Over the past the last few decades we have seen an increased interest in social entrepreneurship and social enterprises (see e.g. Nicholls, 2010; Kerlin, 2009). On one hand, these phenomena relate to discourses on entrepreneurship and enterprises that have a strong position in policy, practices as well as academia promoted by organizations such as Ashoka, Schwab and Skoll Foundations among others (Nicholls, 2010). On the other hand, the composite concepts relate to the ‘social’ and looking at the emerging discourse there are strong links to the co-operative movement and the nonprofit field (Borzaga & Defourny, 2001; Nyssens, 2006; Borzaga, Galera & Nogales, 2008). The richness of perspectives and approaches to studying social entrepreneurship and social enterprises are encouraging but also challenging. Young & Lecy (2013) suggest after several years’ discussions of definitions that we ought to view the field as a social enterprise zoo where different species exist. Still, we want to be able to address different aspects that call for aggregation to explore the phenomena in a comparative way to further our understanding of possibilities, shortcomings, and relationships between different initiatives and institutional factors.
In 2009, Kerlin presented a comparison of social enterprises in six settings over five different continents. In 2013, Kerlin presented a conceptual framework for comparative analysis of social enterprises based on institutional factors – including a case study of Sweden.
The aim of this paper, which build on a book chapter (Gawell 2017, is to revisit Kerlin’s (2013) study of social enterprises in Sweden and reflect on the suggested framework. The discussion is based on several studies of social entrepreneurship and social enterprises conducted during the last decade in Sweden (Gawell, 2015, 2016; Gawell, Sundin & Tillmar, 2016). It is furthermore informed by studies in other Nordic countries (e.g. studies presented in Andersen, Gawell & Spear, 2016) as well as in other national contexts (e.g. studies presented in ICSEM working paper series) which raise questions relevant to the discussions of the Swedish context as well as the suggested framework.
The review of the context and emergence of social enterprises in Sweden raises a number of questions related to definitions among other things, or more specifically to difficulties to define social enterprises not only based on form but rather the content and what it means for people. The review of the Swedish case reveals several different expressions of ‘the ingredients’ of social enterprises but also the difficulties in trying to identify social enterprises even from a more limited definition based on organizational form and reminds us that social initiatives are laden with values and norms – combined with a portion of pragmatism.
References
Andersen, L. L., Gawell, M. & Spear, R. (2016). Social Entrepreneurship and Social Enterprises in the Nordics. Narratives Emerging from Social Movements and Welfare Dynamics. In Andersen, L. L., Gawell, M. & Spear, R. (Eds.), Social Entrepreneurship and Social Enterprises: Nordic Perspectives. Routledge.
Borzaga, C. & Defourny, J. (2001). The Emergence of Social Enterprises. New York: Routledge.
Borzaga, C. Galera, G. & Nogales, R. (2008). Social Enterprises: A New Model for Poverty Reduction and Employment Generation. EMES / UNDP.
Gawell, M. (2015). Social Enterprise in Sweden: Intertextual Consensus and Hidden Paradoxes. ICSEM Working Paper No. 08. Liege: The International Comparative Social Enterprise Models (ICSEM) Project (http://www.iap-socent.be/sites/default/files/Sweden%20-%20Gawell.pdf).
Gawell, M. (2016). Social Entrepreneurship and Social Enterprises: Chameleons through Times and Values. In Andersen, L., Gawell, M. & Spear, R. (Eds.), Social Entrepreneurship and Social Enterprises in the Nordic Countries. Routledge.
Gawell, M. (2017). Sweden: Tracing Social Enterprise Across Different (Social) Spheres: The Interplay Among Institutions, Values, and Individual Engagement. In Kerlin, J. (Ed.) Shaping Social Enterprise. Understanding Institutional Context and Influence. Emerald Publishing Group Ltd.
Gawell, M., Sundin, E. & Tillmar, M. (2016). Entrepreneurship Invited into the (Social) Welfare Arena. In Andersen, L., Gawell, M. & Spear, R. (Eds.), Social Entrepreneurship and Social Enterprises in the Nordic Countries. Routledge.
Kerlin, J. (2009). Social Enterprise: A Global Comparison. Lebanon, Tufts University Press.
Kerlin, J. (2013). Defining Social Enterprise Across Different Contexts: A Conceptual Framework Based on Institutional Factors. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 42(1), 84-108.
Nicholls, A. (2010). The legitimacy of social entrepreneurship: Reflexive isomorphism in a pre-paradigmatic field. Entrepreneurship Theory & Practice, 34, 1, 1042-2587.
Nyssens, M. (2006). Social Enterprise. At the Crossroads of Market, Public Policies and Civil Society. Routledge.
Young, D. & Lecy, J. (2013). Defining the Universe of Social Enterprise: Competing Metaphors. VOLUNTAS: International Society for Third Sector Research, 25, 1307-1332.
1. Concepts and models of social enterprise worldwide
