ORIGINAL ARTICLE

Social innovation and social entrepreneurship:discovering origins, exploring current and futuretrends

Luís Farinha1 & João Renato Sebastião2& Carlos Sampaio2

& João Lopes3

Received: 6 December 2019 /Accepted: 2 January 2020 /Published online: 7 January 2020# Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2020

AbstractNonprofit sector integrates an important part of the economy, which serves as a criticalfactor for social change. Social innovation and social entrepreneurship are of para-mount importance for the nonprofit sector aiming to solve social needs. The purpose ofthis paper is, through bibliometric mapping techniques, based on 2695 documents, tounderstand thematic evolution of social innovation and social entrepreneurship. Themain conclusion is that, from the analysis, we can see that the scientific production inthis field of knowledge has intensified in recent years, but the centrality and the searchdensity undergo major changes. New paths for future research are outlined.

Keywords Social innovation . Social entrepreneurship . Non-profit sector . Nonprofitinnovation . Entrepreneurship in nonprofit

1 Introduction

Non-profit sector integrates a sizable part of the economy, which serves as a criticalfactor for social change in many domains. For the past two decades, we have beenwitnessing the growth of this sector, driven by growing society demands. Changes inthe political and socio-economic environment require non-profit organizations tobecome more entrepreneurial and innovative in providing services, developing their

International Review on Public and Nonprofit Marketing (2020) 17:77–96https://doi.org/10.1007/s12208-020-00243-6

* Luís Farinhaluis.farinha@ipcb.pt

1 Polytechnic Institute of Castelo Branco and NECE Research Center in Business Sciences, Largo doMunicípio, 6060-163 Idanha-a-Nova, Portugal

2 School of Management, Polytechnic Institute of Castelo Branco, Largo do Município,6060-163 Idanha-a-Nova, Portugal

3 ISAG European Business School & NIDISAG Research Unit of ISAG & NECE, Campus deSalazares, Rua de Salazares 842, 4100-442 Porto, Portugal

activities and adapting their business models. Non-profit organizations have beenencouraged to embrace innovation as a central organizing principle, to achieve theirmissions and to secure a sustainable future for themselves and their communities(Mulgan et al. 2007). However, innovation in the non-profit sector, unfortu-nately, remains largely sporadic due to limited funding, lack of essentialresources, old technologies and organizational structures that are unsuitablefor experimentation and creativity (Dover and Lawrence 2012; Drucker 2012;Jaskyte et al. 2018; Pearce et al. 2010).

Non-profit organizations need to be better supported to be able to developinnovative practices. Today, new technologies are constantly emerging, newways of connecting organizations and people, new ways of organizing work,combining the ability to share new ideas and empower networking. Differentsectors create new spaces of opportunity for innovations in solving socialproblems. In turn, while governments encourage innovative practices, therehave been sharp cuts in most government services and programs, resulting insignificant constraints. The services that non-profit organizations offer areincreasingly in demand by communities. The loss of public funding, changesin public policy and changes in funding priorities, obliges non-profit organiza-tions to fill this gap with their own funds, hampering innovation processes(Faber and McCarthy 2005; Jaskyte et al. 2018).

Non-profit organizations that constantly find ways to innovate exhibit differentiatingcharacteristics. Scientific research has linked innovation to organizational characteris-tics and strategies, including strong leadership, clear mission, well-defined privatevalues, and a more dynamic management board. Teamwork, collaborative mechanismsthat bring together individuals across the organization, and access to external resourcesshould be seen as a priority in this type of non-profit organization (Dover and Lawrence2012; Light 1998; McDonald 2007; Osborne 2013).

The challenge for any non-profit organization is finding the perfect spot betweenexploring new opportunities and reinforcing the best existing programs, which meansbalancing discipline and freedom. Achieving balance requires constant learning thatcan produce new ideas that can be fostered and later incorporated into organizations. Itis important to establish innovation as a cultural value, investing not only in the abilityto identify new ideas, but also in a system that connects innovation with organizationalrewards. There are, however, three central barriers to organizational change: 1) failureto identify social need; 2) aversion and fear to change; 3) focus on day-to-dayoperations, as opposed to defining an organizational strategy (Crutchfield and Grant2012; Dees et al. 2002; Eadie 1997).

In this context, the main premises of the non-profit management councils are: 1)strategy: definition of orientation and organizational strategy; 2) monitoring: monitor-ing and performance actions of the CEO, organization assets and programs; and (3)acquisition of resources / networks / services: ensuring that the organization hasadequate human and financial resources, representing the interests of the organizationin society and promoting the reputation of the organization. (Jaskyte 2017; Zahra andPearce 1989).

In this alignment, the central research gap to which we seek to answer lies in theknowledge of the origins, current and future trends of the thematic currents associatedwith social innovation and social entrepreneurship.

78 L. Farinha et al.

Thus, the more non-profit boards get involved in defining strategies, the better theirperformance in terms of competitiveness and innovation. It can be argued that thestrategic orientation of boards plays a central role in determining the entrepreneurialorientation of non-profit organizations through openness to new business initiatives(Brown 2005; Stone et al. 1999; Zhu et al. 2016).

This article is structured in six sections: (i) Introduction; (ii) Literature review; (iii)Bibliometric Concept; (iv) Methodology and Bibliographic collection; (iv) Results; and(vi) Final Remarks.

2 Literature review

Social innovation represents an interesting research stream involving several researchfields, including social entrepreneurship, design, technology, public policy, citiesand urban development, social movements and community development(Mulgan et al. 2007). Furthermore, social innovations can be expressed inchanges on behaviours, perceptions or attitudes that ultimately result in newsocial practices (Cajaiba-Santana 2014), and could be addressed as new formsof organizing workplaces, business or companies, to improve economic activities,driving to the generation of new ideas that conduct to an overall social change, orultimately, leading to the generation and implementation of new ideas on how to achievecommon goals (Neumeier 2012).

Furthermore, social innovation could be represented through innovative actions andservices with the primary goal of fulfil a social need, primarily developed throughsocial organisations or not for profit organizations (Mulgan et al. 2007), satisfyingtherefore, the lack of social change it brings about, leading to new socialpractices, created from collective, intentional and goal-oriented actions, thatenable social change throughout the reconfiguration of how social objectivesare met (Cajaiba-Santana 2014). Moreover, the social-enterprises and social-entrepreneurial organizations, those developing social innovation, differ fromtraditional non-profit ones in terms of strategy, structure, and values, in that they blurboundaries between non-profit and for-profit organizations, enacting hybrid not-for-profit and for-profit activities (Dart 2004).

