Rev Manag Sci (2014) 8:275–292

DOI 10.1007/s11846-013-0104-6

REVIEW PAPER

Social Entrepreneurship: An exploratory citation

analysis

Sascha Kraus • Matthias Filser • Michele O’Dwyer •

Eleanor Shaw

Received: 9 October 2012 / Accepted: 15 April 2013 / Published online: 28 April 2013
 Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2013

Abstract Research on Social Entrepreneurship became a growing field of interest

during the past decades. However, as the heterogeneity of investigated topics is
rather large the purpose of this contribution is to provide an overview of the current
state of research on Social Entrepreneurship. In doing so previous research is
structured to identify major contributions and thereby key discussion lines within
this field. Based on a bibliometric citation analysis of 129 core papers and 5,228
cited references, five topic clusters are identified within the field of Social Entre-
preneurship: 1) Definitions and conceptual approaches, 2) Impetus, 3) Personality,
4) Impact and performance, and 5) Future research agenda. By reflecting the lit-
erature of each discussion line, a framework for the advancement of Social Entre-
preneurship research is provided.

Keywords Bibliometrics
Citation analysis
Social Entrepreneurship

Entrepreneurship

JEL Classification L26
M14

S. Kraus (&)
University of Liechtenstein, Fürst-Franz-Josef-Strasse, 9490 Vaduz, Liechtenstein
e-mail: sascha.kraus@wu.ac.at

M. Filser
University of Turku, Turku, Finland

M. Filser
Utrecht University School of Economics, Utrecht, The Netherlands

M. O’Dwyer
University of Limerick, Limerick, Ireland

E. Shaw
University of Strathclyde Business School, Glasgow, UK

123
276 S. Kraus et al.

1 Introduction

Social Entrepreneurship is an innovative field of scientific research which, as

evidenced by the growing number of publications on the topic, is becoming
recognized as a dominant discourse within entrepreneurship research. The past
10 years in particular have witnessed a worldwide, unprecedented surge in interest
in the topic (Bornstein 2004), encouraged by significant political, economic and
environmental changes in a dynamic global environment which have encouraged
policy makers, environmentalists and disadvantaged communities to turn to social
entrepreneurs in a search for more innovative, sustainable solutions to tackling the
root causes of poverty and related problems created by inequality and the uneven
distribution of the world’s wealth (Nicholls 2006; Shaw et al. 2011). ‘‘In a world
that faces many social challenges and governments that in many cases are unable to
provide solutions, motivated social entrepreneurs are often key to improving
socially challenging situations’’ (Sassmannshausen and Volkmann 2013, p. 3). In
tandem with growing policy, practitioner and public interest in alternative
approaches to sustainable economic development, academic researchers have
become increasingly interested in investigating such approaches, particularly the
manifestation of entrepreneurial behaviors and practices within the context of social
rather than personal gain (see Fig. 1).
This article presents an exploratory citation analysis illustrating the extent to
which Social Entrepreneurship has, to date, been the object of scientific research.
This study contributes to the body of literature by identifying key research topics,
influential papers and researchers, and highlights opportunities for a future
research agenda. The paper discusses the concept of Social Entrepreneurship,
highlighting alternative definitions, considering sources of Social Entrepreneur-
ship, and the attributes of social entrepreneurs. Following this the methodology
adopted is explored before findings are discussed. This exploratory analysis
identifies 20 researchers/research groups as influential to the development of
research on the topic of Social Entrepreneurship. The paper concludes by

Fig. 1 Number of articles per year

123
Social Entrepreneurship 277

identifying research gaps and suggesting a research agenda to advance knowledge

of the theory and practice of social entrepreneurs and the process of Social
Entrepreneurship.

2 Bibliometric survey: citation analysis

To date there have been few bibliometric studies in the field of entrepreneurship
(e.g., Gregoire et al. 2006; Reader and Watkins 2006; Schildt et al. 2006; Dos
Santos et al. 2011; Kraus et al. 2011), moreover in the field of Social
Entrepreneurship, to the knowledge of the authors, only three content analysis
studies have been conducted so far (Danko and Brunner 2010; Cukier et al. 2011;
Danko et al. 2011). This study explores definitions of Social Entrepreneurship,
illustrates empirical insights and identifies the most influential publications.
Findings are clustered in order to facilitate incisive discussion enabling a deeper
understanding of this research by investigating every available double-blind
reviewed publication published so far containing the terms ‘‘social entrepreneur(s)’’
or ‘‘social entrepreneurship’’ in its title.

2.1 Method

The method used in this paper is a bibliometric survey which involves a citation
analysis that investigates authors, journals, and the sources therein. Citation
analysis is based on the premise that citations provide a valid and reliable
indication of the scientific interaction between researchers and research
institutions. Furthermore it is assumed that bibliographical references reflect
interconnections between scholars and make conjunctions of scientific concep-
tions visible (Small 1978; Garfield 1979). With the help of the citation analysis,
relationships between authors respective publications are investigated. In doing
so the most cited/influential sources used by the publications analyzed are
identified, the purpose of a citation analysis is the delineation of different author
groups, also known as clusters (Chen and Carr 1999), which are based on the
finding that authors cite other authors who write on the same topic. Connections
can be established via these interrelationships, illustrating that the stronger the
connections, the greater the interest is in the respective topic (Brew and Lucas
2009).
The first step in a citation analysis is the collation of published material following
which the relationship between studies is explored, noting the frequency of
citations. This study used databases such as Emerald, EBSCO, ProQuest,
ScienceDirect and Google Scholar undertaking a title search with the terms ‘‘social
entrepreneur(s)’’ or ‘‘social entrepreneurship’’ which gave a total of 129 usable
articles with 5,228 references. In line with studies by Leonidou et al. (2010), Prévot
et al. (2010), Kraus et al. (2012), or Gundolf and Filser (2013), this study focuses on
the Top 20 most cited articles.

