This is the part two of the annotated bibliography on SE (part II) that serves as the resource for topic of social entrepreneurship. I plan to update this page regularly.
Creative approaches and organizational structures and Partnership/Alliances in social entrepreneurial ventures (SEVs)
Horsnell, A., & Pepin, J. (2002). Social entrepreneurship basics: How your nonprofit can enhance capacity, impact and sustainability. Front & Centre, 9(4), 1-6.
Objective: Strategies on how nonprofits can reduce their risks and maximize the impact of their chosen strategy.
Summary: Authors draw a framework to help nonprofits make an informed decision to adopt SE as a strategic move to increase mission impact, organizational capacity, and financial sustainability. They explain this by placing “opportunity” at the center of the framework. Aligning the opportunity with the organization’s missions and core values, leverage the current assets, addressing an unsatisfied need, and financially sustainability (either by earned income or donations) are the key to the opportunity. They present a range of specific strategies to help reduce risks and maximize the social impact through these strategies.
Conclusion: Authors conclude the paper by addressing the apprehensions nonprofits might have when undertaking a more entrepreneurial approach. They argue that following their strategies will help nonprofits to attain financial sustainability, increase mission impact, reduce risks, and increase organizational capacity.
Interpretation: The article outlines strategies for nonprofits to lay a path toward achieving more social impact by being more open and inclined toward taking a more ‘businesslike’ approach. But the latent emphasis is on having a long term strategy so that the objectives of the organizations are maximized. Keeping opportunity at the center of the framework undermines efforts of those social entrepreneurs who rise against unfavorable context and opportunities to create an impact.
Lee, D. (2000). Goal: Strong nonprofits: How to `Do' capacity-building. Foundation News & Commentary, 41(5).
Objective: To provide a review of how funding agencies and philanthropies conduct capacity building.
Summary: The author lists and describes the following ways by which funding agencies provide capacity-building support to nonprofits: (1) By providing grants to Intermediary Support Organizations, that primarily provide technical assistance to organizations often have developed technical assistance programming that encourages peer learning and mutual support; (2) providing customized intervention services in which nonprofits identify their needs and partners who can assist them in the capacity building process; (3) provide core resources or technical assistance directly to the nonprofits; (4) become an active participant by taking on leadership roles on grantees’ boards, provide contacts, and take active roles in introducing their grantees to colleagues, fundraise, and seek to involve other investors, for grantees to diversify their support base and get access to management and programmatic resources. The pros and cons of these approaches are also discussed.
Conclusion: The author provides several key recommendations to funding agencies as they assist nonprofits in capacity-building activities including recognizing the power differential between nonprofits and funders, supporting the nonprofits’ choices and respecting their leadership, and providing sufficient time for change to occur.
Interpretation: Interesting article about philanthropies taking on venture capitalist roles in their capacity-building efforts and the potential pitfalls of that approach.
Wei-Skillern, J. C. (2005). Nonprofit networking: The new way to grow [Electronic Version]. HBS Working Knowledge. Retrieved December 6, 2020 from http://hbswk.hbs.edu/item/4801.html.
Objective: The power of strategic networking is relatively unexplored but has real potential to increase social impact.
Summary: The author argues that the strategy of organizational growth and replication carries costs and does not necessarily deliver greater social value. Networking research offers an alternative and relatively uncommon path for nonprofits to increase their impact through creating and leveraging networks for social impact. This brief article defines networks, describes their unique fit with nonprofit sector dynamics, outlines the benefits of networks, and summarizes case studies of two organizations that have effectively used a deliberate network strategy.
Conclusion: Strategic networking provides a lot of leverage in terms of resources, capital, and effectiveness and helps managers to focus on their social cause instead of mobilizing resources. Collective capacity building can create social value that is not restricted within the boundaries of an organization.
Interpretation: Network approach has tremendous potential but is often overlooked. It is not an easy approach to scale social impact as it required commitment of time and resources and the returns might not be immediate but if invested for mutual interest networks partners can reap large benefits.
Community Wealth Ventures/ Venture Philanthropy Partners. (2004). High-engagement philanthropy: A bridge to a more effective social sector. Washington, DC: Venture Philanthropy Partners, Inc.