Hence, social innovation presents a new solution that addresses a social problem in amore effective, efficient, sustainable, or fair than the existing solutions and for whichthe value created focuses on the society, rather than on individuals (Phills et al. 2008),while social entrepreneurship includes the activities and processes taken to discover,define, and exploit opportunities to enhance social wealth through creating newventures or managing existing organizations in an innovative manner (Zahra et al.2009). Therefore, social entrepreneurship and social innovation are both about identi-fying a problem-solving opportunity, further sharing common overlaps in the process tomeet social needs (Phillips et al. 2015).

Social entrepreneurship is usually implemented when some person or a group ofpeople seeks to create social value, possess the suitable skills to recognize and takeadvantage of opportunities to create value, employ innovation and are willing to acceptan above-average degree of risk-taking in environments, characterized by scarce assets,in seeking their social venture (Peredo and McLean 2006).

Social innovation and social entrepreneurship: discovering origins,... 79

Moreover, social entrepreneurship implies an entrepreneurial activity with a socialpropose (Austin et al. 2006). On the other hand, for social-entrepreneurial organiza-tions, investing in long-term innovation could be challenging. Nevertheless, socialentrepreneurship has become a critical economic issue on a global scale (Dacin et al.2010), and like for-profit organizations, these types of organizations face financialconstraints and stakeholders look to see social results accomplished today (Ranucci andLee 2019). Moreover, the entrepreneurship role in transformation towards a moresustainable future (Belz 2013), embraces purely economic, as well social and ecologicgoals (Schaltegger and Wagner 2011), that rely on the entrepreneurs´ ability to acquireresources which, ultimately, influences the success of both commercial and socialventures. Yet, traditionally, financial institutions have been more generous to commer-cial than social organizations (Calic and Mosakowski 2016), putting pressure on thelatter.

Social entrepreneurship produces a strong effect on the economic system. It isusually related to the creation of new industries, business models and on the allocationof resources to neglected social issues (Santos 2012), which in turn, enhances socialwealth (Zahra et al. 2009), that has become an important subject at a global scale(Dacin et al. 2010), and the non-profit entrepreneur responds to the environmentalchange by pursuing new opportunities and adopting different forms to create value tothe organisation, maintaining a high level of accountability to the constituencies itserves (Dart 2004; Lasprogata and Cotten 2001). Yet, the social entrepreneurs andinnovators face as many problems as the innovators and entrepreneurs in business(Shaw and Carter 2007).

Furthermore, social entrepreneurs play the role of social change agents by adopting amission to create social value, on recognizing new opportunities to serve that mission,in engaging in continuous innovation and on adaption and learning (Dart 2004).

Moreover, social innovation implies a cost, and the dependence on unreliabledonations, discourages innovation, whereas a growing donor network positively con-tributes to innovation. Therefore, a stable revenue from relational customers alleviatestemporal concerns and diminish temporal tensions on not-to-profit organizations intheir pursuit of social innovation (Ranucci and Lee 2019).

The concept of social innovation is relatively recent, although, is a rapidly growingpractice and an emerging research stream (Conway Dato-on and Kalakay 2016; Letticeand Parekh 2010), that received additional interest as a way of simultaneously creatingsocial benefit and economic opportunities (Adams and Hess 2010). This rapid devel-opment of social innovation has the potential to reshape the structure of the corporateidentities and strategies, as well as the innovation systems, the employee motivation,and the public and private management, presenting, therefore, further challenges forpolicy and business management practice (van der Have and Rubalcaba 2016).

On the other hand, the main gap to be fulfilled through social innovation is the socialchange it brings about, leading to new social practices, created from collective,intentional and goal-oriented actions and enabling social change throughout the recon-figuration of how social objectives are met (Cajaiba-Santana 2014).

Nevertheless, while the debate regarding technological innovation provided consid-erable development, the idea of social innovation remains largely underdeveloped, andthe literature fragmented (Cajaiba-Santana 2014). Despite the rapid development of thesocial innovation research stream, studies on this issue have been focused primarily on

80 L. Farinha et al.

practical matters from descriptive case studies and on the creation of concepts, defini-tions, research settings, and theoretical boundary conditions (van der Have andRubalcaba 2016). Furthermore, significant additional work remains to be conductedon situating the social innovation pioneering analyses, concepts, and theories within thehistory of social science and collective action (Jessop et al. 2013).

Furthermore, there is an increasing interest and participation of people on socialparticipation and on creating social value. For instance, according to the Eurostat(2019) data from the European Union (UE) on active citizenship, described as peoplethat get involved in democracy at all levels, in active participation in political organi-zations or supporting and committing to improve the general welfare of society,accounted 11,9% of the UE-28 population above 16 years old. Furthermore, activecitizenship was most common among middle-aged people and on people with a highlevel of educational attainment, whereas the share of the adult population whichparticipated in formal voluntary activities was 18.0%, while 20.7% participated ininformal voluntary activities.

Moreover, notwithstanding the growing interest and significant social partic-ipation on active citizenship, due its close link to quality of life, research onsocial innovation, social entrepreneurship or entrepreneurship in non-profit,despite several proposals (e.g. Conway Dato-on and Kalakay 2016; Maieret al. 2016; Phillips et al. 2015; van der Have and Rubalcaba 2016), needsof further development.

3 Bibliometric concept

Science mapping or bibliometric mapping is a spatial representation of how disciplines,fields, specialties, and individual papers or authors are related to one another(Small 1973).

Various types of techniques have been developed to build a science map, the mostcommonly used being documents co-citation and co-word analysis (Cobo et al. 2011).

Co-citation data, for example, can be used to study relations among authors orjournals, co-authorship data can be used to study scientific cooperation, and data on co-occurrences of words can be used to construct so-called co-word maps, which are mapsthat provide a visual representation of the structure of a scientific field (Eck andWaltman 2009).

At the end of the co-word or co-citation analysis, a set of clusters is returned whichcan be understood as conglomerates of different scientific aspects. In the case of co-citation analysis, the clusters represent groups of references that can be understood asthe intellectual base of the different subfields. On the other hand, in the case ofco-word analysis, the clusters represent groups of textual information that can beunderstood as semantic or conceptual groups of different topics treated by the researchfield (Cobo et al. 2011).

The choice of the technique to employ depends on the goals of the analysis. Usually,co-citation analysis is performed for mapping older paper (prospective analysis – it isdynamic and is best performed within different time slices), whereas bibliographiccoupling is used to map a current research front (retrospective analysis – it does notchange over time) (Aria and Cuccurullo 2017).