123
278 S. Kraus et al.

2.2 Results

The most influential publication on Social Entrepreneurship research and concom-

itantly topical clusters identified within this framework are exposed and categorized
into five clusters underpinned by seminal publications in Entrepreneurship, Business
and Management. This grouping of seminal publications depicts a theoretical
background which serves as the starting point for the emergence of Social
Entrepreneurship as a research field (Fig. 2). Within this grouping four key authors
provide insights into entrepreneurship theory: Dees (2001) (48 citations), Schum-
peter (1934) (16 citations), Shane and Venkataraman (2000) (16 citations) and
Drucker (1985) (13 citations).
Dees’ (2001) article ‘‘The Meaning of Social Entrepreneurship’’ was cited 48
times, making it the most-cited source in this grouping. The aim of the article was to
answer the question of what Social Entrepreneurship really is given that the
terminology of ‘‘social entrepreneurship’’ has only recently been applied and not
universally agreed upon. Dees’ (2001) definition of Social Entrepreneurship, based
on publications by Say (1803), Schumpeter (1934) and Drucker (1985), identifies
that the social entrepreneur displays the following characteristics and/or roles within
the social sector: (1) taking on a task to create social value, (2) recognizing and
taking advantage of opportunities, (3) providing a continual process of innovation,
acclimation, and learning, (4) acting without worrying about limited resources, and
(5) showing an increased level of accountability for the outcomes he/she has
created.
Shane and Venkataraman (2000) and Schumpeter (1934) are the next most-cited
authors in this grouping. Shane and Venkataraman’s (2000, p. 217) article ‘‘The
Promise of Entrepreneurship as a Field of Research’’, discusses the field of
entrepreneurship as a research discipline. Based on existing studies, a ‘‘conceptual
framework’’ is created to justify empirical phenomena and improve the quality of

Fig. 2 Seminal publications in

entrepreneurship, business and
management

123
Social Entrepreneurship 279

research. This was the first paper to provide a definition of entrepreneurship as ‘‘the
scholarly examination of how, by whom, and with what effects opportunities to
create future goods and services are discovered, evaluated, and exploited’’ (Shane
and Venkataraman 2000, p. 218). This definition involves the investigation of
sources of opportunities; the process of discovery, evaluation, and maximization of
opportunities; as well as the individuals needed to accomplish this. Shane and
Venkataraman (2000) also describe how entrepreneurship should be researched;
why entrepreneurial opportunities exist; and how, and by whom, these are
discovered.
Schumpeter’s (1934) The Theory of Economic Development is the oldest source
within the citation analysis; discussing the maximization of opportunities and
consideration of how entrepreneurs are able to revolutionize production structures.
Drucker’s (1985) book Innovation and Entrepreneurship is another reference found
in this cluster (cited thirteen times) providing insights into the question of what
entrepreneurship is, and how innovation is presented. In his definition of
entrepreneurship, Drucker (1985) describes individuals who recognize opportunities
and use them to effect change. ‘‘Entrepreneurs see change as the norm and as
healthy. Usually, they do not bring about the changes themselves. But—and this
defines entrepreneur and entrepreneurship—the entrepreneur always searches for
change, responds to it and exploits it as an opportunity’’ (Drucker 1985, p. 28).
Because Drucker (1985, p. 26) sees innovation and the market as essential economic
functions, he also argues that entrepreneurs are both market focused and market
controlled, concluding that ‘‘Entrepreneurship then, is behavior rather than
personality trait. And its foundation lies in concept and theory rather than in
intuition’’. In the context of these statements, Drucker (1985) identifies seven
sources of innovative opportunities including (1) the unexpected, (2) incongruities,
(3) innovation based on process need, (4) changes in industry or market structure,
(5) demographics, (6) changes in perception, mood, and meaning, (7) new
knowledge - the first four sources of innovation can be attributed to a company or
industry, but the last three cannot.

2.3 Cluster formation

Having explored a citation analysis of the literature upon which Social Entrepre-
neurship is based, the Top 20 most cited publications in Social Entrepreneurship
have been determined. These 20 publications are categorized in Table 1 according
to topics, and sorted in descending order based on the number of citations.
This analysis establishes five clusters which facilitates a grouping of the sub-
topics investigated within the field of Social Entrepreneurship. Figure 3 depicts this
analysis and illustrates the foundational articles (solely the ones that cited at least
one of the 20 most-cited publications) in a circular framework with the 20 most-
cited authors and author groups found within the circle clustered around sub-topics
(Cluster 1: Social Entrepreneurship—Definitions and conceptual approaches;
Cluster 2: Social Entrepreneurship—Impetus; Cluster 3: Social Entrepreneur-
ship—Personality; Cluster 4: Social Entrepreneurship—Impact and performance,
and Cluster 5: Social Entrepreneurship—Future research agenda). The lines

123
280 S. Kraus et al.