Objective: This report contains the transcripts and interpretation of dialogues between “high-engagement philanthropists” and their investment partners providing insight into the ongoing give-and-take nature of high-engagement philanthropy, highlighting its benefits and pitfalls, and depicting the push and pull inherent in and essential to such partnerships.
Summary: The report assumes that the lack of capital and the ability to distribute it effectively is at the core of increased effectiveness, growth, and sustainability of nonprofit organizations. However, traditional ways of funding nonprofit organizations often undermine their goals. Specifically, the report finds that the lack of growth capital, or the money that enables organizations to invest in themselves and respond to opportunities (e.g., acquiring facilities, technology, developing better staff and systems) so that they can grow, build, improve, and strengthen their organizations, products, and services for greater scale and impact is scarce and hard to secure. Even if this capital were available, better systems or “market mechanisms” are needed to ensure its flow to the most effective organizations.
Conclusion: Greater effectiveness and access to capital are linked and the challenge facing funders and nonprofits alike is a lack of access to capitalization tools and instruments, including investment capital and debt financing, designed to enable high-performing organizations to build and scale and the means to distribute this type of capital effectively.
Interpretation: Provides some interesting insight into the challenges and opportunities of high-engagement philanthropy, or philanthropy that supports the work of nonprofits with money and knowledge, and experience.
Fawcett, B., & South, J. (2005). Community involvement and primary care trust: The case for social entrepreneurship. Critical Public Health, 15(2), 191-204.
Objective: Examines different policies for a move toward more community involvement in primary health care.
Summary: The article focuses on the practice of community involvement and presents a critical analysis of issues for its implementation. Drawing from an evaluation of community involvement, a social entrepreneurial approach is identified and discussed as a means of crafting alliances to benefit from existing groups in the community. Although a community is hard to define in terms of questions like ‘who the community is, ‘what they represent’ and ‘where they are’, there are still benefits of adopting a social entrepreneurial approach that fosters civic engagement helps the welfare system to achieve their goals. SE offers a way to bring together a wide range of stakeholders and organizational representatives to form networks to facilitate the change process faster. Social entrepreneurs are inclusive, flexible, mission-oriented, and employ critical reflection as a means of taking the initiative forward thus serving as a key component of the system in moving toward the social goal.
Conclusion: Building collective capacity through civic engagement and promoting community involvement through building networks, creating links with the existing organizations to work toward the same goal can help better serve the community. An SE approach that focuses on ‘how to’ rather than ‘must-do’ can effectively address barriers to community involvement.
Interpretation: SE approach has been successfully able to address some of the most promising and challenging problems of our time. The holistic and integrative approach is the key along with a strong focus on mission coupled with ethical fiber has enabled social entrepreneurs to make strong headways where previous approaches have failed.
Dart, R. (2004). The legitimacy of social enterprise. Nonprofit Management and Leadership, 14(4), 411-424.
Objective: This article develops a framework for understanding the emergence and evolution of social enterprises as a new organizational form through an institutional perspective as opposed to a rational economic perspective.
Summary: This article maps out the field of social enterprises with a focus on the non-profit sector. In doing so, it identifies the differences in organizational form between social enterprises and traditional non-profits. It develops an institutional theory perspective to understand social enterprises that emphasize non-choice and non-rational bases for the explanation of organization structure and broader sector and societal structure. The article goes on the focus on research on legitimacy and legitimization that emphasizes conformity to societal and stakeholder expectations rather than efficiency and effectiveness as principal organizational goals and as primary determinants of organizational success and explores how the concept of legitimacy, specifically moral legitimacy, can predict the trajectory of social enterprises.
Conclusion: The author concludes based on legitimacy theory that social enterprises are likely to continue their evolution away from forms that focus on broad frame-breaking and innovation to narrower market-based solutions and businesslike models.
Interpretation: The author seems to suggest that the emergence of social enterprises can be explained in terms of political ideology. That is, social enterprises exist and thrive because they are morally legitimate. It would be interesting to test this through cross-national studies and examine if there are more social enterprises in neoconservative free-market economies versus socialist economies. Are social entrepreneurial activities more valued in free-market economies?
Growth and expansion of SEVs
Rouson, B. (2005). Business planning for nonprofits: Why, when - and how it compares to strategic planning. Enhance, 2(1), 1-12.
Objective: Offers perspective about why and when business planning makes sense for nonprofits.