Social innovation and social entrepreneurship: discovering origins,... 81

In Aria and Cuccurullo (2017) we find the important concepts: (i) Bibliographiccoupling: Two articles are said to be bibliographically coupled if at least one citedsource appears in the bibliographies or reference lists of both articles (Kessler 1963);(ii) Co-citation analysis: Co-citation of two articles occurs when both are cited in a thirdarticle. Thus, co-citation is the counterpart of bibliographic coupling; (iii) Co-wordanalysis: The aim of the co-word analysis is to draw the conceptual structure of aframework using a word co-occurrence network to map and cluster terms extractedfrom keywords, titles, or abstracts in a bibliographic collection; (iv) Collaborationanalysis: A scientific collaboration network is a network where nodes are authors andlinks are co-authorships.

Thematic Evolution based on co-word network analysis and clustering is amethodology inspired by the proposal of Cobo et al. (2011) and implemented as“thematic evolution” in Aria and Cuccurullo (2017). This chart allows us to identifythe keywords connections between the themes of different time slices and visualize thethematic evolution of the research field. It is also possible to quantify the magnitude ofthe lost keywords, which became irrelevant, in the periods following the first one.

As the goal of our analysis is to discover the conceptual evolution of the researchfield, Cobo et al. (2011) suggests that co-word analysis is more suitable. In this articlewe find the details for creating an interesting and informative map called “c”. From the“Strategic Diagram” it is possible to classify clusters, called themes in this context,according to the concepts: centrality and density. Centrality measures the strength ofexternal ties to other themes and density measures the strength of internal ties among allkeywords describing the research theme (Cobo et all, 2011).

A theme with a high centrality value means that it is strongly related to other themesand can be considered transversal. On the other hand, density can be understood as thelevel of development of the theme. High density will mean high internal development.The “Strategic Diagram”, introduced by Callon et al. (1991), is a two-dimensionalgraph where the centrality of the theme is represented by the x’s axes and the density bythe y’s axis. According to the position of the themes in the diagram, we can classifythem according to their position in the four quadrants of the graph. Themes positionedat: (i) upper-right quadrant: high centrality and density, are transversal and well-developed. Cobo et al. (2011) classifies them as “Motor Themes”; (ii) upper-leftquadrant: low centrality and high density, are developed but weakly relatedexternally. Cobo et al. (2011) classifies them as “Highly developed and isolatedthemes”; (iii) lower-left quadrant: low centrality and density, are undeveloped andpoorly externally related. Cobo et al. (2011) classifies them as “Emerging or decliningthemes”; (iv) lower-right quadrant: high centrality and low density, are transversal butundeveloped. Cobo et al. (2011) classifies them as “Basic and transversal themes”.

4 Methodology and bibliographic collection

The bibliographic data under analysis were obtained from the Web of Science (WoS)platform developed by Clarivate Analytics. We searched the terms: “innovation innonprofit”, “nonprofit innovation”, “entrepreneurship in nonprofit” and “social inno-vation” in the field “Topic”. Using this field, we get results with terms in the Title,Abstract, Author Keywords and Keywords Plus (Keywords defined by ISI/WoS).

82 L. Farinha et al.

We used R (R Core Team 2019) with package Bibliometrix (Aria and Cuccurullo2017) to perform the analysis. The database contains 2695 documents (articles andproceedings papers) distributed over the period 1970 to 2019. Table 1 contains asummary of the main descriptive measures of the database and Fig. 1 shows theAnnual scientific production.

To study the evolution of the conceptual framework of innovation in non-profitsectors, we created a successive partition of years 2005–2010, 2011–2015, 2016–2019and in each of them we applied co-word analysis to the terms of authors key words. Westarted in 2005 because as we can see in Fig. 1, the previous scientific production is notsignificant. For each period under study, the Strategic Diagram were created. Fromthese graphs we proceeded to the analysis, identifying and commenting the evolution ofthe themes, by the four quadrants, along the three considered periods. The results are inthe next section.

5 Results

Thematic evolution based on the analysis and clustering of co-word networks is amethodology inspired by Cobo et al. (2011), which allows identifying the keywordconnections between the themes of different time intervals and to visualize the thematic

Table 1 Database descriptivestatistics

Description Results

Documents 2695

Sources (Journals, Books, etc.) 1342

Keywords Plus (ID) 2161

Author’s Keywords (DE) 5871

Period 1970–2019

Average citations per documents 9.377

Authors 5584

Author Appearances 6723

Authors of single-authored documents 662

Authors of multi-authored documents 4922

Single-authored documents 733

Documents per Author 0.483

Authors per Document 2.07

Co-Authors per Documents 2.49

Collaboration Index 2.51

Document types

ARTICLE 1911

ARTICLE; BOOK CHAPTER 3

ARTICLE; DATA PAPER 1

ARTICLE; EARLYACCESS 5

ARTICLE; PROCEEDINGS PAPER 53

PROCEEDINGS PAPER 722

Social innovation and social entrepreneurship: discovering origins,... 83

evolution of the research field. The same graph allows us to quantify the magnitude oflost keywords that became irrelevant in the periods following the first analysis. FromFig. 2 it is possible to observe the evolution of four clusters created from the keywordsdefined by the authors in their publications, from 2005 to 2010 (social innovation;social entrepreneurship; social enterprise and sustainability) to only two clusters iden-tified in the following period (2011 to 2015) (social entrepreneurship and socialinnovation). We can thus understand that from the first to the second sentence thekeywords “social enterprise” and “sustainability” are no longer relevant in this researchcontext. In turn, from the second to the third period (2016 to 2019), the keywords“social entrepreneurship” and “social innovation” remain, gaining centrality and key-word “innovation”. Still, the keyword “case study” is now emerging in research.

Analyzing the first cluster formed from the keywords understood as relevant by theauthors of the 43 articles published, for the first period (2005 to 2010) - SocialInnovation, we can see that the most relevant search terms are “corporate”, “Socialresponsability”, and “social innovation”. The most productive authors in this contextare Linton JD and Moulaert F. The most relevant journals in this topic are the

Fig. 1 - Annual scientific production, WoS

Fig. 2 - Thematic evolution based on the analysis and clustering of co-word networks

84 L. Farinha et al.

Table2

Topics

coveredin

thesocialinnovationcluster(1stperiod)

Authors

Subject

BIG

GSR,2

010,

ECOLSO

CTo

exploreecosystem-m

anagem

enttransformations

usingasocial-innovationfram

ework

MARUYAMAY,2

007,

ENERG

POLICY

Toanalyzethesocio-econom

icdynamicsthatarebroughtaboutby

renewable

energy

technologies

PERRIN

IF,

2010,E

NTREPREGIO

NDEV

The

articlefocuseson

socialentrepreneurship

(SE)processesdesigned

toexploitinnovatio

nthatexplicitlyaddressescomplex

socialproblems.