Table 1 Topical clusters of the most influential publications on Social Entrepreneurship

Author(s) Years Title Journal Ref Cites
type

Seminal publications in entrepreneurship, business and management

Dees 2001 The Meaning of Social Paper 48
Entrepreneurship
Schumpeter 1934 The Theory of Economic Development Book 16
Shane, 2000 The promise of entrepreneurship as a Academy of Management Article 16
Venkataraman field of research Review
Drucker 1985 Innovation and entrepreneurship Book 13
Cluster 1: Social Entrepreneurship—Definitions and conceptual approaches
Dees 1998 Enterprising nonprofits Harvard Business Review Article 28
Austin, 2006 Social and Commercial Entrepreneurship Theory Article 27
Stevenson, Wei- Entrepreneurship: Same, different, or and Practice
Skillern both?
Weerawardena, 2006 Investigating Social Entrepreneurship: Journal of World Business Article 18
Sullivan Mort A multi-dimensional model
Martin, Osberg 2007 Social Entrepreneurship: The Case for Stanford Social Innovation Article 17
Definition Review
Sullivan Mort, 2003 Social Entrepreneurship: Towards International Journal of Article 17
Weerawardena, conceptualization Nonprofit and Voluntary
Carnegie Sector Marketing
Cluster 2: Social Entrepreneurship—Impetus
Bornstein 2004 How to Change the World: Social Book 35
Entrepreneurs and the Power of New
Ideas
Dees, Emerson, 2001 Enterprising Nonprofits: A Toolkit for Book 15
Economy Social Entrepreneurs
Waddock, Post 1991 Social entrepreneurs and catalytic Public Administration Article 15
change Review
Cluster 3: Social Entrepreneurship—Personality
Leadbeater 1997 The Rise of the Social Entrepreneur Book 35
Thompson, Alvy, 2000 Social Entrepreneurship: A new look at Management Decision Article 26
Lees the people and the potential
Thompson 2002 The world of the social entrepreneur International Journal of Article 23
Public Sector
Management
Cluster 4: Social Entrepreneurship—Impact and performance
Alvord, Brown, 2004 Social Entrepreneurship and Societal Journal of Applied Article 33
Letts Transformation: An Exploratory Behavioral Science
Study
Dart 2004 The legitimacy of social enterprise Nonprofit Management Article 15
and Leadership
Cluster 5: Social Entrepreneurship—Future research agenda
Mair, Marti 2006 Social Entrepreneurship research: A Journal of World Business Article 23
source of explanation, prediction,
and delight
Peredo, McLean 2006 Social Entrepreneurship: A critical Journal of World Business Article 17
review of the concept
Nicholls 2006 Social Entrepreneurship: New Model Book 13
of Sustainable Social Change

123
Social Entrepreneurship 281

Fig. 3 Citation analysis overview—Results

between the articles and references highlight the interrelations between the analyzed
articles and the cited sources. The numbers in the box next to the influential authors
indicate the number of citations.

2.3.1 Cluster 1: Social Entrepreneurship—Definitions and conceptual approaches

Building on entrepreneurship theory, the second cluster addresses the theoretical

foundations of Social Entrepreneurship, four key articles are identified; notably the
oldest reference from this cluster is from 1998 (Fig. 4). Authors found in this cluster
include Dees (1998) (28 citations), Austin et al. (2006) (27 citations), Weerawar-
dena and Sullivan Mort (2006) (18 citations), Martin and Osberg (2007) (17
citations), and Sullivan Mort et al. (2003) (17 citations).
Dees (1998) is the most-cited author in this cluster with his article ‘‘Enterprising
Nonprofits,’’ which was cited 28 times. This article focuses on identifying new
sources of finance for nonprofit organizations in light of a turbulent economy.
Subsidies from public organizations that were once considered to be stable sources
of funds, along with donations by private individuals, are no longer sufficient means
of finance for an organization; therefore commercialization is an increasing priority
to combat rising costs and competition in the face of decreased donations and
government subsidies. Dees (1998, p. 56) notes ‘‘A new pro-business zeitgeist has
made for-profit initiatives more acceptable in the nonprofit world’’. Social
entrepreneurs indeed face a dynamic environment where nonprofit organizations

123
282 S. Kraus et al.

Fig. 4 Cluster 1: Social Entrepreneurship—Definitions and conceptual approaches

increasingly behave like profit-oriented companies as they strive to generate more

income via additional business activities. Dees (1998) concludes that the challenge
is found in achieving the right mixture of philanthropic and commercial thinking.
For example, a mixture between donations and market capital can be achieved; and
the staff of an organization can be a mix of volunteers and salaried workers.
Successful nonprofit companies need to ‘‘pull out their entire bag of tricks’’ to put
the right ideas into place at the right time (Dees 1998).
‘‘Social and Commercial Entrepreneurship: Same, Different, or Both?’’ by Austin
et al. (2006) is the second most cited article in this cluster. This article is cited 27
times, and contains a comparative analysis of commercial and Social Entrepre-
neurship that applies a Social Entrepreneurship model which includes not only
capital, but additional influential factors. Austin et al. (2006) generate a working
definition of Social Entrepreneurship identifying that it is an innovative activity
creating social value that can be applied in, and for, nonprofit, commercial, or public
sectors (Austin et al. 2006).
In their article, Martin and Osberg (2007) (17 citations) reflect different
definitional attempts and categorize prevailing facets of Social Entrepreneurship. To
provide a clear distinction between Entrepreneurship and Social Entrepreneurship
the authors argue that the critical difference is the value proposition. In other words
‘‘the social entrepreneur aims for value in the form of large-scale, transformational
benefit that accrues either to a significant segment of society or to society at large’’
(Martin and Osberg 2007, pp. 34–35). However, with the aim of achieving
definition of Social Entrepreneurship, three components are recognized in this
paper: (1) the identification of a fundamentally unbiased equilibrium that causes the
elimination, relegation or suffering of humanitarian aspects by lacking of financial
or political means to foster a transformative benefit itself, (2) the identification of an
opportunity through which a social value proposition is developed that fosters
‘‘inspiration, creativity, direct action, courage, and fortitude’’ (Martin and Osberg
2007, p. 39) and thereby challenges the state’s hegemony, and finally, (3) the
elaboration of a novel, consistent equilibrium that promotes concealed potential to

