Achieving Sustainability Through Schumpe

Journal of Cleaner Production 137 (2016) 347e360
Contents lists available at ScienceDirect
Journal of Cleaner Production

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/jclepro
Achieving sustainability through Schumpeterian social

entrepreneurship: The role of social enterprises
Amir Rahdari a, *, Sahar Sepasi a, Mohammad Moradi b
a
Tarbiat Modares University, Tehran, Iran
b
University of Tehran, Tehran, Iran
a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t
Article history: One of the major scholarly challenges of social entrepreneurship is the lack of an established episte-
Received 2 June 2015 mology that partly contributes to and/or stems from a conflict of discourses. This study is an attempt to
Received in revised form pave the way for the enhancement of the field of social entrepreneurship, using Schumpeter's
10 April 2016
perspective developed in his magnum opus “Theorie der wirtschaftlichen Entwicklung”, by highlighting
Accepted 26 June 2016
Available online 12 July 2016
the role it can play in transforming business into an engine for sustainable development with an
emphasis on the role that social enterprises can play. The study employs concepts of corporate citi-
zenship, social entrepreneurship, corporate social responsibility, social enterprise, and sustainable
Keywords:
Sustainability
development to form a robust conceptual understanding of the field. A canvas alongside a set of tools are
Corporate social responsibility developed to enlighten the way towards achieving sustainable development. The study is primarily of
Social entrepreneurship interest to socio-economic policy makers and social entrepreneurship scholars and benefits social and
Social enterprise business enterprises as well. The implications of the canvas are tripartite. Firstly, the canvas demon-
Sustainable development strates the main elements of the current socio-economic ecosystem and how they could work in unison
towards the realization of sustainable development agenda. Secondly, it helps to connect diverse yet
related concepts in a pragmatic manner and, as a result, lays the foundation for the realization of Sus-
tainable Development Goals of post-2015 development agenda of the United Nations with an emphasis
on the role of social enterprises. Thirdly, the canvas, in conjunction with the concomitant analyses, helps
companies to understand the level of maturity and integration of their sustainable and responsible
strategies. Finally, the study highlights the role social enterprises and sustainable businesses can play in
achieving Sustainable Development Goals.
© 2016 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
1. Introduction 1970s through a series of environmental conferences, the concerns

over chemical pollutions, and the realization of unlimited growth
Sustainable development emerged as a concept among the ac- fantasy reiterated by countless seminal works, most notably “Silent
ademics in the 1960s, much obliged to the photograph famously Spring” (Carson, 1962) and “Spaceship Earth” (Ward, 1966). It was
known as “Earthrise” taken by astronaut William Anders during the brought to policy discussions at the UN's “World Charter for Na-
Apollo 8 mission in 1968 that created a collective awareness of the ture” in 1982 and the WCED's “Our Common Future” in 1987 where
environment (Mcintosh, 2015). It later gained momentum in the the most cited definition of sustainable development was pre-
sented for the first time (WCED, 1987). Ha k et al. (2016) explain
how environmental and social aspects were combined with eco-
Abbreviations: CBO, community-based organizations; CC, corporate citizenship; nomic issues to constitute triple bottom lines of sustainability
CIC, Community Interest Companies; CSE, corporate social entrepreneurship; CSR, concept since the 1980s. However, the role of businesses in creating
corporate social responsibility; ESG, Environmental, Social, and Governance; MDG,
Millennium Development Goals; SDG, Sustainable Development Goals; SE, Social
unprecedented yet unsustainable growth, apart from a series of
entrepreneurship; SI, Social intrapreneurship; SBM, Sustainable Business Model; inventive discussions and ad hoc positive practices, has been very
SMEs, Small and Medium-sized Enterprises; SRI, Socially responsible investing; much neglected. At the corporate level, sustainable development is
UNCED, UN Conference on Environment and Development. often communicated through the concept of CSR (Elkington, 1999)
* Corresponding author. Tarbiat Modares University, Jalal Ale Ahmad Highway,
and it connects corporate operations and activities to various as-
P.O. Box: 14115-111, Tehran, Iran.
E-mail address: [email protected] (M. Moradi). pects of sustainable development (Waddock and Graves, 1997). CSR
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2016.06.159
0959-6526/© 2016 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
348 A. Rahdari et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 137 (2016) 347e360
and sustainability are intertwined concepts that have taken many three levels of business activities to deliver sustainability. To do so,
forms and have been defined in various ways based on the time this study maps the transition of business enterprises to sustain-
and/or the context of the discussion (Rahdari and Anvary Rostamy, able social enterprises by elucidating on the role of SE in the en-
2015). hancements of CSR initiatives which can succor the current global
Bowen (1953), the father of CSR, defined it in his seminal book economy to sally forth towards a sustainable one.
“Social Responsibilities of the Businessman” in the following Martin and Osberg (2015) identified social entrepreneurs as the
manner: ‘It refers to the obligations of businessmen to pursue those drivers of transformation in society and as the group that target
policies, to make those decisions, or to follow those lines of action unjust and unsustainable systems and transform them into entirely
which are desirable in terms of the objectives and values of our soci- new sustainable systems. The study sees (social) entrepreneurs as
ety’. More recently, Visser (2010) defined Corporate Sustainability viable agents of change for solving business and social problems,
and Responsibility as: ‘the way in which business consistently not the architecture of their cause (York and Venkataraman, 2010).
creates shared value in society through economic development, Sustainable entrepreneurship is seen as a puissant apparatus for
good governance, stakeholder responsiveness and environmental creating a sustainable and fair society (Hall et al., 2010). Further-
improvement’. The shift in the meaning is absolutely conspicuous more, empirical studies show that SE has a strong influence on
but the main premise “creating value for society” has remained social value (Felício et al., 2013). Thence, SE is one of the most
unchanged. powerful and practical tools for addressing and fulfilling social re-
There is still no universally accepted definition of CSR (Chen and sponsibilities of companies, since its primary objective is to solve
Fan, 2011; Rexhepi et al., 2013) in spite of the deluge of research societal problems which include problems that run the gamut from
studies conducted in the previous decades (Kolodinsky et al., 2010). environmental and social challenges to economic predicaments
The content and frequency analyses of 37 definitions of CSR created by businesses themselves. The study primarily focuses on
unraveled that most of the highly cited definitions of CSR have the theory of entrepreneurship developed by Schumpeter which
common aspects that can be categorized into five dimensions: The considers entrepreneurship as a social catalyst as well as an eco-
environmental, social, economic, stakeholder and voluntariness nomic one.
dimensions (Dahlsrud, 2008). These common themes give an The rest of the article is organized in the following manner. The
overview of the areas that CSR covers, while there are numerous of theoretical background of the study is discussed in section two. In
other theories and constructs that have given insights into this the third and fourth sections, the study focuses on method, results
matter (Carroll, 1991; Porter and Kramer, 2011). Recognizing and discussions. Finally, the study concludes that SE can be used as
different aspects of CSR can help us to assimilate what objectives, a tool to sally forth towards SDGs. On a side note, the paucity of an
plans, processes, tools, and monitoring mechanisms should the established epistemology is one of the chronic scholarly challenges
management adopt and implement to fulfil its responsibility with of SE that contributes to or stems from a conflict of discourses.
regard to different dimensions of CSR. Robe rt et al. (2002) discussed Nicholls (2010) explored the legitimating strategies of SE that could
the concept of strategic sustainable development in which a sys- help with its establishment as a paradigmatic field. This study
tems approach was adopted to integrate countless complementary paves the way for the enhancement of the field of SE by high-
sustainability and CSR tools and approaches in a complex corporate lighting the role it can play in transforming business into an engine
context. In their strategic sustainable development framework, for sustainable development with an emphasis on the role of social
which included five levels, they asserted that in order to achieve enterprises.