SELSK

YJW

,2010,

JBUSETHICS

The

authorsidentifythreeanalytic“platforms”

forsocialpartnerships

–the

resource-dependenceplatform

,the

social-issue

platform

.

DAWSO

NP,2010,INTJTECHNOLMANAGE

The

articleexam

ines

theconceptconceptof

socialinnovation.

PIESI,2010,J

BUSETHICS

Athree-tieredconceptualfram

eworkthatdistinguishesbetweenthebasicgameof

antagonistic

socialcooperation,

themetagameof

rule-setting,

andthemeta-metagameof

rule-finding

discourseisused

todevelopan

“ordonom

ic”approach

tobusiness

ethics

intheageof

globalization

LETTICEF,

2010,INTJTECHNOLMANAGE

The

article’saim

isto

betterunderstand

theprocessof

socialinnovation,

aswellas

exploring

whatlessonscanbe

transferredfrom

generalbusiness

innovatio

ntheory

andpractice.

LIN

TON

JD,2

009,

TECHNOVATIO

NTo

conductaclarificationon

thedifferentdimensionsassociated

toinnovationandwhy

the

competin

gterm

inologyused

todescribe

innovatio

noftencreatesmoreconfusionthan

clarity.

Social innovation and social entrepreneurship: discovering origins,... 85

International Journal of Technology Management, the European and Regional Studies,the Journal of Business Ethics and the Technovation.

In Table 2 we can analyze the main topics addressed by the most relevant authors inthe topic “social innovation”, from 2005 to 2010.

Referring to the Social Entrepreneurship cluster, we found 49 articles published. Themost relevant newspapers are the Journal of Business Ethics, the Entrepreneurship andRegional Development, the Administration in Social Work, the Journal of BusinessVenturing, the Journal of World Business, and the Nonprofit and Voluntary SectorQuarterly.

In Table 3 we can see the main themes under study associated with the “socialentrepreneurship” cluster.

For the “Social Enterprise” cluster, we can find only 10 published articles. Thecentral research theme was “Social Enterprise”. The main conclusions obtained by themain authors in this topic are shown in Table 4.

Table 3 Topics covered in the social entrepreneurship cluster (1st period)

Authors Subject

ZAHRA SA, 2009, J BUSVENTURING

To define social entrepreneurship; discuss its contributions to createsocial wealth; offer a typology of entrepreneurs’ search processesthat lead to the discovery of opportunities for creating socialventures; and articulate the major ethical concerns socialentrepreneurs might encounter.

SHORT JC, 2009, STRATEGENTREP J

Literature review on social entrepreneurship

MAIR J, 2009, J BUSVENTURING

This study examines in microcosm such institutional voids andillustrates the activities of an entrepreneurial actor in ruralBangladesh aimed at addressing them.

SHARIR M, 2006, J WORLD BUS This paper focuses on identifying the factors affecting the success ofsocial ventures operating in social settings in Israel using anexploratory qualitative field study.

HEMINGWAY CA, 2005, J BUSETHICS

This paper makes a case for the employee (at any level) as a moralagent, even though the paper begins by highlighting a body ofevidence which suggests that individual moral agency is sacrificedat work and is compromised in deference to other pressures.

ZAHRA SA, 2008, STRATEGENTREP J

In this article, the authors explain the forces contributing to theformation and rapid internationalization of social ventures.

MCDONALD RE, 2007,NONPROF VOLUNT SEC Q

The study indicates that a nonprofit organization’s mission canfacilitate innovation, which has been shown to be a key mediatingstep in achieving superior organizational performance.

NGA JKH, 2010, J BUS ETHICS This article suggests that the time has come for entrepreneurs to adopt amore integrative view of business that blends economic, social andenvironmental values.

PARKINSON C, 2008, ENTREPREGION DEV

This paper questions the application of the entrepreneurship discourseto social entrepreneurship in the UK and looks at how people‘doing’ social enterprise appropriate or re-write the discourse toarticulate their own realities.

MURPHY PJ, 2009, J BUS ETHICS The authors conceptualize social entrepreneurial discovery based on anextension of corporate social responsibility into socialentrepreneurship contexts.

86 L. Farinha et al.

Still for the period between 2005 and 2010, the “Sustainability” cluster comes upwith 9 articles published. The main journals associated with the publication are

Table 4 Topics covered in the social enterprise cluster (1st period)

Authors Subject

SHORT JC, 2009, STRATEG ENTREP J A literature review article which reveals that conceptualarticles outnumber empirical studies, and empiricalefforts often lack formal hypotheses and rigorousmethods. Also suggesting that socialentrepreneurship research remains in an embryonicstate.

PARKINSON C, 2008, ENTREP REGION DEV This paper questions the application of theentrepreneurship discourse to socialentrepreneurship in the UK and looks at how people‘doing’ social enterprise appropriate or re-write thediscourse to articulate their own realities.

LETTICE F, 2010, INT J TECHNOL MANAGE To better understand the process of social innovation,as well as exploring what lessons can be transferredfrom general business innovation theory andpractice.

VAN RYZIN GG, 2009, VOLUNTAS This study assesses what individual characteristicsmight describe or explain who in society is likely tobe (or become) a social entrepreneur.

CAI N, 2009, 2009 INTERNATIONALCONFERENCE ON INFORMATIONMANAGEMENT, INNOVATIONMANAGEMENT AND INDUSTRIALENGINEERING, VOL 4, PROCEEDINGS

This paper analyzes enterprise R&D staff’sperformance management.

FULFORD H, 2009, PROCEEDINGS OF THE4TH EUROPEAN CONFERENCE ONENTREPRENEURSHIP AND INNOVATION

The paper outlines the design and development of asocial entrepreneurship programme in a UKuniversity for delivery to students both within andbeyond the business school environment.

Table 5 Topics covered in the Sustainability cluster (1st period)

Authors Subject

Elkington J, 2006, CORP GOV This paper reviews the increasingly complexcross-connects between the rapidly mutating gover-nance agenda and the burgeoning world of corpo-rate responsibility, social entrepreneurship and sus-tainable development.

DAWSON P, 2010, INT J TECHNOL MANAGE This article examines the concept of socialInnovation.