123
Social Entrepreneurship 283

generate a stable ecosystem through which a better prospect for the individual,
group or on a larger scale, the society, is ensured. Finally the authors distinguish two
of social venture types: social service provision and social activism. The difference
between the two is the scale on which Social Entrepreneurship is carried out. While
social service provision is based on the direct action of an individual, social activism
is about influencing others to take action.
Sullivan Mort et al. (2003) (17 citations) present a conceptualization of Social
Entrepreneurship as establish of a multi-dimensional model behaviors and attitudes
with a virtuous dimension. Next to entrepreneurial behaviors in the decision-making
process, such as opportunity recognition, risk tolerance and judgment capacity it is
argued that socially entrepreneurial virtue is achieved by ‘‘positive, morally good
values such as love, integrity, honesty and empathy’’ (Sullivan Mort et al. 2003,
p. 83). In other words, an entrepreneur becomes a social entrepreneur by exerting
entrepreneurial as well as virtuous behaviors and consequently creates social value
for an organization that is superior to its competition.
The final article in this cluster by Weerawardena and Sullivan Mort (2006) (15
citations) further develops the multi-dimensional model of Social Entrepreneurship.
Concomitantly they conceptualized questions to determine the social and entrepre-
neurial behavior found within an organization. Therefore a working definition of
Social Entrepreneurship was developed as ‘‘a behavioral phenomenon expressed in
a NFP organization context aimed at delivering social value thorough the
exploitation of perceived opportunities’’ (Weerawardena and Sullivan Mort 2006,
p. 25). Using key entrepreneurial aspects as innovativeness, proactiveness, and risk
management, the authors add the interaction with sustainability, the social mission,
and environmental factors to their model. It is argued that, ‘‘Social entrepreneurship
is thus identified as a behavioral phenomenon operating within constraints’’
(Weerawardena and Sullivan Mort 2006, p. 33). The outcome of the multi-
dimensional SE model can be summarized by:
SVC = f (I, P, RM) subject to S, SM, E
SVC: social value creation; I: innovativeness; P: proactiveness; RM: risk
management; S: sustainability; SM: social mission; E: environment.

2.3.2 Cluster 2: Social Entrepreneurship—Impetus

The second cluster ‘‘Social Entrepreneurship—Impetus’’ contains articles by

Bornstein (2004) (35 citations), Dees et al. (2001) (15 citations) and Waddock
and Post (1991) (15 citations), addressing the motivating elements found within the
Social Entrepreneurship realm, and include practical aspects as well as theoretical
implications (Fig. 5).
A highly influential work in this citation analysis is Bornstein’s (2004) book
‘‘How to Change the World’’, cited 35 times, it was the joint second-most-cited
source within the analysis. Bornstein (2004) provides insight into the practical
implementation of Social Entrepreneurship by using international examples of
social entrepreneurs who are attempting to make the lives of other people better.
Bornstein (2004, p. 1) describes these individuals as ‘‘people with new ideas to
address major problems who are relentless in the pursuit of their visions, people who

123
284 S. Kraus et al.

Fig. 5 Cluster 2: Social

Entrepreneurship—Impetus

simply will not take ‘no’ for an answer, who will not give up until they have spread
their ideas as far as they possibly can’’. Some of the examples mentioned include
help organizations for AIDS patients in South Africa; college admission for low-
income students in North America; communities for the homeless in Europe; or the
well-known Grameen Bank in Asia which provides micro-credit to people from
poor backgrounds. The message Bornstein (2004) seeks to convey is that Social
Entrepreneurship possesses the potential to promote important changes in society.
Dees et al. (2001), appear in this cluster with their book ‘‘Enterprising
Nonprofits: A Toolkit for Social Entrepreneurs’’ which was cited 15 times, and
describes key elements of Social Entrepreneurship. The authors discuss familiar
elements of Social Entrepreneurship such as the incorporation of mission and
innovation, as well as resources and customers. The theoretical and practical aspects
are also addressed (Dees et al. 2001).
The final article in this cluster ‘‘Social Entrepreneurs and Catalytic Change’’ by
Waddock and Post (1991) is the oldest reference in the Social Entrepreneurship
realm and was cited 15 times. The discussion on the emergence of, and attempt at,
defining entrepreneurship looks at the cooperation between private and public
sectors. The central issue addressed deals with leadership qualities, noting three
challenges that social entrepreneurs need to overcome: complexity, credibility, and
commitment (Waddock and Post 1991).