objectives in a complex system, a set of principles should be put in
place that would “generate a strategically defined direction to the 2. Theoretical background
planning process”. CSR is now an indispensable part of the corpo-
rate fabric, however, the scale of the economic, social, and envi- 2.1. Corporate social responsibility and corporate citizenship
ronmental issues that we are facing today is way out of proportion
with the social responsibility activities that are being carried out in One of the most prevalent definitions of CSR is that of Carroll:
response. These incremental attempts cannot thrive sans innova- “The social responsibility of business encompasses the economic,
tion, which is the part and parcel of entrepreneurial spirit. legal, ethical and discretionary expectations that society has of
SE is defined as “a process that creates social value because of organizations at a given point in time” (Carroll, 1979, p. 500). Car-
the initiative in seeking solutions to societal problems through roll's pyramid has been one of the most rampant theories of CSR
innovative strategies that involve the combination of resources, the during the last three decades. It is constituted of four distinguish-
exploitation of opportunities for stimulating social change, the able but relevant stages: philanthropic (discretionary), ethical,
satisfaction of social needs, and the development of social goods legal, and economic responsibilities (Carroll, 1979). The fulcrum of
and services” (Morris et al., 2011). Social entrepreneurs are a spe- the constitution of economic entities in the current economic sys-
cies of entrepreneurs, theoretically novel but practically extant tem has been achieving financial success. The maximization of
since the days of yore in the annals of entrepreneurship. Jean shareholders' value has been the prime objective of a successful
Baptiste Say, Joseph Alois Schumpeter, Peter Drucker, Howard firm. Moreover, companies are supposed to comply with the local,
Stevenson and J. Gregory Dees provide a strong theoretical back- national or international legislations in accordance with the milieu
ground for entrepreneurship and to a great extent for SE. they are working in as well and ethical responsibilities entail a set
With regard to entrepreneurship, when it is addressed in rela- of standards or expectations that express some concerns regarding
tion to social responsibility and sustainability, several questions consumers, employees, government, society and other stake-
have been raised in a micro-level that some are answered in the holders. Finally, discretionary or philanthropic responsibilities are
literature. For instance, do individuals who are concerned by sus- those that are not incumbent upon the company but the company
tainability issues also exhibit stronger entrepreneurial intentions will adopt them in order to gratify society's expectations of a good
(Kuckertz and Wagner, 2010)? and some are left unanswered (Can corporate citizen. These four set of responsibilities have been at the
entrepreneurship, specifically SE, be used as a tool for promoting centre of Carroll's account of CSR.
sustainability? And if yes then how?) This paper endeavors to Consumer and stakeholder activism are gaining the pride of
present a gratifying apposite answer to this question by proposing a place in the corporate environment, as did shareholder activism
framework that pave the way for the exploitation of SE as a tool in during the second half of the 20th century, which in turn, will lead
A. Rahdari et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 137 (2016) 347e360 349
to the augmentation of CSR debate in corporations, although, this something new … that, first of all, by being strange to the value system
change might not rise to the occasion and magnitude of the chal- of statics will oppose it, and subsequently will have to be gradually
lenges we are facing. “CSR 1.0 had failed” was the raison d'e ^tre assimilated by it so it changes more or less” (Schumpeter, 2002)
behind the development of CSR 2.0 by Wayne Visser (Visser, 2010). which embraces the concept of innovation that is currently leit-
He calls the new CSR, CSR 2.0,1 and asserts that this is the acid test motiv in business research (Kim and Huarng, 2011).
for future CSR practices. If they are implemented, two kinds of shifts He is considered as one of the first scholars who have developed
at micro- and meta-levels can be observed. CSR, when imple- ideas and theories in the field of entrepreneurship. Schumpeter
mented at a national, regional and finally global scale, it can lead to envisioned entrepreneurship as an engine of growth (Castan ~ o et al.,
sustainability. Nonetheless, more influential enablers are still 2015). One of his revolutionary statements is that “Not only with
required. regard to the economy, but also socially the entrepreneur must be on
CC is another concept that has gained considerable attention in top of the pyramid of society” (Schumpeter, 2002, p. 415, 1987, p.
the corporate sustainability and responsibility discourse. CC defines 525). Based on his opinion, history plays an indispensable role in
the legal status of the agent assuming social responsibility. CC, as the scientific study of entrepreneurship. However, it needs time as
defined by Crane et al. (2008), can be observed in three levels: nothing changes as hard as dispositions and thoughts do. Similar
limited, equivalent and extended. Limited CC is when corporations scenarios in case of the disposition of feudal aristocracy have been
equate citizenship behaviors with a specific aspect or slice of social observed. He asserts that individual developments, both economic
responsibility like philanthropy. Therefore, as shown in the pro- and social, will have a knock-on effect and render the “formation of
posed canvas, when only one dimension of CSR is fulfilled, corpo- a new uniform stage of civilization”.
rations do not fully address their social responsibility and will have He divides the instances of economic behaviors into two distinct
merely a limited citizenship. The second level of CC is equivalent classes: the process of adaption and the process of creative con-
citizenship which is “a conflation of CC with existing conceptions of struction, as Becker and Knudsen reiterated (Schumpeter, 2002). It
CSR, stakeholder management, or corporate sustainability, without worth noting that he introduced the idea of creative destruction in
attempting to define any new role for the corporation” (Crane et al., 1942 which, since then, has been considered as the essence of
2008, pp. 21e22). Likewise, Carroll (1998) defined CC as he capitalism. The growth of population and wealth are not qualita-
defined CSR nearly twenty years before. The third level enriches the tively new phenomena, they are merely processes of adaption to
existing understanding of businessesociety relationships with the changing data and circumstances that shape the economic
recourse to political theory (Crane et al., 2008). Ne ron & processes. This process is largely motivated by the gratification of
Norman (2008) mentioned the merits of corporations as citizens needs. Creative construction, however, is an attempt to change the
and their entanglements in political activities while others scathed given circumstances and goes beyond the mere satisfaction of
the idea of citizenship of corporations as they mention that “cor- wants. For a society to thrive, both are necessary. Nonetheless, a
poration is a legal “person” (or subject), but it is a “fictitious” or magnificently important distinction needs to be made between the
“virtual” person, and strictly speaking citizenship is a legal status groups of people who undertake each group of activities. To explore
only afforded to natural persons”. Corporations as citizens have fi- each group, Schumpeter expatiates on the temperaments and at-
duciary duty towards society with respect to the resources they tributes of their members. He bifurcates these groups into the
have been entrusted with and nurturing the environment, thus minority and the majority: the entrepreneurs and the masses. The
contributing to the sustainable development agenda. To do so, they latter just want to go on with their circadian lives, they lack the
need to address social and environmental issues with their eco- moral courage to try. But, the former, it is this type that castigates
nomic and business approaches. the mundane trite equipoise and faces the risks with unwavering
audacity. Schumpeter calls the entrepreneur “Mann der tat” or “man
of action”.
2.2. Social entrepreneurship and social intrapreneurship His definition of entrepreneur, however, is marinated in a social
backdrop and, in the light of this fact, it has been considered as one
Economic progress is substantially increased by a spate of of the first definitions of social entrepreneurship as well. His defi-
entrepreneurial activities (Schumpeter, 1942; Kwon and Arenius, nition is primus inter pares and of magnificent significance as it has
2010). Annals of research in entrepreneurship can be traced back been unattended for so long while being relevant, even in today's
to 1755 and the introduction of the concept by Cantillon (Simo n- context. His works do not directly define SE but he presents the
Moya et al., 2014). However, for the purpose of this study, idea, which was later dubbed as the Say-Schumpeter tradition, that
Schumpeter's perspective on entrepreneurship is explored. identifies entrepreneurs as the catalysts and innovators behind
Joseph Alois Schumpeter, the renowned Austrian economist and economic and social progress and, thus, it can be argued that it laid
political scientist, wrote his seminal book in economics in 1911 the foundation for its current use.
with the appellation “Theorie der wirtschaftlichen Entwicklung”2 He extends his assimilation of development and creative
in German (The theory of economic development3) to explain the destruction to society, where SE can be looked upon as a dynamic
economic development phenomenon (Schumpeter, 1987). He behavior. Schumpeter's general theory of entrepreneurship can fill
defined development or “the most glittering phenomena of eco- the gap for the absence of a more elaborated theoretical develop-
nomic life” entirely different from those in classical economics as ment of SE but his perspective emphasizes solely on the individual
he says “passively drawing consequences is not the only possible role of the (social) entrepreneur in lieu of taking a social standpoint
economic behavior but you can also try and change the given on the entrepreneurial processes (Steyaert and Hjorth, 2006). The
circumstances”. From his lens, development is “the creation of concept of SE might be novel, however, the practice and the utili-
zation of entrepreneurial capacities to improve society and solve
social issues such as poverty, pollution, and malfeasance is not new,
1
CSR 2.0 is a mnemonic device for the five principles of CSR which are: Creativity Moreover, the concept is still open to interpretation (Dacin et al.,
(C), Scalability (S), Responsiveness (R), Glocality (2) and Circularity (0).