Summary: Nonprofits are in their own sense like social enterprises so why not adopt business planning to improve performance, sustainability, and social impact and create a long term vision. The author emphasizes having a long-term strategy by adopting business planning which is at many levels very similar for nonprofits and corporations. The reasons for having a business plan include arranging strategic alliances, mergers, and restructuring, vision check along with resource availability, financial planning, retaining essential human capital, and increased motivation and team building. All these reasons lead to collective capacity building. Just as business planning is required for corporations, nonprofits can also benefit from streamlining their resources and setting realistic goals, and increasing their effectiveness and efficiency through business planning.
Conclusion: Business planning for nonprofits is an idea whose time has come, as the views and experiences of many capacity builders and organizations are beginning to show. Frameworks and resources are available, and with creative thought will continue to be infused with a “nonprofit-like” character. The challenge and opportunity is to bring a fresh perspective to nonprofits—strengthening the base to increase impact.
Interpretation: Business planning can have a significant impact on the success and mission of nonprofit organizations. The growing recognition of the blending of different sectors brings along with it the challenge of clarifying the nonprofit sector’s identity. As long as the social mission is not wearing away, all benefits from such strategies should be adopted.
Boschee, J. (2001). Eight basic principles for nonprofit entrepreneurs. Nonprofit World, 19(4), 15-18.
Objective: Importance of eight basic tools that a nonprofit should use to build their organization to be effective for a longer duration.
Summary: The author explains eight principles for nonprofits that he sees as essential. These are earned income; focus on what you can deliver the best; differentiating from business strategies; keeping earn income activities related to the social mission; recognizing human capital and different skill requirements, and to be entrepreneurial and have commitment.
Conclusion: Essential principles that nonprofits should follow to think out of the box and maximize social impact.
Interpretation: These principles might be useful in refining my SE model.
Uvin, P. (1995). Fighting hunger at the grassroots: Paths to scaling up. World Development, 23(6), 927-939.
Objective: Proposes some clear definitions and taxonomies of how some organizations are expanding their impact.
Summary: Important contribution to the literature in presenting a taxonomy of paths for scaling social impact. It offers useful definitions and explains sub-strategies for four different approaches to scaling impact: Quantitative Scaling Up, Functional Scaling Up, Political Scaling Up, and Organizational Scaling Up. The authors apply the taxonomy by analyzing the cases of 25 successful grassroots anti-hunger organizations in developing countries, some of which utilized multiple approaches in sequence or simultaneously.
Conclusion: The author has distinguished four major pathways to scaling up and organizations should adopt different paths simultaneously depending on the circumstances and context they are in.
Interpretation: Based on 25 cases, the author has done a good job in analyzing scaling up approaches. Although it can be argued that quantitative and functional scaling up approaches are the first steps to achieve political and organizational scaling up. The foundation for social change and empowerment should be laid while attaining quantitative and functional scaling up or else it might be extremely difficult to attain it later.
Corbin, J. J. (1999). A study of factors influencing the growth of nonprofits in social services. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 28, 296-314.
Objective: Assessing the significance of factors influencing the growth of nonprofits in social service across 285 metropolitan areas in the USA.
Summary: Evaluates the relationship of social cohesion, demand heterogeneity, market failure, resource dependency, and philanthropic culture on industry growth.
Conclusion: All measures but philanthropic culture are positively associated with industry growth. There are positive influences of religious cohesion and interdenominational diversity on the numbers of nonprofit social service providers.
Interpretation: The author’s framework for analyzing the external factors that support or discourage the scale of a nonprofit industry could be adopted at the organization level.
Miller, C. (2002). Capital structure counts: The business roots of capacity and mission at nonprofits [Electronic Version]. Nonprofit Finance Fund, 1-16. Retrieved December 6, 2020 from https://nff.org/file/214/download?token=oLWVAM_U
Objective: To describe the underlying capital structure of organizations and how its strength contributes to the success or failure of a nonprofit enterprise.