PECKNOLD K, 2009, C & C 09: PROCEEDINGSOF THE 2009 ACM SIGCHI CONFERENCEON CREATIVITYAND COGNITION

This paper reports on the use of probes in a ruralvillage in Rwanda

BAEK JS, 2009, C & C 09: PROCEEDINGS OFTHE 2009 ACM SIGCHI CONFERENCE ONCREATIVITYAND COGNITION

This paper introduces the notion of collaborativeservice and discusses its two dimensions in relationto ICT (information communication technologies)

Social innovation and social entrepreneurship: discovering origins,... 87

Corporate Governance - An International Review, Drustvena Istrazivaja, TheInternational Journal of Technology Management and Regional Studies.

Table 5 shows the main analysis focuses related to the “Sustainability” cluster.In the second period, from 2011 to 2015, we were able to identify only two clusters,

based on the central themes identified by the authors of the different studies, based onthe research keywords - “Social Innovation” and “Social Entrepreneurship”.

The “Social Innovation” Cluster is a large cluster that brings together 335 papers,published in the following major journals: Arbor-Science Thought and Culture,Codesign-International Journal of Cocreation in Design and Arts, Design andCulture, Ecology and Society, Information Systems Management, InternalizationDesign and Global Development and Voluntas.

Table 6 shows the main topics for study by the most representative authorsof this cluster.

Table 6 Topics covered in the Social Innovation cluster (2nd period)

Authors Subject

BOONS F, 2013, J CLEAN PROD The aim of this paper is to advance research on sustainableinnovation by adopting a business model perspective.

SEYFANG G, 2012, ENVIRONPLANN C

The paper examines the role of community-based initiatives in atransition to a low-carbon sustainable economy in the UK.

VOORBERG WH, 2015, PUBLICMANAG REV

This article presents a systematic review of 122 articles and books(1987–2013) of co-creation/co-production with citizens in publicinnovation.

WESTLEY FR, 2013, ECOL SOC A literature review on leadership in linked social-ecological systemsand combined it with the literature on institutional entrepreneur-ship in complex adaptive systems to develop a new theory oftransformative agency in linked social ecological systems.

MOORE ML, 2011, ECOL SOC This paper explores the critical question of whether networks helpfacilitate innovations to bridge the seemingly insurmountablechasms of complex problems to create change across scales,thereby increasing resilience.

CAJAIBA-SANTANA G, 2014,TECHNOL FORECAST SOC

Building on institutional and structuration theories, this articleproposes bringing together the institutional and structurationtheories and to present a new conceptual framework toinvestigate social innovation as a driver of social change.

BENDT P, 2013, LANDSCAPEURBAN PLAN

The paper analyses the environmental learning in public-accesscommunity gardens (‘PAC-gardens’) in Berlin, representingpublic green spaces that are collectively managed by civil societygroups.

MOORE ML, 2014, ECOL SOC To understand how to actively engage and transform the existingsystems holding intractable social and environmental challenges.

SEYFANG G, 2013, GLOBALENVIRON CHANG

This paper aims to assess the conditions under which technologicalinnovations can diffuse and disrupt existing socio-technical sys-tems through the successful scaling up of experimental ‘niches’;by exploring the relevance of niche development theories in acivil society context.

FEOLAG, 2014, GLOBAL ENVIRONCHANG

This paper aims to provide structure to the dialog on transformation,and to reflect on the challenges of social research in this area.

88 L. Farinha et al.

The “Social Entrepreneurship” cluster brings together 382 papers, spread acrossseveral scientific journals. Noteworthy are the Journal of Business Ethics,Entrepreneurship and Regional Development, Voluntas, the Journal of Public Policy& Marketing, the Journal of Business Venturing, the Journal of SocialEntrepreneurship, the Cercetare Si Interventie Sociala Magazine, the Small BusinessEconomics and the Canadian Journal of Administrative Sciences.

The main contributions taken from the “Social Entrepreneurship” cluster are iden-tified in Table 7.

Period Three, from 2016 to 2019, brings with it four clusters: Innovation (343papers), Social Innovation (643 papers), Social Entrepreneurship (719 papers) andCase Study (37 papers).

Table 8 presents the main topics addressed by the authors in the Innovation cluster.The main associated articles are Design Journal, Sustainability, Journal of Social

Entrepreneurship, Voluntas, Journal of Human Development and Capabilities, Ciriec-Spain Journal of Social and Cooperative Public Economy, Innovation-The EuropeanJournal of Social Science Research, the Ecology and Society, the Industry andInnovation, and the Social Entreprise Journal.

Table 7 Topics covered in the Social Entrepreneurship cluster (2nd period)

Authors Subject

DACIN MT, 2011, ORGAN SCI This paper examines the promise of socialentrepreneurship as a domain of inquiry and suggests a number of

research areas and research questions for future study

TRACEY P, 2011, ORGAN SCI To present a model of the institutional work required for this type ofinstitutional entrepreneurship

SANTOS FM, 2012, J BUS ETHICS To propose a theory aimed at advancing scholarly research in socialentrepreneurship.

WESTLEY FR, 2013, ECOL SOC Literature review to develop a new theory of transformative agencyin linked socioecological systems.

BACQ S, 2011, ENTREP REGIONDEV

The objective of this paper is to clarify the concepts of ‘socialentrepreneurship’, ‘social entrepreneur’ and ‘socialentrepreneurship organization’ and to examine whether there is atransatlantic divide in the way these are conceived and defined.

MOORE ML, 2011, ECOL SOC This paper proposes that agency within networks requires specificskills from entrepreneurs, including ones that enable patterngeneration, relationship building and brokering, knowledge andresource brokering, and network recharging.

CAJAIBA-SANTANA G, 2014,TECHNOL FORECAST SOC

Building on institutional and structuration theories, this articleproposes bringing together the institutional and structurationtheories and to present a new conceptual framework toinvestigate social innovation as a driver of social change.

MAIR J, 2012, J BUS ETHICS The authors use content and cluster analysis on a global sample of200 social entrepreneurial organizations to develop a typology ofsocial entrepreneurship models.

LEPOUTRE J, 2013, SMALL BUSECON

Develop a methodology to measure population-based social entre-preneurship activity (SEA) prevalence rates and test it in 49countries

Social innovation and social entrepreneurship: discovering origins,... 89

Table 9 presents the synthesis of the topics studied in the context of the “SocialInnovation” cluster. In this cluster we identified a total of 643 articles.

The Social Entrepreneurship cluster brings together a total of 719 articles publishedin 370 scientific journals. The most relevant journals in this topic are Sustainability, theSocial Entreprise Journal, the Journal of Social Entrepreneurship, The Voluntas, theJournal of Business Ethics, the Entrepreneurship and Regional Development, theJournal of Business Venturing, the Journal of Cleaner Production, the Journal ofBusiness Research and the Technological Forecasting and Social Change.