2.3.3 Cluster 3: Social Entrepreneurship—Personality

The three primary authors in this cluster—Leadbeater (1997) (35 citations),

Thompson (2002) (23 citations) and Thompson et al. (2000) (26 citations)—focus
on the social entrepreneur as a person. Of note here is the high number of total
citations of these three articles, indicating the interest in this particular aspect of
Social Entrepreneurship (Fig. 6).
With 35 citations, The rise of the social entrepreneur by Leadbeater (1997) is the
joint second-most-cited source in this analysis. Leadbeater’s (1997) discussion has a
primarily practical foundation as he addresses the topic of Social Entrepreneurship
with an eye on the past while at the same time looking at the changing

123
Social Entrepreneurship 285

Fig. 6 Cluster 3: Social

Entrepreneurship—Personality

circumstances of today’s economy. He sees these changes as stimuli for the

emergence of Social Entrepreneurship and provides three sources that might
represent the origin of Social Entrepreneurship. The ‘‘public sector,’’ the ‘‘private
sector,’’ and the ‘‘voluntary sector.’’ Supported by five case studies, Leadbeater
(1997) describes social entrepreneurs as people who are ‘‘entrepreneurial,’’
‘‘innovative,’’ and ‘‘transformatory.’’ displaying entrepreneurial thinking as they
apply unused resources to meet unmet demands. They are also innovative in the
creation of new products and services. Finally, social entrepreneurs possess the
ability to transform company structures in such a way that they become dynamic
and creative. The interplay of the different sectors (private, public, and volunteer)
represents an opportunity that should be highlighted and promoted (Leadbeater
1997).
Cited 26 times, the article published by Thompson et al. (2000) ‘‘Social
entrepreneurship—a new look at the people and the potential’’ looks at the decisive
role of the social entrepreneur, albeit with a focus on the private sector. As with the
other authors in this cluster, Thompson et al. (2000) begin with a definition of Social
Entrepreneurship, and take a closer look at its key elements as they conclude that
social entrepreneurs create something innovative to form social capital; a process
undertaken by a visionary who possesses the necessary leadership competencies.
Thompson et al. (2000, p. 329) note that entrepreneurship has the following three
key elements: ‘‘1 a vision; 2 someone with leadership skills who can operationalize
the vision/which often involves finding a suitable partner, engaging the support of a
range of, sometimes voluntary, helpers and dealing with the inevitable setbacks
(…); and 3 a will to build something which will grow and endure’’.
Thompson (2002) (23 citations) also presents the article ‘‘The world of the social
entrepreneur’’, which determines to what degree social entrepreneurs can improve
the life situations of disadvantaged people. To do this, Thompson (2002) presents
two independent case studies in Great Britain illustrating that the social
entrepreneurs investigated know the precise nature of the needs of their customers,

123
286 S. Kraus et al.

demonstrating the importance of the social entrepreneur in the nonprofit sector, as

public organizations alone can no longer meet increasing societal needs they face.
Thompson’s (2002) article therefore aims to increase the recognition of social
entrepreneurs and Social Entrepreneurship.

2.3.4 Cluster 4: Social Entrepreneurship—Impact and performance

The fourth cluster focuses on Impact and Performance (Fig. 7). The most-cited
references are by Alvord et al. (2004) (33 citations) and Dart (2004) (33 citations).
‘‘Social Entrepreneurship and Societal Transformation An Exploratory Study’’ by
Alvord et al. (2004) (33 citations) is based on an exploration of case studies
comparing seven companies focusing on the success factors of successful social
entrepreneurs. The results note findings on the aspects that innovation forms,
leadership strategies, and scaling-up strategies have in common with each other.
In the article ‘‘The Legitimacy of Social Enterprise,’’ Dart (2004) (33 citations)
provides a contrast to traditional nonprofit organizations as he focuses on social
enterprises as a new organizational form in the nonprofit sector. In developing a
guideline supports the explanation of a social enterprise, the author presents
suggestions for continued research on social enterprises. By explaining social
enterprises in terms of a political ideology it is suggested to conduct ‘‘… cross-
sectional and cross-national studies to document the increased incidence of this kind
of activity in neoconservative market-focused jurisdictions and in the jurisdictions
they most influence’’ (Dart 2004, p. 422). Furthermore it is argued that the analysis
of social enterprises with regard to a political ideology enables it to ‘‘… document
key normative ‘‘should’’ elements in social enterprise that occur and are valued
significantly beyond their basic and documented functional value’’ (Dart 2004,
p. 422). Finally Dart (2004) points towards the consideration of tangible outcomes
of value that is provided to key stakeholders.

Fig. 7 Cluster 4: Social

Entrepreneurship—Impact and
performance

123
Social Entrepreneurship 287

2.3.5 Cluster 5: Social Entrepreneurship—Future research agenda

The category of ‘‘Future Research Agenda’’ is based on the three articles by Mair
and Marti (2006), Peredo and McLean (2006) and Nicholls (2006), whose
investigations examine the success factors of Social Entrepreneurship (Fig. 8).
Mair and Marti (2006) sought to engage academic interest in Social Entrepre-
neurship with their article ‘‘Social entrepreneurship research: A source of
explanation, prediction, and delight’’ cited 23 times. Starting with a working
definition of Social Entrepreneurship they pose the central question of whether
Social Entrepreneurship should be considered an individual research field. Their
motivation in posing this question is the fact that the literature frequently cites
entrepreneurship articles. Mair and Marti (2006) reject the implied notion of
viewing Social Entrepreneurship as a sub-category of entrepreneurship given that a
far greater priority is placed on social value creation, arguing that Social
Entrepreneurship research is emergent. This article therefore concludes with a call
for additional research, and provides examples of issues that should be examined in
greater detail.
Peredo and McLean (2006) (17 citations) deliver a critique of Social Entrepre-
neurship, addressing both ‘‘social’’ and ‘‘entrepreneurship’’, and take a closer look at
the social aspect of Social Entrepreneurship. Their discussion opens by asking ‘‘…
what makes social entrepreneurship social’’ (Peredo and McLean 2006, p. 57).
Citing additional literature, they conclude that the aim of the social enterprise must
be the achievement of social goals. However, the authors determine that social goals
can vary depending on the different applications of the term ‘‘social entrepreneur-
ship.’’ With one company, the social goal might simply comprise a part of their
perspective, while for another company its sole focus may be on creating and
achieving social value. The authors again refer to additional literature with their
second question ‘‘What makes social entrepreneurship entrepreneurship?’’ (Peredo
and McLean 2006, p. 57), reminding the reader about the lack of a universal
definition of Social Entrepreneurship. In conclusion they propose that ‘‘…social

