Purpose – The purpose of this reflective paper is to examine the implications for the UK of Prime Minister David Cameron's declared belief that a Big Society of community entrepreneurs and volunteers will take on more and more responsibilities. Sometimes policies are spelt out in detail; this was much more conceptual and perhaps visionary.Design/methodology/approach – Ideas on sense making and performance evaluation were used to provide a context and explore how various people might be expected to react.Findings – Whilst the limited funding which accompanies the Big Society initiative will attract entrepreneurial opportunists who will be encouraged to bid for this money, if this new challenge is to succeed it must attract community entrepreneurs who see it as encouragement to start some new local initiative. Volunteering will be central to this. Positive outcomes are by no means certain.Research limitations/implications – As things emerge and develop there will be a number of opportunities for detailed an...

Purpose – This paper aims to fill the academic gaps in the study of the new co‐operative movement in China and its innovative mechanisms, and to assess why new co‐operatives deviate from the orthodox co‐operative model represented by the standards of the International Cooperative Alliance (ICA).Design/methodology/approach – As an alternative to the popular ideal‐co‐operative perspective, the paper employs a historical approach to understand the co‐operative renaissance in China. Afterwards, the paper presents an application as well as an example to reinforce this understanding and to demonstrate the validity of the analysis.Findings – Using this approach, this paper demonstrates the formation process of real‐type co‐operatives under the influence of institutional legacies as well as resources and environments. Moreover, The shareholding co‐operatives have been developed as new co‐operative forms. They are characterized by their multiple stakeholdership, their multi‐purpose operations, and their orientatio...

PurposeThe purpose of this paper is to explore societal entrepreneurship in the turbulent health‐care sector in a changing welfare state, Sweden. Empirically oriented questions about the businesses explored in this paper are: how do the entrepreneurs see combining “health‐driven” and profit‐driven enterprises? What mindset and strategies guide their enterprises? What organizatorial solutions are used?Design/methodology/approachThe paper is based on two case‐entrepreneurs, selected due to the author's perception of them as successful both as businesses and as societal change agents. The entrepreneurs have been interviewed by means of unstructured dialogues.FindingsBoth entrepreneurs prove to be frontier crossing combiners in several dimensions; they unite ideological commitment with economically sound businesses, they bring together their medical professions and complementary methods of treatment, they combine bridge building with challenging and they reconcile part‐time entrepreneurship with employment.Research limitations/implicationsWith regard to the long‐term preconditions for societal entrepreneurship, it is concluded that these two entrepreneurial processes have traits of both opportunity‐ and self‐exploitation. The long‐term social sustainability of enterprises of this kind is an issue for further research.Originality/valueThe paper goes beyond non‐profit research by exploring societal entrepreneurship in the for‐profit sector, with focus on entrepreneurship which crosses sectoral borders.

PurposeThe purpose of this paper is to explore the concept of business growth as it applies to the social enterprise. It examines if social entrepreneurs have a growth agenda, how this is achieved and the challenges encountered in achieving firm growth.Design/methodology/approachThis exploratory study involves the completion of a series of four case studies of established social enterprises.FindingsSocial entrepreneurs do have aspirations to grow their enterprise, where growth is perceived from multiple perspectives, primarily underpinned by the provision of a perceived social value. Firm growth is predominately measured from the external beneficiary perspective rather than internal financial metrics. Sourcing financing, staff retention adjusting to different roles in managing the enterprise and measuring the scale and impact of their business are the primary challenges encountered. The creation of social value and profit generation are not mutually exclusive in the social enterprise when social entrepreneurs confront the challenges of growth within a business context.Originality/valueThe findings from the research provide a more holistic understanding of growth in the social enterprise. This detail adds to an under researched topic in the Irish context, puts forward recommendations on what is required by policy to assist the social entrepreneur take their business to the next level and presents areas for further research to advance a topic that is still in its infancy.

PurposeThe place of social enterprise in providing innovation in the delivery of services previously undertaken by the public sector is currently receiving much attention, as is service user participation in the delivery of services. The purpose of this paper is to investigate the propensity of a service delivery model to positively influence service users' goals, fulfil their own expectations and life chances.Design/methodology/approachA case study of a social enterprise, providing services to children with Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD) and their families. The paper takes a Kantian perspective on the position of service users as ends in themselves, is informed by social capital theory and is carried out as a single case study with survey, interviews and triangulation.FindingsThe service delivery model is found to increase social capital and assists in the reduction of social exclusion and in the building of local sustainable development. It delivers positive social outcomes and the importance of innovative capacity in the social enterprise sector is demonstrated.Originality/valueLessons from the participatory service delivery model are felt to be transferable to other service delivery areas. Improvement in public sector understanding is shown to need attention in this context.

PurposeTwelve years ago, the concept of social enterprise was rarely discussed in Europe, however it is now making significant breakthroughs in European Union (EU) countries. Within this context, the purpose of this paper is to synthesize major evolutions experienced by social enterprises across Europe and the key challenges they are facing; and specific members of the EMES European Research Network provide a more in‐depth update as to current trends and debates in their respective countriesDesign/methodology/approachThis paper is based on a comparative analysis of the different institutions (legal frameworks, public policies, supporting structures, public procurement policies …) which support the development of social enterprises in the different EU countries. To delimit the field, the paper relies on the “ideal‐type” social enterprise as defined by the EMES network: “Social enterprises are not‐for‐profit private organizations providing goods or services directly related to their explicit aim to benefit the community. They rely on a collective dynamics involving various types of stakeholders in their governing bodies, they place a high value on their autonomy and they bear economic risks linked to their activity”.FindingsIt was found that although the concept of social enterprise itself has not gained the same recognition in all EU countries (and is even still poorly understood in several of them), the reality is that growth and social enterprise are being experienced in most EU countries.Originality/valueIf the concept of social enterprise is on the public agenda of several EU countries, the understanding as well as the institutions to support their development vary from one country to the other. This paper provides a comparative analysis of this heterogeneous but rich landscape.

PurposeThis paper aims to investigate the organisational development of three small‐ and medium‐sized social enterprises (SMSEs). The objectives of the paper are to highlight the critical stages of development that have led to change, growth and success for these enterprises. Although social purpose organisations have existed for some time, recent political interest in the subject has created a new and emerging field of interest where little empirical research exists. This paper examines how SMSEs evolve, utilizing the framework of organisational life cycle (OLC) models, specifically Adizes's model. Thus, drawing on the OLC field of study this paper will make a significant contribution to a deeper understanding of social enterprise development.Design/methodology/approachA qualitative methodological approach was undertaken in order to understand the stories and experiences. A semi‐structured approach enabled the researcher to gain deep insights into the life cycle stages that changed and developed each of these organisations over time – which would not have been as insightful through a quantitative methodological approach.FindingsThe key findings indicate that a host of internal and external incidents were critical to the development of these firms. The entrepreneurialism shown within these organisations was crucial. These three firms all grew from community‐based campaigns that were able to exploit financial opportunities and grow with a momentum over a number of years. The organisation structures, although different across the three cases, were critical factors in the ability to deliver, develop skills and handle growth. Through analysing these cases through the framework of the OLC model we found that the development stages were similar and that the model is a useful lens for viewing social enterprise organisation development.Originality/valueEmpirical evidence of this nature is currently lacking from the SMSE community. This research therefore contributes to the knowledge capital on this sector and is important for practitioners, business support agencies and academics in understanding the organisational development of social enterprises.