Table 10 summarizes the main contributions in this area of knowledge.The Case Study cluster found in period three (2016–2019) comprises a total of 343

articles, distributed by the Sustainability Journals, Social Enterprise Journal, Journal ofSocial Entrepreneurship, Design Journal, Ecology and Society, Innovation-TheEuropean Journal of Social Science Research, Journal of Human Development andCapabilities, Forecasting Technological and Social Change, and Voluntas.

Table 11 summarizes the main contributions of the authors in this area.In general, we can observe that the centrality of the studied themes has evolved over

the three temporal periods under analysis. From 2005 to 2010, the focus was on “SocialEnterprise”, evolving to “Social Innovation” in the second analysis period (2011 to2015), generalizing to “Innovation”, in the third period between 2016 and 2019.

Table 8 Topics covered in the Innovation cluster (3rd period)

Authors Subject

CALIC G, 2016, J MANAGESTUD

The paper advances the argument that an innovative institutional form –crowdfunding – has emerged to address the needs of social entrepre-neurs and other entrepreneurs with limited access to traditionalsources of capital.

BELZ FM, 2017, BUS STRATEGENVIRON

The authors seek to add to the understanding of sustainableentrepreneurial processes (SEPs)

ESTRIN S, 2016, J BUSVENTURING

A research on human capital and entrepreneurial entry and posit that, inorder to generate value, social entrepreneurship requires differentconfigurations of human capital than commercial entrepreneurship.

PARHANKANGAS A, 2017, JBUS VENTURING

The authors hypothesize that the importance of linguistic style dependson whether an entrepreneur belongs to an emergent category of newventures (social entrepreneurs) or to an established category(commercial entrepreneurs)

LITTLEWOOD D, 2018, BUSSOC

This article contributes to emerging discussions in this area throughconsideration of social entrepreneurship in South Africa.

HAUGH HM, 2016, J BUSETHICS

To examine the relationships between social entrepreneurship,empowerment and social change.

HECHAVARRIA DM, 2017,SMALL BUS ECON

To examine entrepreneurs’ economic, social, and environmental goalsfor value creation for their new ventures.

RAHDARI A, 2016, J CLEANPROD

A conceptual confluence of social responsibility, entrepreneurship andsustainability is presented.

HAZENBERG R, 2016, SOCENTERP J

This paper explores these differences through the lens of evolutionarytheory which posits that within an ecosystem all organisms are aproduct of the evolution of that ecosystem and that socio-political andregulatory differences can lead to the rapid divergence of socialenterprise ecosystems.

90 L. Farinha et al.

However, along with the huge growth in the number of publications in this area inthe last two time periods, new areas have been emerging (social entrepreneurship andcase study), thus reinforcing the intersection of areas of social innovation with entre-preneurship, with the emergence of several case studies.

6 Final remarks

Nonprofit sector represents an important one weight in the economy, servingelement drive for social change, from the dynamics of innovation and entre-preneurship (Dover and Lawrence 2012; Drucker 2012; Jaskyte et al. 2018). Inthis alignment, various sectors had created new spaces of opportunity forinnovations in solving social problems (Faber and McCarthy 2005). In addition,it is important to establish innovation as a cultural value, investing not only inthe ability to identify new ideas, but also in a system that connects innovationwith entrepreneurship in the social perspective (Crutchfield and Grant 2012;Dees et al. 2002).

Table 9 Topics covered in the Social Innovation cluster (3rd period)

Authors Subject

VAN DER HAVE RP, 2016, RESPOLICY

This paper traces the content, scope and relatively short history ofmodern social innovation research across disciplines by applyingnetwork and bibliometric analyses and explores their relevance toinnovation studies.

SEYFANG G, 2016, TECHNOLANAL STRATEG

To test the applicability of co- evolutionary niche theories of innovationdiffusion (strategic niche management, SNM) to the context of‘grassroots innovations’ (GIs).

KAIKA M, 2017, ENVIRONURBAN

The author argue that real smart solutions and real social innovation areto be found not in consensus-building exercises, but in these dissensuspractices that act as living indicators of what/where urgently needs tobe addressed.

DAX T, 2016, EUR URBAN REGSTUD

The paper frames the analysis around the notion of social innovation, aconcept of central importance to the aims of Leader.

OLSSON P, 2017, ECOL SOC They put forward the argument that the Anthropocene concept points tothree areas of thought that are strategically imperative and must beaccelerated if social innovation theory and practice is to provetransformative and respond to the challenges associated with theAnthropocene

MARTIN CJ, 2016, J CLEANPROD

Develop a conceptual model of how citizens’ values are mobilised bygrassroots innovations,

ALTINAY L, 2016, TOURISMMANAGE

The paper aims to identify the resource needs of a tourism socialenterprise and evaluate the means by which these resources aremobilised

HAUGH HM, 2016, J BUSETHICS

To examine the relationships between social entrepreneurship,empowerment and social change

MIRVIS P, 2016, J BUS RES This research explores how companies learn to engage in successfulsocial innovation through the acquisition of tacit knowledge fromexternal parties.

Social innovation and social entrepreneurship: discovering origins,... 91

Table 10 Topics covered in the Social Entrepreneurship cluster (3rd period)

Authors Subject

VAN DER HAVE RP, 2016, RESPOLICY

This paper traces the content, scope and relatively short history ofmodern social innovation research across disciplines by applyingnetwork and bibliometric analyses and explores their relevance toinnovation studies.

CALIC G, 2016, J MANAGE STUD The paper advances the argument that an innovative institutional form– crowdfunding – has emerged to address the needs of socialentrepreneurs and other entrepreneurs with limited access to tradi-tional sources of capital.

BELZ FM, 2017, BUS STRATEGENVIRON

The authors seek to add to the understanding of sustainableentrepreneurial processes (SEPs)

ESTRIN S, 2016, J BUSVENTURING

A research on human capital and entrepreneurial entry and posit that, inorder to generate value, social entrepreneurship requires differentconfigurations of human capital than commercial entrepreneurship.

KAIKA M, 2017, ENVIRONURBAN

The author argue that real smart solutions and real social innovation areto be found not in consensus-building exercises, but in these dis-sensus practices that act as living indicators of what/where urgentlyneeds to be addressed.

REY-MARTI A, 2016, J BUS RES-a This research investigates how contingent factors of social enterprisesaffect job creation.

VAN DER SCHOOR T, 2016,ENERGY RES SOC SCI

The authors use both Actor-Network Theory (ANT) and SocialMovement Theory (SMT) to investigate the initiatives, as thisallows a dynamic analysis of collective strategies.