Summary: This paper illustrates observations about the effect of capital structure on nonprofits and the relationship of capital structure to program and capacity building. The authors distinguish nonprofit organizations’ missions from their underlying businesses and then explore a few examples of typical capital structures for these businesses to show that these organizations’ assets are distributed in similar patterns as a percentage of total assets regardless of the mission of the organization that owns them when underlying businesses are similar. The author describes three capitalization principles that are common to social enterprises that pursue for-profit activities: (1) Nonprofits with the same underlying business will have similar capital structures across nonprofit sectors; (2) Change is predictable: variations in capital structure exist within a definable range for nonprofits which have the same business type and are in the same phase (growth, startup, regular operations); (3)When a nonprofit change, for example, growth in existing programs, the addition of an endowment or a facility, its capital structure changes, whether the change is conscious or not. The stress of growth can be mitigated by regaining or reconfiguring a capital structure that supports the business changes. Capitalization data can provide “industry norms” to the field which, when coupled with program indicators, give a sense of what resources are appropriate for which businesses, and therefore, what is lacking.
Conclusion: Nonprofit managers and their funders can use knowledge about capitalization to better understand and address some root causes of management challenges when the root cause of some of the challenges they face may lie in imbalances in the distribution of assets. Understanding of capitalization can be particularly helpful to nonprofits contemplating growth, where a change in capital structure often has radical effects but is seldom addressed.
Interpretation: Explains how understanding the impact of capital structure on the program and organizational capacity can help nonprofit managers and their funders better plan for growth and change. This knowledge is useful for the field in planning growth, making decisions about facilities projects or endowments, and understanding their financial implications.
Gair, C. (2005). If the shoe fits: Nonprofit or for-profit? The choice matters [Electronic Version]. Retrieved December 6, 2020 from https://community-wealth.org/sites/clone.community-wealth.org/files/downloads/paper-gair.pdf.
Objective: To discuss key issues to consider when choosing a nonprofit or for-profit structure.
Summary: Maintaining program stability with unreliable financial contributions can be daunting and hence nonprofit leaders desire to become self-supporting via sales rather than donations. Some philanthropists too are channeling funds for social mission activities into for-profit entities despite the lack of tax incentives for doing so. The author argues that a for-profit structure brings profit pressures and a nonprofit structure brings social mission pressures. Taking note of these conflicting pressures does not preclude holding for-profit corporations responsible for good corporate behavior, nor does it prevent nonprofit organizations from engaging in commercial activity. Perhaps a necessary step for achieving any goals whether profit or social mission is increased clarity about what we can expect from the organizational/legal structures we use.
Conclusion: For-profit structures are more likely to put higher pressure on profit-generating activities and the chances of getting the social mission of the organization eroded are higher. Being aware of these pressures does not guarantee either the for-profits or nonprofits to engage in ethical and mission-oriented behavior.
Interpretation: An important topic that highlights the behavioral implications of organizational or legal structures on employees in an organization.
Boschee, J. (2003). Keep or kill? Score your programs: Use this tool to decide which activities to nurture-and which to abandon. Nonprofit World, 21(5), 12-15.
Objective: When should an earned income activity be fostered and under what circumstances should these activities be discontinued.
Summary: Nonprofits have been searching for earned income activities as a source of revenue to help them sustain and grow. But many nonprofits are becoming increasingly unable to serve their clients because they no longer had time and resources as they kept on adding programs to support their financial need in form of earned income activities. Continuing an earned income activity that draws more resources than generating them reduces the sustainability of the nonprofits. A tactical balance between social mission and financial purpose served by the activity is required while deciding on whether to invest further in an activity. It might not be an easy task to strike such a balance but doing so will help nonprofits to serve better.
Conclusion: Calculating the social impact of activity and financial purpose might be a time-consuming and complex task but it is worth investing the time as the results can be dramatic: sharpened focus, more people served, and higher levels of sustainability or self-sufficiency.
Interpretation: Although this seems to be a logical strategy at first glance, not every nonprofit can use it and it neglects the many small-scale/low-impact activities that nonprofits engage in that serve as a basis for larger-scale impacts in the long-run.
Ben-Ner, A. (2003). Traps and straps for hard economic times. The Nonprofit Times, February, 1-4.
Objective: Strategies for the sustainability of nonprofits during hard economic times.
Summary: Strategies that can help nonprofits during tough economic times are: raising revenues through the expansion of the market, increasing for-profit activities in a saturated market, lowering expenses through increasing efficiency, outsourcing, and collaborations or developing strategic networks, using reserve funds, and increasing fundraising activities.
Conclusion: There are multiple strategies that a nonprofit can adopt when donations dry out due to tough economic times.
Interpretation: Important survival strategies particularly useful in the introduction stage in the life cycle model of a social enterprise.
