. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bushor.2004.11.006
  » https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bushor.2004.11.006
• Sharir, M., & Lerner, M. (2006). Gauging the success of social ventures initiated by individual social entrepreneurs. Journal of World Business, 41(1), 6-20. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jwb.2005.09.004
  » https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jwb.2005.09.004
• Shepherd, D. A. (2015). Party on! A call for entrepreneurship research that is more interactive, activity based, cognitively hot, compassionate, and prosocial. Journal of Business Venturing, 30(4), 489-507. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusvent.2015.02.001
  » https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusvent.2015.02.001
• Teise, H., & Urban, B. (2015). Antecedents to social entrepreneurship intentions: An empirical study in South Africa. Management Dynamics: Journal of the Southern African Institute for Management Scientists, 24(2), 36-52. https://proquest.com/openview/1c60a453d7537ca6d9aee983475f9772/1?pq-origsite=gscholar&cbl=28942
  » https://proquest.com/openview/1c60a453d7537ca6d9aee983475f9772/1?pq-origsite=gscholar&cbl=28942
• Teodósio, A. dos S. de S., & Comini, G. (2012). Inclusive business and poverty: Prospects in the Brazilian context. Revista de Administração, 47(3), 410-421. https://doi.org/10.5700/rausp1047
  » https://doi.org/10.5700/rausp1047
• Tran, A. T. P., & Korflesch, H. Von (2016). A conceptual model of social entrepreneurial intention based on the social cognitive career theory. Asia Pacific Journal of Innovation and Entrepreneurship, 10(1), 17-39. https://doi.org/10.1108/APJIE-12-2016-007
  » https://doi.org/10.1108/APJIE-12-2016-007
• Trivedi, C., & Stokols, D. (2011). Social enterprises and corporate enterprises: Fundamental differences and defining features. The Journal of Entrepreneurship, 20(1), 1-32. https://doi.org/10.1177/097135571002000101
  » https://doi.org/10.1177/097135571002000101
• Urban, B. (2020). Entrepreneurial alertness, self-efficacy and social entrepreneurship intentions. Journal of Small Business and Enterprise Development, 27(3), 489-507. https://doi.org/10.1108/JSBED-08-2019-0285
  » https://doi.org/10.1108/JSBED-08-2019-0285
• Urbano, D., Toledano, N., & Soriano, D. R. (2010). Analyzing social entrepreneurship from an institutional perspective: Evidence from Spain. Journal of Social Entrepreneurship, 1(1), 54-69. https://doi.org/10.1080/19420670903442061
  » https://doi.org/10.1080/19420670903442061
• Warnecke, T. (2018). Social entrepreneurship in China: Driving institutional change. Journal of Economic Issues, 52(2), 368-377. https://doi.org/10.1080/00213624.2018.1469866
  » https://doi.org/10.1080/00213624.2018.1469866
• Weerawardena, J., McDonald, R. E., & Mort, G. S. (2010). Sustainability of nonprofit organizations: An empirical investigation. Journal of World Business, 45(4), 346-356. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jwb.2009.08.004
  » https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jwb.2009.08.004
• Weerawardena, J., & Mort, G. S. (2006). Investigating social entrepreneurship: A multidimensional model. Journal of World Business, 41(1), 21-35. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jwb.2005.09.001
  » https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jwb.2005.09.001
• Weerawardena, J., Mort, G. S., & Carnegie, K. (2003). Social entrepreneurship: Towards conceptualisation. International Journal of Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Marketing, 8(1), 76-86. https://doi.org/10.1002/nvsm.202
  » https://doi.org/10.1002/nvsm.202
• Wilsker, A. L., & Young, D. R. (2010). How does program composition affect the revenues of nonprofit organizations?: Investigating a benefits theory of nonprofit finance. Public Finance Review, 38(2), 193-216. https://doi.org/10.1177/1091142110369238
  » https://doi.org/10.1177/1091142110369238
• Yu, C., Ye, B., & Ma, S. (2020). Creating for others: Linking prosocial motivation and social entrepreneurship intentions. Management Decision, 59(11), 2755-2773. https://doi.org/10.1108/MD-06-2019-0815
  » https://doi.org/10.1108/MD-06-2019-0815
• Yunus, M. (2009). Creating a world without poverty: Social business and the future of capitalism. Public Affairs. https://books.google.com.br/books?id=UZs4DgAAQBAJ&printsec=frontcover&hl=pt-BR#v=onepage&q&f=false
  » https://books.google.com.br/books?id=UZs4DgAAQBAJ&printsec=frontcover&hl=pt-BR#v=onepage&q&f=false
• Yunus, M., Moingeon, B., & Lehmann-Ortega, L. (2010). Building social business models: Lessons from the grameen experience. Long Range Planning, 43(2-3), 308-325. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lrp.2009.12.005
  » https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lrp.2009.12.005

• JEL Code:

  M1.

• Peer Review Report:

  The Peer Review Report is available at this external URL.

• Note:

  This text is translated from the original Portuguese version, which can be accessed here.

• Copyrights

  RAC owns the copyright to this content.

• Plagiarism Check

  RAC maintains the practice of submitting all documents approved for publication to the plagiarism check, using specific tools, e.g.: iThenticate.

• Peer Review Method

  This content was evaluated using the double-blind peer review process. The disclosure of the reviewers’ information on the first page, as well as the Peer Review Report, is made only after concluding the evaluation process, and with the voluntary consent of the respective reviewers and authors.

• Funding

  The authors reported that there was no financial support for this work.

• Data Availability

  The authors claim that all data used in the research have been made publicly available through the Harvard Dataverse platform and can be accessed at:
  Vieira, Valéria Gonçalves; Oliveira, Verônica Macário de; Miki, Adriana Fumi Chim, 2022, "Replication Data for: "Social Entrepreneurship Measurement Framework for Developing Countries" published by RAC-Revista de Administração Contemporânea"", Harvard Dataverse, V1.
  https://doi.org/10.7910/DVN/UGOMJN
  RAC encourages data sharing but, in compliance with ethical principles, it does not demand the disclosure of any means of identifying research subjects, preserving the privacy of research subjects. The practice of open data is to enable the reproducibility of results, and to ensure the unrestricted transparency of the results of the published research, without requiring the identity of research subjects.

Edited by

Editor-in-chief:

Marcelo de Souza Bispo (Universidade Federal da Paraíba, PPGA, Brazil)

Associate Editor:

Denize Grzybovski (Universidade de Passo Fundo, Brazil)

Publication Dates

• Publication in this collection
  30 Jan 2023
• Date of issue
  2023

History

• Received
  18 Jan 2022
• Reviewed
  09 Sept 2022
• Accepted
  11 Sept 2022