MAGNANI N, 2016, ENERGYRES SOC SCI

The paper analyzes the role of civil society in Italy’s energy transitionwith particular attention paid to those forms of social innovationdeveloping new energy pathways alternative to the dominant ones.

Table 11 Topics covered in the Case Study cluster (3rd period)

Authors Subject

MUNOZ P, 2016, CALIFMANAGE REV

To leverage a rigorous comparative method, fs/QCA, to assess thebusiness models of 36 firms in the sharing economy.

BLANCO I, 2017, URBAN STUD Resident mobilisation in the neighbourhood of Ciutat Meridiana isexpressive of a new cycle of (urban) social mobilisations in Spanishcities.

ROH TH, 2016, PROCEDIACOMPUT SCI

This paper describes the sharing economy business cases of socialenterprises using the collaborative networks in the platforms ofproduction, consumption, and redistribution.

ANTHOPOULOU T, 2017, JRURAL STUD

The purpose of this paper is to explore aspects, dynamics andexperiences of the crisis in the Greek countryside.

HAHN R, 2018, J CLEAN PROD To illuminate the commercial logic of hybrid/sustainable businesses.

RISPAL MH, 2017, INT SMALLBUS J

Analyse the entrepreneurial process behind the implementation of abusiness model that draws on communitarian innovative solutionsthat benefit the excluded and, ultimately, society at large.

HALBERSTADT J, 2016, INT JENTREP VENTUR

The importance of social entrepreneurship, and the importance ofencouraging social aspects in teaching, practical entrepreneurshipsupport and research.

92 L. Farinha et al.

In a general way, the concept of social innovation is relatively recent, implies a cost,and the dependence on unreliable donations, discourages innovation, whereas a grow-ing donor network positively contributes to innovation (Ranucci and Lee 2019).

The overall objective of our study is to know the origins of the concepts of socialentrepreneurship and social innovation, contacting the current state of the art in thiscurrent of thought.

Methodologically we use bibliometric mapping techniques in our analysis, based onthe spatial representation of the themes under study, using strategic diagrams elaboratedfrom the co-word network analysis and clustering, in order to understand this thematicevolution. This technic allows to draw a conceptual framework using a word co-occurrence network to map and cluster terms extracted from keywords, titles, orabstracts in a bibliographic collection (Cobo et al. 2011; Small, 1999).

The performed analysis we can see that the scientific production in this field ofknowledge has been intensifying in recent years, suffering the focus of the researchsome changes over these three periods under review (Fig. 3).

In period 1 (2005 to 2010), the research focus ceases to be the “social entrepreneur-ship” and the “social enterprise” theme develops. As an emerging theme in this period,we highlight “social innovation”. In period 2 (2011 to 2015), the theme “socialinnovation” gains centrality and density, in contrast to the theme “social entrepreneur-ship”. In turn, the themes “sustainability” and “social enterprise” are now absorbed bythese two main themes (social innovation and social entrepreneurship). In the periodthree (2016 to 2019), the themes “social innovation” and “social entrepreneurship”come together around a greater centrality and density of the theme “innovation”. Inaddition, a new theme - “case study”- emerges in this period, bringing a new perspec-tive applied research in this area of knowledge (Fig. 3).

In summary, from period 1 to period 3, we observe that the theme “social innova-tion” remains with a focus of study, as well as the theme “social entrepreneurship”,although now with less transversality and development. However, the theme “sustain-ability” is now the subject of study within the areas “social entrepreneurship”, “social

Fig. 3 Thematic evolution mapping

Social innovation and social entrepreneurship: discovering origins,... 93

innovation”, “innovation” and “case study”. The same evolutionary path suffered thetheme “social enterprise”.

As future lines of research, we point out as relevant to analysis of thematic evolutionby different regions of the world, still trying to understand which sectors of activity oranalysis units fall under the new thematic “case study”. It should also confirm that theterms “social entrepreneurship” and “social innovation” are still included in the overallterm “innovation”, and if the term “innovation” wins new centrality through theemergence of new “case studies”, understanding their characteristics. It would alsobe pertinent to study the trend of countries where these case studies emerge moreregularly.

One of the major limitations of this study focuses on the exclusive use of the WoSdatabase. As a suggestion for future streams of research, there is the inclusion of otherscientific databases, such as Scopus, for example.

References

Adams, D., & Hess, M. (2010). Social innovation and why it has policy significance. Economic and LabourRelations Review, 21(2), 139–156. https://doi.org/10.1177/103530461002100209.

Aria, M., Cuccurullo, C. (2017) Bibliometrix: An R-tool for comprehensive science mapping analysis, journalof Informetrics, 11(4), pp 959-975, Elsevier.

Austin, J., Stevenson, H., Wei-Skillern, J. (2006). Emprendimiento Comercial y Social 2006.pdf.Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 30(1), 1–22. Retrieved from https://www.clearlyso.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/02/Social-and-Commercial-Entrepreneurship-Same-Different-or-Both.pdf

Belz, F.-M. (2013). Shaping the future: Sustainable innovation and entrepreneurship. Social Business, 3(4),311–324.

Brown, W. A. (2005). Exploring the association between board and organizational performance in nonprofitorganizations. Nonprofit Management and Leadership, 15(3), 317–339.

Cajaiba-Santana, G. (2014). Social innovation: Moving the field forward. A conceptual framework.Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 82(1), 42–51. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2013.05.008.

Calic, G., & Mosakowski, E. (2016). Kicking off social entrepreneurship: How a sustainability orientationinfluences Crowdfunding success. Journal of Management Studies, 53(5), 738–767. https://doi.org/10.1111/joms.12201.

Callon, M., Courtial, J. P., & Laville, F. (1991). Co-word analysis as a tool for describing the network ofinteractions between basic and technological research - the case of polymer chemistry. Scientometrics, 22,155–205.

Cobo, M. J., López-Herrera, A. G., Herrera-Viedma, E., & Herrera, F. (2011). An approach for detecting,quantifying, and visualizing the evolution of a research field: A practical application to the fuzzy setstheory field. Journal of Informetrics, 5(1), 146–166.

Conway Dato-on, M., & Kalakay, J. (2016). The winding road of social entrepreneurship definitions: Asystematic literature review. Social Enterprise Journal, 12(2), 131–160. https://doi.org/10.1108/sej-06-2015-0016.

Crutchfield, L. R., & Grant, H. M. (2012). Forces for good: The six practices of high-impact nonprofits. NewYork: John Wiley & Sons.

Dacin, P., Dacin, M., & Matear, M. (2010). Social entrepreneurship: Why we don’t need a new theory andhow we move forward from here. Academy of Management Perspectives, 24(3), 37–57. https://doi.org/10.5465/AMP.2010.52842950.