Performance measurement or Impact Assessment of SEVs
Dees, J. G., Anderson, B. B., & Wei-Skillern, J. (2004). Scaling Social Impact. Stanford Social Innovation Review, 1(4), 24-32.
Objective: Offers a framework for a larger set of pathways to choose to spread or scale-out their innovation by replicating or scaling up their organization.
Summary: The authors argue that social entrepreneurs have commonly sought to spread or “scale-out” their innovations by replicating or “scaling up” their organizations. The article offers a framework for a larger set of pathways from which to choose. The authors provide a decision matrix for considering what type of innovation to scale (program, organization, or principle) as well as the mechanisms for how to scale (along a spectrum from dissemination to affiliation to branching). A useful checklist of “five R’s” factors should be considered when choosing a strategy for scaling out: readiness, resources, receptivity, risks, and returns.
Conclusion: The chances for success increase if social entrepreneurs consider the full range of options make thoughtful decisions about how to define their innovation (analysis), select a promising scaling mechanism (action), and continuously refine and adapt their strategy to align readiness, resources, receptivity, risks, and returns.
Interpretation: The idea of minimum critical specifications is also gaining reorganization when it comes to scaling the social impact without scaling the organization. Nevertheless this framework provides important insights to consider while leveraging resources to scale social impact.
Bradach, J. (2003). Going to scale: The challenge of replicating social programs. Stanford Social Innovation Review, Spring
Objective: Provides an overview of “organizational replication” as one of the paths to scaling nonprofit impact.
Summary: The author begins with the impediments to organizational replication in the nonprofit sector such as biases among funders to support “new breakthrough ideas”, fears of bureaucracy and centralized control, and the lack of autonomy and the local ownership of ideas and projects by funding agencies. Further, the author points out the advantages of “franchising” or “organizational replication” for nonprofits such as the ability to leverage knowledge thereby increasing the speed of implementation, increasing the odds of desirable outcomes by utilizing elements of a successful program, and be able to attract resources such as fundraising, legal resources, and human resources more easily. To assess whether organizational replication is a feasible option for a social enterprise, the author suggests articulating a strong “theory of change”. The greater the number of elements in a model that can be standardized the stronger the possibility of replication. Moreover, skills, context, and financial structure play an important role in the decision to replicate. Replication requires answers to three critical questions: (1) where and how to grow; (2) what kind of network to build; and (3) what the role of the “center” needs to be.
Conclusion: If replication is to occur and proven ideas are to spread, strong organizations are required both at the local level and at the center. Yet, for the most part, the funding patterns of the nonprofit sector – small grants, for short durations, focused on program work – conspire against building strong organizations. Thus funders that support replication and provide adequate capital for well-conceived strategies are needed if the challenges facing our society are to be addressed.
Interpretation: The article develops the notion of the “theory of change” as an important ingredient of social enterprises. A strong theory of change, according to the author: (1) is simple as can be, as many elements as needed but as few as possible; (2) uses systems thinking; (3) is one in which both the theory and activities necessary to produce results can be articulated clearly and concretely. It would be interesting to analyze SE ventures according to this theory of change and see whether and how it can be elaborated and refined.
Uvin, P., Jain, P., & Brown, L. D. (2000). Think Large and Act Small: Toward a New Paradigm for NGO Scaling Up. Word Development, 28(8), 1409-1419.
Objective: To detail the mechanisms by which NGO impact can be scaled up without drastically increasing the size of the organization.
Summary: Through the analysis of five case studies of Indian NGOs, the authors suggest the existence of two paradigms of scaling up: the old paradigm where scaling up occurs through expansion, whereby NGOs become larger, more professionally managed, more efficient, programmatic institutions (e.g., Grameen Bank and BRAC), and the new paradigm of multiplication and mainstreaming in which NGOs let go of innovations, create alternative knowledge, and influence other social actors through spin-off organizations (e.g., Myrada and URMUL). Although the two paradigms may not be mutually exclusive, the authors suggest this emerging new paradigm of scaling as one in which NGOs become catalysts of policy innovations and social capital, creators of programmatic knowledge that can be spun off and integrated into government and market institutions, and builders of vibrant and diverse civil societies.