Fig. 8 Cluster 5: Social

Entrepreneurship—Future
research agenda

123
288 S. Kraus et al.

entrepreneurship is exercised where some person or group: (1) aim(s) at creating

social value, either exclusively or at least in some prominent way; (2) show(s) a
capacity to recognize and take advantage of opportunities to create that value
(‘‘envision’’); (3) employ(s) innovation, ranging from outright invention to adapting
someone else’s novelty, in creating and/or distributing social value; (4) is/are
willing to accept an above-average degree of risk in creating and disseminating
social value; and (5) is/are unusually resourceful in being relatively undaunted by
scarce assets in pursuing their social venture’’ (Peredo and McLean 2006, p. 64).
The book ‘‘Social Entrepreneurship: New Models of Sustainable Social Change’’
(based on the first Skoll World Forum at Oxford University in 2004, at the time, the
largest ever meeting of scholars, consultants, and managers in this field) by Nicholls
(2006) was cited thirteen times. Nicholls’ (2006) book is divided into four main
sections that discuss ‘‘New Perspectives, New Theories, New Models, and New
Directions’’. The first part provides a general overview illustrating real world
perspectives. The second part of the book takes a more theoretical direction, as
leading researchers in Social Entrepreneurship provide insight into five new
perspectives (the structure of the field, the agency in a globalizing world, the solid
foundation for the practice of Social Entrepreneurship, the value for corporations,
and the exploration of a cultural mode). The third part of the book discusses social
issues and values, and the fourth and final section deals with challenges and future
research directions. Included here are recommendations for further research on, for
example, the development of a market for social capital to expand the resources of
Social Entrepreneurship, to take a closer look at social venture managers, as well as
governance structures (Nicholls 2006).
In conclusion, research in the clusters illustrates an emergent field of research
with two key research areas dominating (1) success factors and key elements of
Social Entrepreneurship, and (2) the creation and catalysts of social value.
A citation analysis of the seminal literature suggests that Social Entrepreneurship
has not been sufficiently researched in that although definition parameters exist, a
single precise definition has yet to be established.
Cluster one suggests that Social Entrepreneurship is a multi-faceted multi-
dimensional concept which straddles the profit and non-profit sectors, while cluster
two focuses on the impetus and catalysts for Social Entrepreneurship. Cluster three
explores the social entrepreneur, their personality and motivations, delineating
Social Entrepreneurship providing conceptual and practical examples of the
‘‘social’’ and ‘‘entrepreneurship’’ aspects of the term. The fourth cluster looks at
the measurement and monitoring of Social Entrepreneurship success and the fifth
and final cluster explores a future research agenda.

3 Discussion

This literature and citation analysis provides insights into the current state of Social
Entrepreneurship research. The analysis highlights the fact that Social Entrepre-
neurship as a research field is receiving increasing attention, a finding which echoes
Sassmannshausen and Volkmann’s (2013) study which noted considerable evidence

123
Social Entrepreneurship 289

supporting the positioning of Social Entrepreneurship as a domain of entrepreneur-

ship research. Such studies form the basis of a call for researchers to pursue Social
Entrepreneurship studies, for example Alvord et al.’s (2004, p. 280) article aims ‘‘to
provoke further exploration of the emerging phenomenon of social entrepreneur-
ship, which we believe can make a great difference in the next century of human
and societal development’’. Mair and Marti (2006, p. 36) explain that ‘‘to stimulate
future research the authors introduce the concept of embeddedness as a nexus
between theoretical perspectives for the study of social entrepreneurship’’. This is
reflected in Thompson (2002, p. 430), who states a need to ‘‘stimulate further papers
and published cases which widen the visibility of social entrepreneurs and social
entrepreneurship’’.
The result of this analysis creates a framework for future research in the Social
Entrepreneurship realm. The majority of recent Social Entrepreneurship articles are
conceptual, and empirical studies are rare. Many publications address the issue of
what Social Entrepreneurship is, what its parameters should be, and, most
importantly, how it can be defined. The fact that no one universal definition has
been agreed is partly due to the newness of the topic, as well as how difficult it is to
determine where the demarcation line is between Social Entrepreneurship and other
fields such as commercial entrepreneurship and business management. However
analysis has shown that in attempting to arrive at a definition, many authors mention
value creation or value-increasing results (Waddock and Post 1991; Sullivan Mort
et al. 2003; Austin et al. 2006; Zahra et al. 2009; Litzky et al. 2010), while others
frequently include the concept of creating innovation via recognition of opportu-
nities (Leadbeater 1997; Thompson et al. 2000; Thompson 2002).
The core elements which have been defined and explored Social Entrepreneur-
ship studies are applicable to both the private and public sectors, for example
government organizations (Korosec and Berman 2006) and private companies
(Alvord et al. 2004). Aspects such as the difference between commercial and Social
Entrepreneurship (Spear 2006), the financing of social enterprises (Boschee 1995;
Dees 1998), how performance is viewed (Dees 1998; Nicholls 2009), or
management qualities (Waddock and Post 1991; Forno and Merlone 2009) have
been explored to some extent. Furthermore an analysis of Social Entrepreneurship
personalities has been the focus of some publications (e.g., Leadbeater 1997;
Thompson et al. 2000; Thompson 2002).
The two most-common topics in Social Entrepreneurship articles are success
factors and key elements of Social Entrepreneurship, in addition to the creation of
social value and the changes that accompany it (also frequently referred to as
catalysts). These perspectives facilitate the compilation of a snapshot of Social
Entrepreneurship literature illustrating that there are many areas that warrant further
research. For example,
• the citation analysis does not identify a single article that addresses the goals of
social enterprises. Although it’s clear that social value is at the forefront of this
field, deeper insight into the specific goals of these organizations is needed. It
would also be interesting to investigate the ambitions of internal and external
stakeholders while including their commercial and non-commercial interests at