2
2010). “SE is defined the way of using resources to create benefits
Theorie der wirtschaftlichen Entwicklung (1911) is the original version of the
translated edition of 1934.
for the society and the social entrepreneur is the person who seeks to
3
Markus C. Becker and Thorbjørn Knudsen called it “The Fundamental Phe- benefit society through innovation and risk taking” (Crisan and Borza,
nomenon of Economic Development”. 2012, p. 107).
This study considers SE as a process of creating value by cases (Pink, 2006). Google and a throng of other companies have
combining resources, which are intended initially to explore op- utilized more intrinsic motivators and the higher performance of
portunities to create social value by stimulating social change, in their employees showed that extrinsic motivators are not any more
new ways (Schumpeter, 1942). To put it differently, as Schumpeter the sole player in the incentive game. For example, Atlassian, an
mentions, while profit motive is the central engine of entrepre- Australian software company, developed a program called “FEDEX
neurship, entrepreneurship is socially productive, when in the days” in which the company grants its employees free days so that
process of pursuing self-interest, the entrepreneurs boost social they can work on their personal project. The results have been so
wealth by creating new jobs, markets, technologies, institutional startling that the company is planning to expand the program to
forms, and industries (Alvord et al., 2004). Dees also drew his include 20% of the employees working hours similar to Google.
definition, on the thinking of two economists Jean-Baptiste Say These new models of incentives are taking over in the 21st century
and Joseph A. Schumpeter. SE is also an umbrella term technically and are expedient in providing an environment where intra-
as it is linguistically; encompassing a wide range of innovative and preneurship can burgeon.
dynamic praxes in social and environmental centre (Nicholls, On the other hand, motivations of social entrepreneurs have
2006). Some studies have stipulated that the emphasis on SE is been examined since Schumpeter. Germak and Robinson (2014)
actually more on the individual level than on a collective level explored the motivations of embryonic social entrepreneurs. They
(Crisan and Borza, 2012). A social entrepreneur is an entrepreneur found that five overarching factors influence social entrepreneurs
that identifies social problems and work interminably to solve at the early stages. These factors are personal fulfilment, helping
them. society, nonmonetary focus, achievement orientation, and close-
Entrepreneurship is growingly characterized by bearing the ness to social problems (Germak and Robinson, 2014).
necessary differentia to be a conduit for bringing about a trans- Innovation is an inseparable part of entrepreneurship. Schum-
mogrification to sustainable products and processes, propped up by peter mostly sees an entrepreneur as an innovator whose role in
countless think tanks, books, and articles (Brown, 2006; Braungart economic development establishes a relationship between entre-
and McDonough, 2002), stipulating that entrepreneurship is a preneurship and innovation (Zsuzsanna and Herman, 2012;
viable vessel of change, if not a panacea, for many of the environ- Schumpeter, 2002). There are several types of innovations that
mental, social, and economic concerns (Hall et al., 2010). SE has also are commonly cited encompassing marketing, product, process,
been attributed to creating market value (Prahalad, 2004), systemic organizational, business model, and supply chain innovations.
social change model (Bornstein, 2004), and a model of economic There are also other types of innovation that are not as rife as the
empowerment (Yunus, 2008). But how entrepreneurship or SE can aforementioned categories such as social innovation, green inno-
be used in developing sustainable organizations? By way of illus- vation, etc. but have been given unprecendented attention by the
tration, Parrish (2010) probed this matter using two types of academic and professional communities in the past few decades
reasoning: perpetual reasoning and exploitative reasoning. Per- due to the growing concerns over climate change and the unsus-
petual reasoning takes a long-term view towards the firm and is tainable economic system. These recently emerged types of inno-
more attributable to SE characteristics while exploitative reasoning vation are as important as the traditional distinguished classes,
features the attributes of commercial entrepreneurship. He however, it worth noting that different types of innovation cannot
discovered five generative rules that guided the organization be completely different (Ramalingam et al., 2009). This interde-
design process of these sustainability-driven entrepreneurs by the pendency borrowed open and whole systems characteristics from
analysis of case data (see Parrish, 2010). Furthermore, another the systemic thinking and sustainability disciplines before they
concept with the appellation of “Sustainopreneurship” was devel- were developed as distinct fields. “We have already seen that the
oped in the 2000s. It is a sister concept for SE which refers to a economic development also entails social changes of a non-economic
sustainable entrepreneurship where an entrepreneur balances ESG type. That, however, is just one instance of a general phenomenon.
performance in their venture. Success in any sector will more or less affect the other sectors.”
Intrapreneurs and social intrapreneurs have the characteristics (Schumpeter, 2002, p. 429).
of an entrepreneur, presented by Schumpeter, while working in a Schumpeter used five categories to classify entrepreneurial
non-administrative position. Furthermore, they have some other innovation: a new product/service, a new strategy or method, a
attributes like being concerned about their environment, both so- new market, a new source of supply/labor, and a new organiza-
cial and natural, future generations, and underprivileged commu- tional or industrial structure. Dees et al. (2001) identified two
nities. The recruitment, training, and retaining process of other classes of innovation which were framing new terms of
employees need to be aligned with the social culture and objectives engagement and developing new funding structures. Recently
of the organization. Employees that have the aforementioned emerged types of innovation are of paramount significance and
temperaments and have the desire to make a change both therefore not surprisingly, social innovation is an inseparable
economically and socially are desired to be recruited. The training element in delivering value through SE. Social innovation is the
process need to motivate the employees to be socially responsible magic wand at the hands of social entrepreneurs that provides
and enable them to put forward their innovative ideas that have them with the necessary paraphernalia to conquer the most
positive economic and social impacts. chronic social and environmental issues that the society encoun-
Furthermore, the incentive system should be revolutionized as ters while building their business. The emergence of social enter-
the mere economic carrot and stick or reinforcement and punish- prise is an amazing epitome of the manifestation of social
ment are not effective measures anymore. They were effective in innovation in practice. Social enterprises take many legal forms
the 20th century but a series of experiments in the science of mostly based on national policies and legislations. For instance, in
motivation such as the candle problem, presented posthumously by the UK, social enterprises have taken ten different legal forms.
Karl Duncker, showed that these kinds of incentives only work for Most notably, after the introduction of the CIC under the Com-
simple tasks that do not require sophisticated cognitive skills, panies Act in 2005, 10,000 CICs have been registered. The UK
however, for tasks with higher cognitive abilities, thence most of government statistics, purportedly, suggest that the number of
the tasks of the 21st century, that require innovation, creativity and social enterprises have risen from 5,300 to 62,000 over a five-year
out-of-box thinking, not only financial incentives do not improve period (Teasdale et al., 2013). In the US, the establishment of L3Cs,
performance but also they have led to poorer performance in many Flexible Purpose Corporation, and B-corporations have marked the
legal formation of social enterprises. means of financing and it is basically an extension of the traditional
The magnitude of today's social and environmental problems at NGO with financial independence that can work in today's eco-
the global scale are beyond the abilities of individual philanthro- nomic environment. It also provides NGOs with mechanisms to
pists and requires more powerful actors. Business has been taking enhance their social impact (Nicholls, 2006).
over governments in terms of political power in the past few de- Furthermore, in the past four decades the notion of business's
cades and is becoming the most powerful force to solve such social license to operate, due to the increasing public awareness,
problems (Crane et al., 2008) and social enterprises, as a new legal has become a must and nowadays almost all MNCs are attempting
socio-economic enterprise, is seen as possible solution to these to gain such a social license by producing green products and ser-
problems (Keijzers, 2002). The emergence and expansion of social vices using environmentally friendly materials and processes and/
enterprise has made a great contribution to the realization of this or reporting their social and environmental performance in a
idea. A “social enterprise” is any entity that uses earned revenues to transparent manner (explicit CSR) and it is trickling down to SMEs
pursue a double or triple bottom line. Social enterprises deal with as well (implicit CSR). Social Enterprises, in fact, constitute a
social needs and try to gratify them directly through their products “Nation of Entrepreneurs” that can revolutionize the business
and services rather than indirectly through corporate philanthropy world and shift it towards a sustainable global economy.
or enlightened self-interest (a business case for CSR). The following table (Table 1), partly adapted from the Institute
Alter (2000) defined social enterprise as a “generic term for a for Social Entrepreneurs (2008) guide “Evolution of the social
nonprofit enterprise, social-purpose business or revenue-generating enterprise industry: A chronology of key events” and further
venture founded to support or create economic opportunities for refined, maps the gestation of social enterprises by significant
poor and disadvantaged populations while simultaneously operating events transpired in the history of SE from the late 19th century
with reference to the financial bottom line”. As it is evident, there is a hitherto the current century to illuminate on the manner of its
growing emphasis on the financial viability of social enterprises. formation and its constituents in details. SE after a cascade of
However, the importance of personal idiosyncratic characteristics actions, events, and initiatives such as the establishment of
of social entrepreneurs is not to be underestimated (Engelke et al., Ashoka by Bill Drayton and the introduction of SE as an academic
2015). Moreover, social enterprise model provides NGO leaders field by Gregory Dees caught the attention of many scholars in the
with an institutional framework for establishing independent fields of entrepreneurship and management. Dees is considered as
Table 1
The evolution of social enterprises.
