Abstract

Social entrepreneurship, as a dynamic and evolving field, has gained prominence in recent
years due to its potential to address complex societal challenges while simultaneously
fostering economic development. This research aims to provide a comprehensive
understanding of the role of social entrepreneurship in driving sustainable community
development. Through a mixed-methods approach, combining qualitative interviews with
social entrepreneurs and quantitative analysis of social enterprises' impact metrics, this study
delves into the multifaceted dimensions of social entrepreneurship.

Moreover, it explores the challenges and opportunities faced by social entrepreneurs in their
pursuit of sustainable solutions. Special attention is given to the measurement and evaluation
of social impact, including both quantitative indicators and qualitative narratives.

Overview
In most of the recent cases even prior to the past, people from several countries experience
conflicts in their social conditions that sometimes, creates inattentive outcomes. According to
Dees & Anderson, societies around the world face important social problems for which they
have implemented few effective and lasting solutions. In that manner, Social
Entrepreneurship arrived at such degree .Social entrepreneurship (SE) has evolved as a
research domain of great significance for firms and researchers (Kannampuzha and Hockerts
2019; Rey-Marti et al. 2016b). Societal issues, although not most were given remedy to solve
different conflicts around. Overall, Social Entrepreneurship may be considered a novel
activity that intends to create producer surplus by reducing negative externalities and/or
creating positive externalities via the integration of the essence of social as well as
entrepreneurship constructs (Newbert and Hill 2014). Extant literature provides enough
evidence that researchers have attempted to Social enterprises merge the pursuit of public
social goods with the market-aligned tools and techniques of for-profit organisations (Urbano
et al. 2010).
Thus, SE is a mature field of research that has been thoroughly examined by scholars. An
ever-growing number of articles published on SE in the last decade constitutes a large set of
studies for review, offering opportunities to look back and reflect on how to move the field
forward. Looking at the literature, various studies have been conducted on social
entrepreneurship and individual social responsibility (Aydogmus, 2019; Biricik, 2020; Bursali
& Aksel, 2016; Cavdar et al., 2018; Cermik & Sahin, 2015; Dirsehan, 2015; Erdogan &
Erdem, 2017; Isik &Aydin, 2017; Ilhan & Bardakci, 2020; Kilic & Solmaz, 2019; Onal, 2015;
Ozbilen et al., 2020. Ozalp et al., 2008; Ozkan et al., 2015; Quadır & Koc, 2022; Yetis &
Aktas, 2019).
The research, in which individual social responsibility and social entrepreneurship are tried to
be examined in terms of various variables, is expected to provide a different perspective and
contribute to the literature.

Content

The role of social entrepreneurship

At the individual level, SE highlights a social project initiator and an agent of change (Dees,
1998; Zollo et al., 2018). According to the Ashoka organization, the latter is presented as an
individual offering innovative solutions to the most pressing social problems in society.
Social entrepreneurs are ambitious and enduring, and tackle major social problems by
proposing new ideas for large-scale change. The proximity to the field is a central advantage
in the entrepreneurial process. Thus, the social entrepreneur must constantly be on
information watch in order to detect investment opportunities (Shane, 2002) but also in order
to have a good knowledge of the society in which he is inserted. Also, the social entrepreneur
is presented as a visionary individual and a leader. He is an innovative actor described in the
literature as “a Schumpeterian entrepreneur in the sense that he realizes new combinations of
production factors whether it is the creation of a new product or service, or else yet another
form of organization”(Boutillier, 2009, p. 116). This definition highlights an entrepreneur
who is distinguished in particular by specific skills (Cuenoud et al., 2013).
Among other things, the latter is called upon to mobilize a large number of internal
stakeholders (volunteers, permanent staff, collaborators, etc.) and external stakeholders
(clients, donors, public actors, local communities, etc.) who will contribute to the success of
the social project. . Thereafter, the social entrepreneur must be able to manage the relations
between the environment and his social enterprise. The role of communication is, in this
sense, a major skill. Finally, he very often shows solidarity with his colleagues. Mutual aid
and solidarity are a major characteristic of this type of entrepreneurship (Boughzala et al.,
2019).

SE is a relatively recent scientific concept (Levillain et al., 2016) that has grown considerably
in recent years (Cherrier et al., 2017; Chou, 2018). However, the definition of SE remains
polymorphic, as evidenced by the various reviews of the literature that have allowed to
approach the contours of this economic and social phenomenon (Bacq & Janssen, 2011;
Dacin, 2010; Doherty et al., 2014; Saebi et al., 2018). It is arousing growing interest both for
researchers, practitioners, and public authorities. In this regard, the Commission Europeenne
(2003) encourages such initiatives to the point of establishing, in certain countries, a legal
framework regulating the sector Marzena & Agnieszka, 2018). As for the Organization for
Economic Cooperation and DevelopmentFootnote2, it defines SE as “any private activity of
general interest, organized on the basis of an entrepreneurial approach and not having as main
reason profit maximization but the satisfaction of certain economic and social objectives, as
well as the capacity to put in place, in the production of goods and services, innovative
solutions to the problems of exclusion and unemployment.” Beyond institutional
organizations, NGOs and foundations are also investing in the field like Ashoka, Avina, and
Skoll, in order to educate the citizens of the world about a new way of doing business. They
work, in particular, to promote social entrepreneurs by supporting their activities and their
projects.