Dart, R. (2004). The legitimacy of social Enterprise. Nonprofit Managment and leadership, 14(4), 411–424.Doi: 10.1002/nml.43.

Dees, J. G., Emerson, J., & Economy, P. (2002). Enterprising nonprofits: A toolkit for social entrepreneurs(Vol. 186). New York: John Wiley & Sons.

Dover, G., & Lawrence, T. B. (2012). The role of power in nonprofit innovation. Nonprofit and VoluntarySector Quarterly, 41(6), 991–1013.

94 L. Farinha et al.

Drucker, P. (2012). Managing the non-profit organization. London and New York: Routledge.Eadie, D. C. (1997). Changing by design: A practical approach to leading innovation in nonprofit organi-

zations. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.Eck, N., & Waltman, L. (2009). How to normalize cooccurrence data? An analysis of some well-known

similarity measures. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 60(8),1635–1651.

Eurostat. (2019). Living conditions in Europe - social participation and integration - Statistics Explained.https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-explained/index.php/Living_conditions_in_Europe_-_social_participation_and_integration#Policy_context, Accessed on Novembre 29, 2019.

Faber, D., & McCarthy, D. (2005). Foundations for social change: Critical perspectives on philanthropy andpopular movements. New York: Rowman & Littlefield.

Jaskyte, K. (2017). Board effectiveness and innovation in nonprofit organizations. Human ServiceOrganizations: Management, Leadership & Governance, 41(5), 453–463.

Jaskyte, K., Amato, O., & Sperber, R. (2018). Foundations and innovation in the nonprofit sector. NonprofitManagement and Leadership, 29(1), 47–64.

Jessop, B., Moulaert, F., Hulgård, L., & Hamdouch, A. (2013). Social innovation research: A new stage ininnovation analysis? In F. Moulaert, D. MacCallum, A. Mehmood, & A. Hamdouch (Eds.), TheInternational handbook on social innovation collective action, social learning and Transdisciplinaryresearch (pp. 110–130). Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing, Inc.. https://doi.org/10.4337/9781849809993.00020.

Kessler, M. M. (1963). Bibliographic coupling between scientific papers. American documentation, 14(1), 10–25.

Lasprogata, G. A., & Cotten, M. N. (2001). Contemplating enterprise: The business and legal challenges ofsocial entrepreneurship. American Business Law Journal, 41(1), 67–113. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10029-005-0024-8.

Lettice, F., & Parekh, M. (2010). The social innovation process: Themes, challenges and implications forpractice. International Journal of Technology Management, 51(1), 139–158. https://doi.org/10.1504/IJTM.2010.033133.

Light, P. C. (1998). Sustaining innovation: Creating nonprofit and government organizations that innovatenaturally. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Maier, F., Meyer, M., & Steinbereithner, M. (2016). Nonprofit organizations becoming business-like: Asystematic review. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 45(1), 64–86. https://doi.org/10.1177/0899764014561796.

McDonald, R. E. (2007). An investigation of innovation in nonprofit organizations: The role of organizationalmission. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 36(2), 256–281.

Mulgan, G., Tucker, S., Ali, R., Sanders, B. (2007). Social innovation: What it is, why it matters, how it can beaccelerated. Skoll Centre for Social Entrepreneurship, said business school, Oxford University, the YoungFoundation, working paper.

Neumeier, S. (2012). Why do social innovations in rural development matter and should they be consideredmore seriously in rural development research? - proposal for a stronger focus on social innovations inrural development research. Sociologia Ruralis, 52(1), 48–69. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9523.2011.00553.x.

Osborne, S. P. (2013). Voluntary organizations and innovation in public services. London and New York:Routledge.

Pearce, J. A., Fritz, D. A., & Davis, P. S. (2010). Entrepreneurial orientation and the performance of religiouscongregations as predicted by rational choice theory. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 34(1), 219–248.

Peredo, A. M., & McLean, M. (2006). Social entrepreneurship: A critical review of the concept. Journal ofWorld Business, 41(1), 56–65. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jwb.2005.10.007.

Phillips, W., Lee, H., Ghobadian, A., O’Regan, N., & James, P. (2015). Social innovation and socialentrepreneurship: A systematic review. Group and Organization Management, 40(3), 428–461.https://doi.org/10.1177/1059601114560063.

Phills, J. A., Deiglmeier, K., & Miller, D. T. (2008). Rediscovering social innovation. Stanford SocialInnovation Review, 6(4), 34–43.

R Core Team (2019). R: A language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for statisticalcomputing, Vienna, Austria. URL https://www.R-project.org/.

Ranucci, R., & Lee, H. (2019). Donor influence on long-term innovation within nonprofit organizations.Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 48(5), 1045–1065. https://doi.org/10.1177/0899764019843346.

Social innovation and social entrepreneurship: discovering origins,... 95

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.

Schaltegger, S., & Wagner, M. (2011). Sustainable entrepreneurship and sustainability innovation: Categoriesand interactions. Business Strategy and the Environment, 20(4), 222–237. https://doi.org/10.1002/bse.682.

Shaw, E., & Carter, S. (2007). Social entrepreneurship: Theoretical antecedents and empirical analysis ofentrepreneurial processes and outcomes. Journal of Small Business and Enterprise Development, 14(3),418–434. https://doi.org/10.1108/14626000710773529.

Small, H. (1973). Co-citation in the scientific literature: A new measure of the relationship between twodocuments. Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 24, 265–269.

Stone, M. M., Bigelow, B., & Crittenden, W. (1999). Research on strategic management in nonprofitorganizations: Synthesis, analysis, and future directions. Administration & Society, 31(3), 378–423.

van der Have, R. P., & Rubalcaba, L. (2016). Social innovation research: An emerging area of innovationstudies? Research Policy, 45(9), 1923–1935. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2016.06.010.

Zahra, S. A., & Pearce, J. A. (1989). Boards of directors and corporate financial performance: A review andintegrative model. Journal of Management, 15(2), 291–334.

Zahra, S. A., Gedajlovic, E., Neubaum, D. O., & Shulman, J. M. (2009). A typology of social entrepreneurs:Motives, search processes and ethical challenges. Journal of Business Venturing, 24(5), 519–532.https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusvent.2008.04.007.

Zhu, H., Wang, P., & Bart, C. (2016). Board processes, board strategic involvement, and organizationalperformance in for-profit and non-profit organizations. Journal of Business Ethics, 136(2), 311–328.

Publisher’s note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps andinstitutional affiliations.

96 L. Farinha et al.