19th century
- 1884 Jane Addams Hull House Night school for adults, etc.
- 1890 Andrew Carnegie, private philanthropist
- 1895 Goodwill Industries
1st quarter of 20th century
- 1910s Julius Rosenwald Long-term market development
- 1938 Wagner-O’Day Act (President Franklin D. Roosevelt) provide employment opportunities for people with disabilities
2nd quarter of 20th century
- 1956 Mondrago n Corporacio
n Cooperativa, Spain
- 1973, ShoreBank, Chicago. Bank's neighborhood demographics
1950s to 1970s
- Private sector social enterprises: Early childhood learning centres, Low-income housing, Tutoring centres and Wind farms.
- Dearth of books and educational courses on SE
- BRAC, 1972
- Grameen Bank, 1974
1980s
- A revolution, social enterprises going public, ASHOKA
- Should Not-for-Profits Go into Business? by Edward Skloot
- Cause-related Marketing developed by Jerry Welsh
- New Ventures (1980), consulting firm
- The National Centre for Social Entrepreneurs (1984), consulting firm
- The Beacon Fund, a social enterprise venture capital fund
- ABANA (1989), First membership organization for social entrepreneurs
1990s
- Homeless Economic Fund
- Prof. Dees, SE as a major, First course “Entrepreneurship in the Social Sector” (1993)
- Operational philanthropy (1997)
- “venture philanthropy” movement (1997)
- The acquisition of RIVERTOWN Trading (1998), First acquisition in social enterprises
- Cause-related Purchasing, by Dan McKinnon (1998)
- Social Enterprise London (SEL) (1998)
- The Institute for Social Entrepreneurs (1999)
21st century
- SROI or social return on investment by REDF
- Social Enterprise Magazine (UK)(2002)
- Charity Bank (Britain's first not-for-profit bank) (2002)
- The Great Debate (2006),Dees and Battle
- Nobel Peace Prize, Dr Mohammad Yonus (2006), Grameen Bank
- The University Network for Social Entrepreneurship (2006)
- An Inconvenient Truth, Al Gore (2006)
- Public Philanthropy, NEWMAN’S OWN (2008)
- Forbes Top Social Entrepreneurs (2011)
- European Social Innovation Competition (2013)
the father of SE education (Bornstein and Davis, 2010). He showed The piece de resistance of this argument lies behind the inter-
how the theory and practice of innovation and entrepreneurship connectedness between social enterprise and sustainability. Sus-
could be mingled with social missions to address pollution, tainable development is a complex issue that requires systems
poverty, and other global challenges. The social enterprise history thinking solutions and developing social enterprise ecosystem
provides a comprehensive guide for future longitudinal and might just be one of the viable options. Social enterprise movement
ontological research in SE and social enterprises which will be usually starts with people passionate about social change and from
aimed at probing different historical and economic eras from the bottom (practice) to the top (policy making). These agents of
manifold vantage points. change, social entrepreneurs, find innovative solutions (usually
Similarly, Edward Freeman refers to the idea of stakeholder tech-based) to social and environmental problems that are usually
entrepreneur whose purpose is in keeping with an amalgamation missed by the government and traditional players of the social
of social and commercial entrepreneurs. Conscious capitalism, a sector but without further support many of their ideas would never
concept driven by stakeholder primacy (Mackey et al., 2013), also change anything on the ground. As a result, many governments
called conscious business enterprise, which is a close concept to have put forth policies to support the constitution of social enter-
social enterprise, has been successfully implemented in a handful prises as a legal entity to provide further support and incentives for
of companies such as Whole Foods, Container Store, and TOMS social entrepreneurs.
Shoes (one for one initiative) as well. The rationale behind the formation of social enterprises vary
from country to country, for instance, South Korea developed a
2.3. Sustainable development delicate program for supporting social enterprise ecosystem as an
efficient approach in delivering public services to the public and
Sustainable development, as a movement, was officially set off solving social and environmental problems, while, the UK focused
by the United Nations Conference on the Human Environment in on the return to the local community and its empowerment.
1972 and the term was further popularized by World Commission Nonetheless, some of the most common reasons are as follows.
on Environment and Development which was chaired by Norwe- From the policy making point of view, social enterprises are formed
gian Prime Minister Gro Harlem Brundtland in 1987. It was defined because they address social and environmental problems more
as “a development that meets the needs of the present without efficiently and effectively than the government. Moreover, the
compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own welfare state intends to cut public expenditures and allocate the
needs” in the Brundtland Report of the World Commission on surplus to solving problems of grand scale like the climate change
Environment and Development (WCED, 1987). e.g. investing in the infrastructure for climate change mitigation
Earth Summit was one of the most important events in the technologies. Furthermore, social enterprises provide a great
context of sustainable development which was held in Rio in 1992. complementary force beside CSR for sustainability efforts of non-
Agenda 21 was the main outcomes of the UNCED. It was a practical governmental origin.
tool for applying sustainable development policies at the local and Their importance, to a great extent, stems from their exploita-
national levels. Following the Millennium Summit of the United tion of social innovation. Social enterprise is the entity most asso-
Nations in 2000, eight international development goals were ciated with social innovation. Ray Anderson questioned the
established by the UN entitled as the MDGs. Governments of 189 position of technology (T) in Paul Ehrlich's equation of impact
UN member states agreed to achieve MDGs by the end of 2015. (Impact ¼ population*affluence*technology) in his book “The
Later, the governments agreed to develop a universally applicable Population Bomb” and suggested to move technology to the de-
set of SDGs which will build upon the MDGs and converge with the nominator as a factor reducing impact (Visser, 2015). However, the
post-2015 development agenda to promote focused and coherent connection between social enterprise and sustainability has rarely
action on sustainable development at the Rioþ20 conference in been carefully examined (Vickers, 2010) and when studied it has
2012 (Pinte r et al., 2014). Ultimately, at the age of sustainable been mostly about sustainable social enterprises, their sustain-
development, business sector should move towards the ethos of ability or sustainable business models (Bocken et al., 2014). The
sustainable and social enterprises to thrive in an economy with a sustainability narrative that may have not yet penetrated the text
comprehensive performance evaluation system where perfor- books and academic articles is another proof of this. By way of
mance is measured beyond the financial bottom line i.e. multiple illustration, NASA is exploring Silicon Valley and the start-up
bottom line (Rahdari, 2016). community in search of ideas at the intersection of technology,
Business sector, due to its vast sphere of influence, plays an innovation, and sustainability that can be applied to space explo-
important role in transcending global sustainable development ration. Therefore, examining different aspects of the relationship
agenda and can hugely benefit from the opportunities created between sustainability and social enterprise (entrepreneurship) is
along the way (Baumgartner, 2014). Friede et al. (2015) conducted of paramount significance and the objective of this article is to take
a meta-analysis of over 2000 academic articles and found that the initial steps and pave the way for future research.