Conclusion: The authors conclude that the extent to which an NGO successfully scales up can be judged not only in terms of its size, but also in terms of the number of spin-offs it created, the number of projects that have been taken over by other actors, the degree to which it contributed to the social and intellectual diversity of civil society, its networks, credibility, and alternative knowledge, local capacity built, inter-sectoral contacts developed, the degree to which norms of trust and cooperation strengthened, and democratic space and social diversity was reinforced.
Interpretation: This new paradigm of scaling can be useful to develop effective measures of evaluation for social enterprises with its focus on diversity, process, social capital, civil society, and synergy.
Gentile, M. C. (2002). Social impact management and social enterprise: Two sides of the same coin or a totally different currency? : Aspen Institute.
Objective: To define social impact management and social enterprise and to address issues that create the blurring between the two.
Summary: The author defines social impact management as having a focus on the intersection of business practice and wider societal concerns that reflects and respects the complex interdependency between these two realities. Social enterprises attend to the growing social or nonprofit sector, the ways in which it can benefit from the application of traditional business methods of management and financing, as well as how businesses and nonprofit organizations can develop synergistic working relationships. In this context, these two concepts are somewhat overlapping. But the key difference is that social impact management looks at the costs and benefits imposed by the business on the quality of life of those both within and outside the firm while SE considers more effective and efficient ways of responding to existing societal needs without necessarily taking into consideration whether existing business practices are contributing to these needs in the first place.
Conclusion: Social impact management is about a way of doing business that is consistent with healthy and sustainable societies, while social enterprise is about a way of using business methods to help improve the health and sustainability of societies. They both serve useful and needed ends, but they are different.
Interpretation: An important distinction and can be used to distinguish ‘socially-minded businesses’ from ‘Social entrepreneurship’.
Kushner, R. J. (2003). Is program evaluation a good investment? The NonProfit Times, August 15.
Objective: Presents the use of an investment decision framework as an appropriate way for a nonprofit to decide whether to invest in program evaluation.
Summary: The author defines program evaluation and decision investment. He then describes the costs and benefits of program evaluation. While more reliable and valid program evaluations are likely to cost more, program evaluation results can be used for program design, program management, and to inform program manager performance evaluation. Program evaluation can help to refute the common criticism that nonprofits are “soft,” less accountable, and such claims of quality service can be compelling to funders, clients, and the community – especially when they are backed up with evidence. In a competitive environment, valid measures of program impact can enhance an organization’s ability to secure funding and guide resource allocation, by indicating which programs are (or are not) having desired impacts on client populations. The challenge for nonprofits is to develop ways to assign some worth to future benefits of programs and assess them in present terms as a standard for resource allocation.
Conclusion: The author suggests that short-term payback is not the right criterion for making organizational decisions for nonprofits because it undervalues organizational learning and relationship building that occur during that time. Rather a longer-term view places more confidence in future returns and helps to make the financial case for program development.
Interpretation: For evaluating non-financial benefits like organizational development, organizations need new “effectiveness measures” that can value such intangible results. What might such effective measures include: psychological and cognitive measures of change, changes in social capital…?
Boschee, J. (2008). Doing good while doing well. Pittsburgh Post-Gazette.
Objective: Provides a concise history of social enterprises and emphasizes their importance in this time of economic crisis.
Summary: The author argues that it is clear in this time of economic crises that trickle-down free-market economics has not worked. Neither corporate social responsibility nor philanthropy and government subsidies have been enough to solve our social problems. According to him, social entrepreneurship, a new movement that goes beyond the traditional concept of corporate social responsibility by directly confronting the major unmet needs of society through the businesses themselves rather than grappling with them indirectly through socially responsible practices is the way out of this economic mess mainly because of their double bottom line — social impact and financial viability.
Conclusion: Business strategies and national economies that are driven by profit alone are always in danger. They begin to crumble and the government races to the rescue as is evident by the current economic turmoil. Social enterprises can survive, even in the worst of times, because they’ve been driven by a proper balance of mission and money. It is time businesses realize they can use the best practices of business to address social needs — and the best practices of nonprofits to inform their pursuit.
Interpretation: Puts social entrepreneurial ventures in the current unstable economic perspective and argues all businesses to become social entrepreneurs.
Cite this article (APA)
Trivedi, C. (2021, January 28). Annotated bibliography: Social Entrepreneurship. ConceptsHacked. Retrieved from https://conceptshacked.com/annotated-bibliography-se-part-ii/