123
290 S. Kraus et al.

the same time. This information would help achieve not only a better
understanding of SE, but could also be applied in the comparison and selection
of company structure and models.
• the inclusion of social capital in Social Entrepreneurship literature. An
investigation of the integration of the social capital concept could suggest
findings on the performance of social enterprises, particularly in light of the fact
that similar investigations have been undertaken in strategic entrepreneurship
where results showed that social resources are important determining factors
when it comes to competitive advantage (Mair and Marti 2006).
• the motivating factors for the creation of social enterprises. The personal
characteristics of social entrepreneurs are frequently explored where social
entrepreneurs are described as exceptionally innovative, willing to take high
risks, and outstanding leadership qualities. However their motivation in starting
social enterprises has not yet been explored nor have the differences (if any)
between the moral consciousness of social entrepreneurs and non-social
entrepreneurs.

4 Limitations

Although the research methodology was constructed in a manner to minimize

limitations it is acknowledged that there are three limitations which need to be
considered. First, the search-terms used in constructing the database focused on
those articles whose title included the term ‘‘social entrepreneur(s)’’ or ‘‘social
entrepreneurship’’. This decision was made given that the aim of this article is to
generate a profound, representative and focused overview of the most influential
articles focusing on Social Entrepreneurship. Second, the cluster assortment is based
on the authors’ subjective evaluation; other scholars might have grouped the articles
differently. Last, bibliometrics are accompanied by their own limitations such as the
difficulty in deriving qualitative estimations from quantitative analyses. In addition,
the frequency of citations allows conclusions to be drawn regarding their appeal by
other authors. The reasons they are cited, regardless of whether they were positive
or negative, are not identified via quantitative analysis (Brew and Lucas 2009).
Furthermore articles need a particular period of time to unfold their potential
influence. Therefore it is solely possible to see trends rather than latest
developments.

5 Conclusion

This paper presented an exploratory citation analysis of Social Entrepreneurship

research to date. The results show that in the years 2009 and 2010 in particular, the
number of empirical research articles published rose significantly. Findings show
that a wide palette of different Social Entrepreneurship sub-topics have been
discussed, although all authors agree that Social Entrepreneurship research is still in

123
Social Entrepreneurship 291

its infancy. This citation analysis identified 20 publications as being highly

influential in this field. All of them provided insight into the topic of Social
Entrepreneurship regarding aspects such as finance, performance, or the personal-
ities found within social enterprise. Topics were also discussed which reveal
differences, for example, the comparison between Social Entrepreneurship and
leadership, or the general differences and similarities between commercial and
Social Entrepreneurship. The two most-discussed issues were social value and the
definition of Social Entrepreneurship success factors.
Based on the findings and discussion of these analyses, there is strong impetus for
additional research in this field particularly in three areas. First, additional research
on the goals and motivation of social enterprises would help not only to provide
deeper insight into the topic, but would also have practical applications as well.
Second, the inclusion of social capital into Social Entrepreneurship literature would
facilitate a more comprehensive understanding of the performance of social
enterprises. Finally, the motivation for the creation of social enterprises is without
question a topic that should be the focus of future investigation. Although these calls
for additional research are merely echoes of what many scientists have already
stated, further empirical investigations remain without question an essential
requirement for additional insight into the exciting field of Social Entrepreneurship.

References

Alvord SH, Brown LD, Letts CW (2004) Social Entrepreneurship and societal transformation. J Appl
Behav Sci 40(3):260–282
Austin J, Stevenson H, Wei-Skillern J (2006) Social and Commercial Entrepreneurship: same, different,
or both? Entrep Theory Pract 30(1):1–22
Bornstein D (2004) How to change the world: social entrepreneurs and the power of new ideas. Oxford
University Press, Oxford
Boschee J (1995) Social Entrepreneurship. Across Board 32(3):20–25
Brew A, Lucas L (2009) Academic research and researchers. Open University Press, Berkshire
Chen C, Carr L (1999) Trailblazing the literature of hypertext: author co-citation analysis (1989–1998).
In: Proceedings of the 10th ACM conference on hypertext and hypermedia. ACM, New York,
pp 51–60
Cukier W, Trenholm S, Carl D, Gekas G (2011) Social Entrepreneurship: a content analysis. J Strateg
Innov Sustain 7(1):99–119
Danko A, Brunner C (2010) Social Entrepreneurship—Zum State-of-the-Art der aktuellen Forschung.
Z KMU Entrep 58(2):157–174
Danko A, Brunner C, Kraus S (2011) Social Entrepreneurship—an overview of the current state of
research. Eur J Manag 11(1):82–90
Dart R (2004) The legitimacy of social enterprise. Nonprofit Manag Leadersh 14(4):411–424
Dees JG (1998) Enterprising nonprofits. Harv Bus Rev 76(1):54–67
Dees JG (2001) The Meaning of ‘‘Social Entrepreneurship’’. Duke University, Durham. http://www.
caseatduke.org/documents/dees_sedef.pdf. Accessed Oct 2012
Dees JG, Emerson J, Economy P (2001) Enterprising nonprofits: a toolkit for social entrepreneurs. Wiley,
New York
Dos Santos BL, Holsapple CW, Ye Q (2011) The intellectual influence of entrepreneurship journals: a
network analysis. Entrep Theory Pract 35(4):735–754
Drucker PF (1985) Innovation and entrepreneurship. Butterworth-Heinemann, Oxford
Forno AD, Merlone U (2009) Social Entrepreneurship effects on the emergence of cooperation in
networks. Emerg Complex Organ 11(4):48–58