over nighty percent of studies found a non-negative relationship
between corporate financial performance and ESG performance. 3. Method
This is also evident form the rapidly growing upward trend in
impact investing or SRI at the corporate level. At least $ 13.6 One of the main challenges in the field of corporate re-
trillion of professionally managed assets incorporate environ- sponsibility research, that is also the case in the area of SE, is the
mental, social, and governance in portfolio selection and invest- academic-professional gap. Bergman et al. (2015) identified seven
ment management (Global Sustainable Investment Alliance shortcomings in this regard including conceptual disunion, Euro-
(GSIA), 2013). With the super-active neologism machine in sus- centrism, over representivity and under representivity, lack of
tainability literature and the justified emergence of new concepts specificity with regard to domains, stakeholder bias, areas of
such as sharing economy and cradle to cradle (circular economy), application, and normativity. As a result, they vouched for more
well-established concepts like green economy and its hyponym policy-relevant and change-oriented approaches in academic
green entrepreneurship are robustly integrating the need for so- research. Moreover, Hammersley (1992) identified seven di-
cial enterprises into the mainstream sustainable development chotomies between qualitative and quantitative approaches. Two
literature. of the most important ones are the essence of quantitative and
qualitative data (based on research question) and a focus on enterprise's full potentiality through innovation and intra-
meanings rather than behavior. Any selection should be more based preneurship within the enterprise and collaboration and part-
on the purposes and circumstances of the research rather than the nership with stakeholders throughout the value chain to solve
philosophical foundations (Punch, 2009). economic, social, and environmental issues and to create sus-
This study attempts to answer a specific question: Can SE be tainable value. As a result, CSE has the ability to help with the
used as a tool for delivering sustainability and pursuing sustainable transformation of an economic enterprise into a (sustainable)
development agenda? And if yes then how? There are numerous social enterprise with the objective of shared value creation. The
studies on the positive aspects of SE and its merits but there is la- following figure (Fig. 1) is the ‘SE to Sustainability Canvas’. The
cuna of research when it comes to considering it as means to an canvas utilizes one of the most prominent theories of CC to
end, for a greater good. Considering the nature of research question pinpoint the level of implementation and emphasize the unde-
and following this line of argument, the qualitative approach was niable role of CSE in developing CSR initiatives in the existing
adopted in this study to focus on the concepts of SE and sustainable business enterprises in order to promote them to social enter-
development and their relationship and a better understanding of prises that have the ability to materialize the so far fantasy of
the blurring lines between SE and sustainable development. The sustainable development while empowering social intrapreneurs
question is addressed using canvas analysis and two practical tools to complement the process by fostering innovation. Crane et al.
that can be useful in both policy setting and practice. This study is a (2008) CC levels viz. limited, equivalent, and extended views
theoretical attempt to provide practical tools for policy makers and were used. For each level of CC, which shows the legal sphere or
businesses in order to employ CSE, SE, CSR, CC, etc. to direct busi- the operational ambit of the SE, a different agent is pertinent. For
nesses towards the realization of sustainable development agenda instance, at equivalent level of CC, social entrepreneurs are the
and it emphasizes on social enterprise as a major enabler. It strives dominant agents, while social intrapreneurs are active
to pave the way for the establishment of a sound epistemological throughout the company's hierarchical structure.
foundation for SE as a tool for achieving SDGs. In summary, three Three types of entrepreneurial agents can be identified: social
stages were designed in order to conduct the study. intrapreneurs, social entrepreneurs, and social enterprises. Social
intrapreneurs refers to individuals that behave entrepreneurially in
Social entrepreneurship: a Schumpeterian perspective e non-managerial positions or in limited scopes within an estab-
investigating SE from its roots in Schumpeter's description of lished corporation or a start-up. SI, due to its grand scale, is an
entrepreneurship. important notion in: 1) revolutionizing the current business envi-
A literature survey of the most eristic yet interconnected con- ronment to mesh with the scale and magnitude of today's global
cepts of CSR, CC, SE, entrepreneurship, sustainable develop- problems in diverse milieus of environmental degradation, social
ment, etc. and their level of activity, maturity, and integration. inequality, and economic crises 2) meeting growing societal ex-
Developing the canvas and its accompanying tools based on best pectations of business stemmed from the rising awareness among
practices that would help the transition towards a sustainable the general public who were unsuspecting for a long time. After-
political and economic system. wards, the level of operation (micro, meso, and macro) and their
scopes or definitions are presented for each level. Nicholls (2006)
Canvas analysis is not ubiquitous but it is a powerful tool in showed the position of SE based on international distribution. Or-
business analysis. Business Model Canvas, proposed by Alexander ganizations can be divided into the three organizational sections,
Osterwalder in 2008, is probably the archetype of canvas analysis in identified by Waddell (2000), which are government agencies or
the business environment. It is a strategic management tool for the state, businesses or the market, and civil society or CBOs.
developing new or documenting existing business models which Therefore, there is no limitation in the scope of organizations that
ease the description of different aspects of a business. Another should address their social responsibility whether they are CBOs or
application of canvas analysis in entrepreneurship is the Green's private for-profit companies.
opportunity canvas analysis for the identification of entrepre- The ontology behind enterprises' CSR programs, their attitude
neurial opportunities (Green, 2013). There are also other types of towards the status of their citizenship, their maturity with regard to
canvases such as social business model and lean canvas. Canvas sustainability issues, and their respective responsibilities towards
analysis helps one to comprehend how business capture and create society can determine the ambit of their actions and the extent to
value, how ideas are translated into actions, and to simplify which they will employ CSE. Most of the enterprises are stuck with
complicated relations into an understandable framework. The the CSR activities at the organizational level and do not use the
canvas, developed in this study, tries to use SE as a tool to enhance potentiality of individual innovation and social intrapreneurship in
efforts to achieve sustainability at micro- and meso-levels and map solving social and environmental issues. Therefore, the canvas
the transition from the current economy to a sustainable one at the highlights the role of newly formed social start-ups or social en-
macro-level. terprises and how they can integrate sustainability and social re-
sponsibility into their DNAs with the promotion of a responsibility
4. Results and analyses mindset and culture from conception so as to proffer a new orga-
nizational structure through which change can take place. Herrera
4.1. From social entrepreneurship to Sustainability Canvas (2015) recognized the problem of peripheral CSR implementation
and fragmental social innovation in existing corporations. She
The term “CSE” (closely related to Institutional entrepre- introduced a framework for institutionalizing corporate social
neurship) has been defined by Austin and Reficco (2009) as “the innovation to achieve a competitive advantage for business. The
process of extending the firm's domain of competence and corre- same problem exists with the business-as-usual companies. They
sponding opportunity set through innovative leveraging of re- have not yet integrated CSE and SI into their business strategies.
sources, both within and outside its direct control, aimed at the Although, there is an ever-increasing demand for social re-
simultaneous creation of economic and social value”. They focused sponsibility and sustainable entrepreneurship especially in
primarily on CSE's role in fostering corporate innovation, emerging economies (Silajdzic et al., 2015), without such in-
although, they recognized CSE as a possible enabler for CSR. In tegrations, sustainable development goals remain unachievable
this study, CSE is defined as the process of exploiting the and there would be repercussions.
Corporate
CiƟzenship
EEquivalent View
w
Corporate
CiƟzenship
(CC)
Corporate Corporate
CiƟzenship CiƟzenship
Limited View
w Extended View
Social Social
Intrapreneurs Enterprises
Agent
Social
Entrepreneurs
Macro Level:
Micro Level:
Economy
Individual
Individual is referred to a (Macro-level)
person or persons who does/do
We can come to think of
Social not comprise a whole and is/ Level Economy in three levels:
Sustainable
Intrapreneurship are independent in their Development
NaƟonal, Regional and Global.
decision making. E.g. an
employee or a ciƟzen.
SDG 2 SDG 1
SDG 8 SDG 11
Meso Level:
Carried out
OrganizaƟon
within
and/or
outside
SDG 9 SDG 7 SDG 5 SDG 4 SDG 3 SDG 6 SDG 10 SDG 13
enterprise by
OrganizaƟon include
government agencies or “the
state”, businesses or “the
market” and civil society or
Social
Intrapreneurs
“community-based SDG 14 SDG 15 SDG 17 Lead to
SDG 16 SDG 12 organizaƟons (CBO)”.
Social
Empowered Corporate
Within the M Enterprise M CSR M Sustainability
M
enterprise (Startup)
Environmental
Social Dimension
Dimension
Economic
Sustainable Dimension Sustainable Sustainable
Sustainable
and and and
Social and Social
Responsible Responsible Responsible
Entrepreneurs Responsible Enterprises
OperaƟons / Products / Business
Aƫtude
Processes Services Model
Embedded within Corporate Social Scaled up

Enterprise Strategy Entrepreneurship CSR iniƟaƟves
Macro-Meso
Micro Level Level of
Level Maturity
SDGs IntegraƟon
SDGs
Fig. 1. SE to sustainability canvas.