When addressing the idea of a social entrepreneur, there is a broad consensus around one key
idea: A social entrepreneur combines economic boldness with a social mission . This is the
fundamental characteristic of some social entrepreneurs who have become true global
references in this field, as is the case of Muhammad Yunus (Bangladesh), Nobel Laureate in
2006 and founder of the Grameen Bank. His institution actively offers microcredit to millions
of families. The bank lends without collateral or papers and is mainly sought after by women:
They are 97% of the 6.6 million beneficiaries. The recovery rate is 98.85%.

Another example is that of Michael Young (England), pointed out as a central figure in the
promotion and dissemination of social entrepreneurship through the creation of the Institute
for Community Studies and the School for Social Entrepreneurs. His legacy is assumed by
institutions such as the Young Foundation. A third example is that of Bill Drayton, founder of
Ashoka, identified as the world’s largest network of social entrepreneurs and which today
supports almost 3000 Ashoka Fellows in 70 countries. He is also the author of a phrase that
has become famous in this milieu, that “the social entrepreneur is not the one who gives the
fish, nor teaches how to fish; he is the one who will not rest until he revolutionizes the fishing
industry”.

Ashoka and other networks are today fundamental supports for the emergence of countless
social entrepreneurs whose actions are recognized as particularly meritorious in solving local
problems that are invisible to the media and public opinion. This group includes Cybele
Amado (Salvador, Brazil), who in 1996 created the Teacher Development and Assistance
Program. When she came across the high illiteracy and dropout rates among the students of
Palmeiras, a rural district in Bahia, she took on the goal of contributing to improving the
quality of public education by supporting the training of educators and educational managers.
The project has reduced school dropouts by up to 80%.

This is also the case of Frederick W. Day (Chicago, USA), founder of the Buffalo Bicycle
Company, who created a special bicycle to facilitate transportation in African terrains.
Compared to walking, bicycles represent a huge leap in productivity and facilitate access to
health, education, and economic opportunities. In addition, the simple and sustainable nature
of bicycles empowers individuals, their families, and their communities.

Conclusion
Social Entrepreneurship doesn't solely built for profits, exchanging of goods to the market or
any other financial exchange in return however, it also generates impact and promotes
social change by means of social enterprise.
For instance, enterprises that serves the unmet needs of marginalized sector. An educational
programs, providing banking services in underserved areas, and helping children orphaned
by epidemic disease. All of these efforts are intended to address unmet needs within
communities that have been overlooked or not granted access to services, products, or base
essentials available in more developed communities. ( Hayes, 2023). Social Entrepreneurship
approach influence financial accumulation while causing to begin change in social sectors
such as education and health.

REFERENCES

Alvord, S. H., Brown, L. D., & Letts, C. W. (2004). Social entrepre-neurship and societal
transformation. Journal of Applied Beha-vioral Science, 40(3): 260–282.Andrews, K. T.
(2001). Social movements and policy implementation

Austin, J., Stevenson, H., & Wei-Skillern, J. (2006). Social and Commercial
Entrepreneurship: Same, Different, or Both? Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 30(1), 1-
22

Cornforth, C. 2014. Understanding and Combating Mission Drift in Social Enterprises. Social
Enterprise Journal 10(1), pp. 3–20.

Cosic, M. (29 March 2017). “’We Are All Entrepreneurs’: Muhammad Yunus on Changing
the
World, one Microloan at a Time”. Guardian
https://www.theguardian.com/sustainablebusiness/2017/mar/29/we-are-all-entrepreneurs-
muhammad-yunus-on-changing-theworld-one-microloan-at-a-time.

Darko, E. and T. Quijano. 2015. A Review of Social Enterprise Activity in the Philippines.
British
Council. https://www.britishcouncil.org/sites/default/files/social_
enterprise_activity_philippines.pdf.

Dees, J., J. Emerson, and P. Economy. 2001. Enterprising Nonprofits: A Toolkit for Social
Entrepreneurs. New York: John Wiley & Sons.

Dees, J. and B. Anderson. 2002. For-Profit Social Ventures. International Journal of

Entrepreneurship Education 2, pp. 1–26.
Hayes, A. ( 2023). Social Entrepreneur: Definition and Examples. Investopedia. 2023.
https://www.investopedia.com/terms/s/social-entrepreneur.asp

Nicholls, A., Simon, J., & Gabriel, M. (2015). New Frontiers in Social Innovation Research.
Palgrave Macmillan.