123
292 S. Kraus et al.

Garfield E (1979) Is citation analysis a legitimate evaluation tool? Scientometrics 1(4):359–375

Gregoire DA, Noel MX, Dery R, Bechard J-P (2006) Is there conceptual convergence in entrepreneurship
research? A co-citation analysis of Frontiers of Entrepreneurship Research, 1981–2004. Entrep
Theory Pract 30(3):333–373
Gundolf K, Filser M (2013) Management research and religion: a citation analysis. J Bus Ethics
112(1):177–185
Korosec RL, Berman EM (2006) Municipal support for Social Entrepreneurship. Public Adm Rev
66(3):448–462
Kraus S, Filser M, Götzen T, Harms R (2011) Familienunternehmen—Zum State-of-the-Art der
betriebswirtschaftlichen Forschung. Betrieb Forsch Praxis 6:587–605
Kraus S, Filser M, Eggers F, Hills GE, Hultman CM (2012) The entrepreneurial marketing domain: a
citation and co-citation analysis. J Res Market Entrep 14(1):6–26
Leadbeater C (1997) The rise of the social entrepreneur. Demos, London
Leonidou LC, Katsikeas CS, Coudounaris DN (2010) Five decades of business research into exporting: a
bibliographic analysis. J Int Manag 16(1):78–91
Litzky BE, Godshalk VM, Walton-Bongers C (2010) Social Entrepreneurship and community leadership.
J Manag Educ 34(1):142–162
Mair J, Marti I (2006) Social Entrepreneurship research: a source of explanation, prediction, and delight.
J World Bus 41(1):36–44
Martin RL, Osberg S (2007) Social Entrepreneurship: the case for definition. Stanf Soc Innov Rev Spring,
29–39
Nicholls A (2006) Social Entrepreneurship: New Models of Sustainable Social Change. Oxford
University Press, New York
Nicholls A (2009) We do good things, don’t we?: ‘Blended Value Accounting’ in Social Entrepreneur-
ship. Acc Organ Soc 34(6–7):755–769
Peredo AM, McLean M (2006) Social Entrepreneurship: a critical review of the concept. J World Bus
41(1):56–65
Prévot F, Branchet B, Boissin J-P, Castagnos J-C, Guieu G (2010) The intellectual structure of the
competence-based management: A bibliometric analysis. In: Sanchez R, Heene A, Zimmermann TE
(eds) Research in competence-based management—a focused issue on identifying, building, and
linking competences. Emerald Group Publishing Limited, Bingley, pp 231–258
Reader D, Watkins D (2006) The social and collaborative nature of entrepreneurship scholarship: a co-
citation and perceptual analysis. Entrep Theory Pract 30(3):417–441
Sassmannshausen SP, Volkmann CK (2013) A bibliometric based review on Social Entrepreneurship and
its establishment as a field of research. Schumpeter Discussion Papers, University of Wuppertal
Say JB (1803) Traité d’Economie Politique. Crapelet, Paris
Schildt HA, Zahra SA, Sillanpää A (2006) Scholarly communities in entrepreneurship research: a co-
citation analysis. Entrep Theory Pract 30(3):399–415
Schumpeter JA (1934) The theory of economic development. Harvard University Press, Cambridge
Shane S, Venkataraman S (2000) The promise of entrepreneurship as a field of research. Acad Manag Rev
25(1):217–226
Shaw E, Gordon J, Harvey C, Maclean M (2011) Exploring contemporary entrepreneurial philanthropy.
Int Small Bus J (forthcoming)
Small HG (1978) Co-citation context analysis and the structure of paradigms. J Doc 36(3):183–196
Spear R (2006) Social Entrepreneurship: a different model? Int J Soc Econ 33(5–6):399–410
Sullivan Mort G, Weerawardena J, Carnegie K (2003) Social Entrepreneurship: towards conceptuali-
sation. Int J Nonprofit Volunt Sect Mark 8(1):76–88
Thompson J (2002) The world of the social entrepreneur. Int J Public Sect Manag 15(5):412–431
Thompson J, Alvy G, Lees A (2000) Social Entrepreneurship—a new look at the people and the potential.
Manag Decis 38(5–6):328–338
Waddock SA, Post JE (1991) Social entrepreneurs and catalytic change. Public Adm Rev 51(5):393–401
Weerawardena J, Sullivan Mort G (2006) Investigating Social Entrepreneurship: a multidimensional
model. J World Bus 41(1):21–35
Zahra SA, Gedajlovic E, Neubaum DO, Shulman JM (2009) A typology of social entrepreneurs: motives,
search processes and ethical challenges. J Bus Ventur 24(5):519–532

123
The author has requested enhancement of the downloaded file. All in-text references underlined in blue are link