4.2. Sustainable development goals active public participation, political focus, and quantitative mea-
surement, greatly influenced public policy debates and national
MDGs, as a set of goals based on global priorities that required policy planning during 2000e2015 period (Sachs, 2012). One of the
outcomes of Rioþ20 Conference, “The Future We Want”, was the pioneer companies, companies of the future, provide the environ-
agreement by member states to launch a process to develop a set of ment for them to surface. In order to implement their impactful
goals, SDGs, which will build upon the MDGs and take centre stage ideas social intrapreneurs usually present their work to their senior
at the post-2015 development agenda. These goals are aimed at officers using four strategies. These four strategies take customer,
transforming the current abominable conditions of poverty, health, employees, society/environment, and business as their core value
education, employment, and emissions, among other issues, creation objects. However, the most attractive choice especially to
worldwide, especially in the least developed countries. These goals the less evolved corporations, hither to, has been the presentation
are designed to engage local, national, regional, and international of business case for the idea. The business case has proven to be a
players in solving the most chronic of economic, social, and envi- viable strategy for creating social value (Carroll and Shabana, 2010)
ronmental challenges the humanity have encountered through and this is becoming a growing strategy in for-profit corporations.
collaboration. However, so as to identify the agents that are more In fact, SI is more successful in for-profit companies than the non-
inclined to take initiative, the canvas has arbitrarily divided these profits (Kistruck and Beamish, 2010).
goals into two levels of Macro-Meso and Micro. The Macro-Meso At the individual level, social entrepreneurs have a higher
level includes the goals that require city, national, regional, and impact than the solitary and unorganized efforts of social in-
international level collaboration. While, Micro level SDGs are the trapreneurs. NGOs are mostly powerless as institutions but boast
goals that clearly require individuals, businesses, and social orga- high ambitions at the individual level, however, they are still
nizations' attendance. However, as stated earlier, all SDGs require a dependent on external funding, politically influenced by the fun-
multi-lateral cooperation between and among all key agents. ders, and have low level of impacts. Social entrepreneurs are simply
Governments are neither invested nor capable of delivering sus- new waves of concerned individuals that used to build up non-
tainable development and a global united coalition of business, profits, however, they can now establish social enterprises, by
governments, civil society organizations, and people are needed for definition and regardless of their legal status. Social enterprises
that purpose (Robinson, 2004). This bifurcation, though, enhances have social business plans that address both social or/and envi-
the value of canvas and contributes to the literature in two main ronmental impacts as well as maintaining the financial viability in
ways: 1) identify the key areas where the agents can take initiative their operations. Social enterprises can be divided into social start-
in. 2) connecting SI, SE, CSR, and sustainable development prag- ups and mature social enterprises or sustainable social enterprises.
matically, therefore, paving the way for SDGs practical Enterprises can be categorized based on ownership and purpose
implementation. (Mikami, 2014). Bifurcating social enterprises into start-ups and
Business enterprises of all sizes can use the canvas to navigate mature social enterprises is a categorization based on size
their way towards corporate sustainability and address micro-level (ownership) rather than purpose.
SDGs, while MNCs might use the canvas to realize their role as a The importance of SMEs and start-ups is evident as they
corporate citizen and take on global level responsibilities such as constitute the main portion of business enterprises throughout the
combating climate change and ending poverty as are articulated in world (Silajdzic et al., 2015). Social start-up uprising is a popular
the macro-level SDGs. By way of illustration, SDG 12 (ensuring trend in social enterprise movement. Social start-ups differ from
sustainable consumption and production patterns) can be better business start-ups in purpose, mission, operation, culture, business
addressed through markets and organizations in conjunction with model, stakeholders, and basically every aspect of an organization.
the consumers (individuals) rather than a governmental coalition. Simply, they are ventures with a social and/or environmental
However, climate change (SDG 13) requires a multi-national objective and a financially viable business model. Examples of so-
cooperation at governmental, institutional, and individual levels cial start-ups are rife but their impact is circumscribed to a small
under a polycentric governance system (Ostrom, 1999, 2010). Ha k number of people and is usually lower in comparison with mature
et al. (2016) developed a conceptual framework for selecting social enterprises. Mature social enterprises, on the other hand, are
appropriate indicators and setting and operationalization of the well-established companies which have integrated social, envi-
goals and targets. They have also provided an example for SDG 12 ronmental and economic objectives into their strategies and
indicators' framework development that can be useful when used possess transformational SBMs. Unilever, Interface, Ben and Jerry's,
in conjunction with the canvas analysis (p. 570)4. Wholefood, etc. are archetypes of mature social enterprises. The
following figure (Fig. 2) extends the canvas in terms of the flow and
5. Tools and discussions draw the relationships between levels of analysis and social impact
and sustainability from a normative perspective.
To put the canvas into action, companies need to evaluate their The position of SE in the graph strikes a balance between the
levels of maturity and integration of CSE and social innovation and two limited and extended definitions of the term. The former po-
adjust their behaviors accordingly in order for the global commu- sitions SE as an update to the non-for-profit model and the latter
nity to realize SDGs, using two tools of level of analysis and inte- defines it as a social force for change (Perrini, 2006). For example,
gration vs. maturity. Woolthuis et al. (2013) found that institutional entrepreneurship is
an indispensable element of sustainable urban development. They
5.1. Tool 1: level of analysis proposed a set of tactics for entrepreneurs to create a suitable
environment for sustainable development. One underlying
The first tool basically examines where the organization stands assumption that needs to be noted to correctly interpret this
with regard to the level of analysis so that it can navigate its way evaluation is that the impacts of national, regional and interna-
through the canvas. tional governance bodies are neglected and only the borderless
Tool 1 Premise: The higher the status of program at each level of business is considered.
analysis, the higher its social impact and sustainability.
Social intrapreneurs are to be defined more by their personal 5.2. Tool 2: integration and maturity
ambitions and higher call and less by their job description and
Nonetheless, the level of analysis does not show how much CSR
is matured in each institution and to what extent it has been
4
The list of proposed SDGs are presented in the appendix. implemented. One of the tools to assess how close a business is to a
Fig. 2. Social impact and sustainability of institutions at different levels of analysis.
model social enterprise is through integration level and maturity BP, Unilever, Ben and Jerry's, Wholefood, etc. The following table
analysis. (Table 2) elucidates on these elements.
Tool 2 Premise: The higher the level of integration of CSR, SE, Robust establishment and the resultant prosperity of a sus-
and social innovation in an enterprise, the higher its maturity. tainable social enterprise has four sine qua nons:
Each level of integration and maturity entails the lower levels,
therefore, a corporation with a sustainable and responsible product a) Sustainability awareness raising, education, and training
development strategy has passed awareness and understanding (Lans et al., 2014)
and acceptance and commitment and has reached the maturity b) Sustainability culture, strategy, mission, vision, and values
level of action and transparency, while it should be noted that there (Kotler et al., 2010)
are cases to the contrary. Social start-ups start their activities with c) Sustainable production and consumption (Lorek and
the sustainable and responsible attitude, however, a mature social Spangenberg, 2014)
enterprise or a sustainable enterprise would have a well- d) Sustainable and Responsible Business Model (Bocken et al.,
established sustainable and responsible business model that in- 2014)
cludes sustainable and responsible attitudes, operations and pro-
cesses as well as a sustainable and responsible product Business models have surfaced as a new unit of analysis (Zott
development strategy. The rest of the spectrum follows the same et al., 2011). SBMs are not inherently different from standard
logic. The following graph (Fig. 3) shows the relationship between business models, however, they require compliance with certain
the sustainable and responsible strategy integration level and the criteria (Rauter et al., 2015). SBM is an emerging theme in business
level of maturity on the social enterprise maturity scale. model as well as corporate sustainability literature. Morris et al.
The elements of the first tool were fully covered in section two. (2005, p.727) defined SBM as “a concise representation of how an
However, the elements of the integration and maturity tools may interrelated set of decision variables in the areas of venture strat-
need to be further explored. To illustrate this point, a series of best egy, architecture, and economics are addressed to create sustain-
practices were reviewed as case studies including Tesla, Interface, able competitive advantage in defined markets”. A sustainable
Fig. 3. Integration vs. Maturity Levels.

Table 2
Elements of integration and maturity tools.
Awareness and understanding Acceptance and commitment Action and transparency Sustainability and responsibility
(maturity)
Sustainable and Responsible Sustainability is conceptualized The enterprise has started The enterprise goes beyond CSR Sustainability transforms all levels
Attitude at the perceptual level as a committing resources to CSR programs and integrate of operations, mission, vision and
positive force. No formal programs. The business case for sustainability into its management values of the organization and
structure is enabled yet. CSR is the leitmotiv at this level. strategies and start to make its way essentially transmogrify the
E.g. TedCas (a health-related E.g. BP from the echelon down to the lower philosophical foundations of its
social start-up) ranks e.g. developing responsible formation from profit maximization
Sustainable and Responsible e products and services. Long-term to shared value. A sustainable
Operations/Processes brand promotion is the centerpiece enterprise sees the triumph of all
Sustainable and Responsible e e of this level. people and the planet as its purpose
Products/Services E.g. Interface products and plays its role towards the
Sustainable and Responsible e e e achievements of SDGs.
