CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 74Entrepreneurship Studies and InfluencesInnovation, Technology, and SocietyCommunity Development and Social Impact

The winding road of social entrepreneurship definitions: a systematic literature review

Conway Dato-on, Mary, Kalakay, Jerrid·2016·Social Enterprise Journal
DOI 10.1108/sej-06-2015-0016
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

Purpose: The purpose of this paper is to contribute to understanding social entrepreneurship via a systematic literature review (SLR) of the construct’s varied definitions to assess the means by and the context in which the phenomenon is studied. Design/methodology/approach: The SLR follows a deliberative, replicable, methodical and transparent process, including a quality assessment tool of definitional sources. SLR results are organized around Gartner’s (1985) framework of new value creation, thus additionally analysing the dimensionality with which social entrepreneurship has been studied. Finally, a qualitative analysis of the definitions reviews commonalities of themes within definitions to assess trends. Findings: Significant research has been dedicated to defining social entrepreneurship. However, many efforts do not explore the full dimensionality of the concept, as findings reveal that no definition explored the four dimensions of entrepreneurship posited by Gartner (1985). Further, a time-series review of definitions demonstrates limited advancement in definitional development. Geographic location of definition authors and key word analysis challenge previous research on the activation of social entrepreneurship in literature. Research limitations/implications: Although the SLR was conducted in a controlled manner, this study is time-bound and only reviews English-language publications. While results are analysed using a recognized framework (i.e. Gartner, 1985), other conceptual models are available. Although two researchers independently categorized and analysed definitions, assessment of quality was limited. The results offer an insight into how the conceptualization of social entrepreneurship may be advanced as well as the important role of practitioners in the development of the construct’s theory and practice. Practical implications: The detailed appraisal of definitions may guide practitioners as they strive to define their own organizational efforts. The multi-dimensional conversation of social entrepreneurship in this study enables the leaders of different organizational types to ensure their social entrepreneurship activities consider all dimensions (i.e. environment, individual, organization and process). The SLR allows the practitioner to further engage in deep discussion on the future of the field by cataloguing their influence on the multi-dimensionality of the social entrepreneurship construct. Organizational leaders may also use the findings to generate more discussion around what is missing from the definitions (i.e. empathy, responsibility, resourcefulness and transparency). Originality/value: The findings synthesize social entrepreneurship definitions across multi-disciplinary fields and contexts and within a multi-dimensional framework utilizing an infrequently used literature review method within social sciences.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1108/sej-06-2015-0016

Cites

57 of 57 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • SEs, non-profits and hybrid organisations prioritise social impact and environmental stewardship alongside or in place of financial goals.

    “These entities prioritise social impact and environmental stewardship alongside or in place of financial goals -priorities not adequately addressed in most conventional frameworks.”

    From Business sustainability measurement frameworks: a systematic literature review using a TCCM approach (2025) · cites this paper as Dato-on and Kalakay, 2016

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

3 of the 60 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Authors
Conway Dato-on, M., & Kalakay, J.
Affiliations
Antioch University (US)
Venue
Social Enterprise Journal
Publisher
Emerald
Published
2016-08-01
Volume
12
Issue
2
Pages
131-160
ISSN
  • 1750-8533 (ISSN-L)
  • 1750-8614
DOI
10.1108/sej-06-2015-0016
OpenAlex
W2508421801
Cited by
71
References
60
Citations by year
2026: 2 · 2025: 6 · 2024: 9 · 2023: 12 · 2022: 9 · 2021: 10 · 2020: 13 · 2019: 5 · 2018: 4 · 2017: 1
FWCI
0.84
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Licence
www.emerald.com/insight/site-policies (tdm)
Locations
Social enterprise journal (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Business, Management and Accounting › Management of Technology and Innovation › Entrepreneurship Studies and Influences
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Innovation, Technology, and Society
  • Social Sciences › Economics, Econometrics and Finance › Finance › Community Development and Social Impact
Keywords
social entrepreneurship, conceptualization, new value creation, empathy, responsibility, resourcefulness, transparency

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review