Business Model E.g. an embryonic example is Tesla's
open patent Power Wall.
enterprise adopts an extended view of CC, employs SI at the indi- that only fits the existing political agenda. Finally, coming back to
vidual level as well as intertwined innovation-driven corporate Schumpeter (1934), a conducive social climate spurs entrepre-
CSE-sustainability initiatives at the organizational level. It allows neurial activity and promotes economic growth and job creation
social intrapreneurs and social entrepreneurs to reincarnate the (Castan ~ o et al., 2015).
enterprise with innovation-driven changes that benefit the enter- Developing an epistemological foundation for the field(s) of SE
prise, the society, and the environment. These innovation-driven and social enterprise is critical given the conflict of discourses, the
changes put forth by the social entrepreneurs should be aimed at heterogeneity of the scholars background, the diversity of ap-
equilibrium (systemic) change rather than at the amelioration of proaches (quantitative/qualitative/mixed) and methods (deduc-
current conditions (Martin and Osberg, 2015). As a result, corporate tive/inductive) employed, the paradigm wars, and the proliferation
sustainability initiatives of a sustainable enterprise is central to its of interconnected and overlapping concepts. This study made an
mission (Sirsly and Lamretz, 2008), therefore, it not only creates initial attempt to lay the foundation for the development of SE and
value for the enterprise but also addresses social and environ- social enterprise epistemology. It did so, firstly, by deriving the
mental issues pertinent to the core business, therefore creating conceptual backdrop of SE using Schumpeter's perspective towards
shared value (Florin and Schmidt, 2011). The driving forces of the SE the concept and integrating its further developments. Then, SE to
to Sustainability canvas are: sustainable development canvas was developed and two main tools
were introduced to help with the utilization of the canvas. Business
At the individual level: Socent (social entrepreneurs) commu- enterprises of all sizes can use the canvas to navigate their way
nity that mobilize individuals to tackle circadian socio- towards corporate sustainability and pursue the implementation of
environmental issues using innovation. SDGs within their sphere of influence. Now that the importance
At the institutional level: institutional SE or corporate sustain- and the role of SE and social enterprise in the development agenda
ability that strike a balance between economic and socio- has been clarified, the next steps for the development of SE and
environmental performance. social enterprise epistemology is defining the concept considering
At the macro-level: Sustainable social enterprises that would the aforementioned conflicts and diversity of the literature. More-
drive the global development agenda towards a sustainable one. over, research into different aspects of social enterprise as a novel
institution, with both for-profit and non-profit attributes, including
To provide a snapshot of the best practices of the agents of legal, cultural, economic, and other aspects can provide further
change, their impact, maturity levels, levels of integration, and the insights into its prospects as a viable enterprise in the age of sus-
time slot within which they can create the anticipated impact, Fig. 4 tainable development.
is presented below. Also, the three levels of CC theory that define
business and society relationship are presented in Fig. 4.
6. Concluding remarks
Roy et al. (2014) explored the potentiality of social enterprise for
the enhancement of health and well-being in society and found
Social entrepreneurs innovate new solutions to chronic social
that social enterprises can be influential in such improvements,
problems that are more efficient than the public sector and activate a
however, the paucity of research, especially empirical evidence, in
virtuous circle of social capital within local communities
this area still remains a challenge. Surprisingly, there is no
(Leadbeater, 1997) that, if scaled up, can bring us a step closer to the
consensus on a definition for social enterprise (Daya, 2014) as na-
objectives of sustainable development agenda. For the SDGs to be
tional legislation and legal structure regarding social enterprises,
realized three groups of hierarchical and interrelated social agents
the incentives supporting their development, and the motivation
need to get involved: social intrapreneurs, who are active at the non-
behind supporting social economy ecosystem differs vastly across
administrative level, social entrepreneurs, who are active at the
countries. Nonetheless, many believe that social enterprises, by
managerial level and social enterprises which are directed by social
offering efficient, innovative, and sustainable solutions, provide a
objectives. SE can be implemented in three levels of operation
reliable mechanism for countering social challenges. With the
(Meso, Micro, and Macro) based on the CC perspective of the en-
collective sustainability and the proliferation of social enterprises,
terprise or its environment (limited, equivalent, and extended) by
the economy starts to synchronize itself with the sustainable
the three agents of change. The proposed canvas helps enterprises to
development agenda and sally forth towards the realization of
exploit SE in these three levels to fulfil their social responsibility and
SDGs, rebuilding comparative and competitive advantage, and
transform their enterprises to sustainable social enterprises. It also
conquering social and environmental challenges rather than being
provides an overview of the undeniable role of social enterprises in
driven by Keynesian short-term gimmickry and myopic planning
achieving the objectives of sustainable development agenda.
Fig. 4. Best practices for the agents of change.
The canvas has three main implications. The first implication of theoretical framework towards a hard evidence-based analysis and
the canvas and its concomitant tools is that they demonstrate the focuses on the epistemology of the field. This limitation partly
main elements of the current socio-economic ecosystem and how stems from the qualitative nature of many aspects of SE, the paucity
they could work in unison towards the realization of the objectives of data at a large scale, and the futuristic nature of the research
of sustainable development agenda. The breakdown initially helps inquiry which precludes one from making an evidence-based
with the comprehension of the current position of the enterprise as connection between SE and the post-2015 sustainable develop-
to the exploitation of CSE in boosting CSR activities and the iden- ment agenda rather than merely establishing the nature and scope
tification of the problems. Once the unspoiled spots of opportu- of the field and presenting a normative framework. Although, ef-
nities are discovered, the enterprise can start taking advantage of forts have been made to ensure that the proposed framework are
these opportunities to lead it towards a sustainable social based on real world state-of-the-art case studies. The second lim-
enterprise. itation is related to the lenses through which SE has been looked at
The second implication of the canvas is to connect diverse yet throughout the study.
related concepts of SI, social entrepreneurship, CSE, CC, CSR, and Earlier it was mentioned that Schumpeter's general theory of
sustainable development in a pragmatic way and, as a result, lays entrepreneurship can fill the gap for the absence of a more elab-
the foundation for the realization of the SDGs of post-2015 orated theoretical development of SE. However, this caveat should
development agenda of the United Nations with an emphasis on be raised that the Schumpeterian perspective towards SE, though
the role of social enterprises. A final implication of the canvas in innovative and pertinent, is not an exhaustive and well-
conjunction with the concomitant analytical tools is to help established discourse and requires further elaboration and com-
companies to understand the level of maturity and integration of plementary additions, as it has been the case in this study, to
their sustainable and responsible strategy. The study also high- provide a firm basis for developing SE field in the future. In this
lighted the significant role of social enterprises in achieving a study, Schumpeterian interpretation of SE was primarily used to
sustainable economy and their undeniable role in attaining the derive the CSE concept and does not directly influence the dy-
SDGs. namics of the canvas.
Furthermore, the study sheds light on the roles social enter- Finally, another limitation of the current study and many
prises and sustainable businesses can play in achieving SDGs on a studies conducted in the field of SE and social enterprise is that
global scale and it concludes that SE can be utilized as a powerful there is no consensus over the definition of the terms despite
tool to boost CSR initiatives and functions in micro- and meso- considerable debate and huge resources allocated to the topics.
levels and help to achieve sustainability in the macro scale, the This is a common issue in social science research that has rarely
task that market forces solitarily have failed to exert on businesses been investigated. Sheehy (2015), for instance, studies the issues
so far. Moreover, the study provides new insights for the literature surrounding the lack of consensus over CSR definition using an
of SE and social innovation from the perspective of Schumpeter approach from the philosophy of science. Studies on definitions of
while providing a brand new pragmatic definition for CSE, based on SE and social enterprise are also vital to the development of the
Schumpeterian interpretation of SE, and the role it can play in field and a better understanding of the concepts. Future studies
transcending development within an organization. The study is can also focus on proposing practical measures for providing a
primarily of interest to socio-economic policy makers and social conducive environment to innovative ideas through CSE, aligning
entrepreneurship scholars and may help social and business en- compensation mechanisms with the new norm, empowering so-
terprises in assessing their sustainability and SE's maturity and cial intrapreneurs within organizations, boosting CSR activities
level of integration. through CSE, and extending the theoretical boundaries and im-
Three major limitations were identified. The first limitation plications of CSE as well as providing action plans for the imple-
concerns the complexity of socio-economic environment and the mentation of the canvas at the institutional, national, regional, and
interdependencies between and among the factors within the global levels.
system. The study falls short of going beyond a normative
Appendix
The following table (Table A1) provides an overview of the

proposed SDGs for post-2015 United Nations development agenda
by the Open Working Group.
Table A1
SDGs.
Goals Description Level
Goal 1 End poverty in all its forms everywhere. M

Goal 2 End hunger, achieve food security and improved nutrition and promote sustainable agriculture. MM
Goal 3 Ensure healthy lives and promote well-being for all at all ages. M
Goal 4 Ensure inclusive and equitable quality education and promote lifelong learning opportunities for all. MM
Goal 5 Achieve gender equality and empower all women and girls. MM
Goal 6 Ensure availability and sustainable management of water and sanitation for all. M
Goal 7 Ensure access to affordable, reliable, sustainable and modern energy for all. MM
Goal 8 Promote sustained, inclusive and sustainable economic growth, full and productive employment and decent work for all. MM
Goal 9 Build resilient infrastructure, promote inclusive and sustainable industrialization and foster innovation. MM
Goal Reduce inequality within and among countries. M
10
Goal Make cities and human settlements inclusive, safe, resilient and sustainable. M
11
Goal Ensure sustainable consumption and production patterns. MM
12
Goal Take urgent action to combat climate change and its impacts. M
13
Goal Conserve and sustainably use the oceans, seas and marine resources for sustainable development. M
14
Goal Protect, restore and promote sustainable use of terrestrial ecosystems, sustainably manage forests, combat desertification, and halt and reverse land M
15 degradation and halt biodiversity loss.
Goal Promote peaceful and inclusive societies for sustainable development, provide access to justice for all and build effective, accountable and inclusive MM
16 institutions at all levels.
Goal Strengthen the means of implementation and revitalize the global partnership for sustainable development. M
17
(MM: Micro and Meso Levels - M: Macro Level).
References Crisan, C.M., Borza, A., 2012. Social entrepreneurship and corporate social re-
sponsibilities. Int. Bus. Res. 5 (2), 106e113.
Dacin, P.A., Dacin, M.T., Matear, M., 2010. Social entrepreneurship: why we don't
Alter, K., 2000. Managing the Double Bottom Line: a Business Planning Reference
need a new theory and how we move forward from here. Acad. Manag. Per-
Guide for Social Enterprises. PACT Publications, Washington D.C.
spect. 24 (3), 37e57.
Alvord, S.H., Brown, L.D., Letts, C.W., 2004. Social entrepreneurship and societal
Dahlsrud, A., 2008. How corporate social responsibility is defined: an analysis of 37
transformation. J. Appl. Behavorial Sci. 40 (3), 260e282.
definitions. Corp. Soc. Responsib. Environ. Manag. 15 (1), 1e13.
Austin, J., Reficco, E., 2009. Corporate Social Entrepreneurship (Harvard Business
Daya, S., 2014. Saving the Other: exploring the social in social enterprise. Geoforum
School Working Paper, March).
57, 120e128.
Baumgartner, R.J., 2014. Managing corporate sustainability and CSR: a conceptual
Dees, J.G., Emerson, J., Economy, P., 2001. Enterprising Nonprofits: a Toolkit for
framework combining values, strategies and instruments contributing to sus-
Social Entrepreneurs. s.l., Wiley.
tainable development. Corp. Soc. Responsib. Environ. Manag. 21, 258e271.
Elkington, J., 1999. Cannibals with Forks: Triple Bottom Line of 21st Century Busi-
Bergman, M.M., Leisinger, K., Bergman, Z., Berger, L., 2015. An analysis of the con-
ness. Capstone Publishing Ltd.
ceptual landscape of corporate responsibility in academia. Bus. Prof. Ethics J. 34
Engelke, H., Mauksch, S., Darkow, I.-L., von der Gracht, H.A., 2015. Opportunities for
(2), 1e29.
social enterprise in Germany d Evidence from an expert survey. Technol.
Bocken, N., Short, S., Rana, P., Evans, S., 2014. A literature and practice review to
Forecast. Soc. Change 90, 635e646.
develop sustainable business model archetypes. J. Clean. Prod. 65, 42e56.
Felício, J.A., Gonçalves, H.M., Gonçalves, V. d, 2013. Social value and organizational
Bornstein, D., 2004. How to Change the World: Social Entrepreneurs and the Power
performance in non-profit social organizations: social entrepreneurship, lead-
of New Ideas. Oxford University Press, Oxford.
ership, and socioeconomic context effects. J. Bus. Res. 66, 2139e2146.
Bornstein, D., Davis, S., 2010. Social Entrepreneurship: what Everyone Needs to
Florin, J., Schmidt, E., 2011. Creating shared value in the hybrid venture arena: a
Know? Oxford.
business model innovation perspective. J. Soc. Entrepreneursh. 2 (2), 165e197.
Bowen, H.R., 1953. Social Responsibilities of the Businessman. Harper, NY.
Friede, G., Busch, T., Bassen, A., 2015. ESG and financial performance: aggregated
Braungart, M., McDonough, W., 2002. Cradle to Cradle: Remaking the Way We
evidence from more than 2000 empirical studies. J. Sustain. Finance Invest. 5
Make Things. North Point Press, NY.
(4), 210e233.
Brown, L., 2006. Plan B 2.0: Rescuing a Planet under Stress and a Civilization in
Germak, A.J., Robinson, J.A., 2014. Exploring the motivation of nascent social en-
Trouble. W. W. Norton, NY.
trepreneurs. J. Soc. Entrepreneursh. 5 (1), 5e21.
Carroll, A.B., 1979. A three-dimentional conceptual model of corporate performance.
Global Sustainable Investment Alliance (GSIA), 2013. 2012 Global Sustainable In-
Acad. Manag. Rev. 4 (4), 497e505.
vestment Review. GSIA.
Carroll, A.B., 1991. The pyramid of corporate social responsiblity: toward the moral
Green, J.V., 2013. The Opportunity Canvas Analysis. Venture Artisans Press.
management of organizational stakeholders. Bus. Horizons 34 (4), 39e48.
Hak, T., Janouskova, S., Moldan, B., 2016. Sustainable Development Goals: a need for
Carroll, A.B., 1998. The four faces of corporate citizenship. Bus. Soc. Rev. 100e101,
relevant indicator. Ecol. Indic. 60, 565e573.
1e7.
Hall, J.K., Daneke, G.A., Lenox, M.J., 2010. Sustainable development and entrepre-
Carroll, A.B., Shabana, K.M., 2010. The business case for corporate social re-
neurship: past contributions and future directions. J. Bus. Ventur. 25, 439e448.
sponsibility: a review of concepts, research and practice. Int. J. Manag. Rev. 12
Hammersley, M., 1992. What's Wrong with Ethnography? Routledge.
(1), 85e105.
Herrera, M., 2015. Creating competitive advantage by institutionalizing corporate
Carson, R., 1962. Silent Spring. Houghton Mifflin.
2015. The effect of social, cultural, and social innovation. J. Bus. Res. 68 (7), 1468e1474.
Castan~ o, M.-S., Me
ndez, M.-T., Galindo, M.-A.,
Keijzers, G., 2002. The transition to the sustainable enterprise. J. Clean. Prod. 10,
economic factors on entrepreneurship. J. Bus. Res. 68 (7), 1496e1500.
349e359.
Chen, S., Fan, J., 2011. Measuring corporate social responsibility based on a fuzzy
Kim, S.H., Huarng, K.H., 2011. Winning strategies for innovation and high-
analytical hierarchy process. I.J.Computer Netw. Inf. Secur. 5, 13e22.
technology. J. Bus. Res. 64 (11), 1147e1150.
Crane, A., Matten, D., Moon, J., 2008. Corporations and Citizenship. Cambridge.
Kistruck, G.M., Beamish, P.W., 2010. The interplay of form, structure, and
embeddedness in social intrapreneurship. Entreprenerush. Theory Pract. 34 (4), developing business models for sustainability. J. Clean. Production 102.
735e761. Rexhepi, G., Kurtishi, S., Bexheti, G., 2013. Corporate social responsibility (CSR) and
Kolodinsky, R.W., et al., 2010. Attitudes about corporate social responsibility: innovation the drivers of business growth? Procedia e Soc. Behav. Sci. 75,
business student predictors. J. Bus. Ethics 91 (2), 167e181. 532e541.
Kotler, P., Kartajaya, H., Setiawan, I., 2010. Marketing 3.0: from Products to Cus- Robe rt, K.-H., Schmidt-Bleek, B., Aloisi de Larderel, J., Basile, G., Jansen, J., Kuehr, R.,
tomers to the Human Spirit. John Wiley & Sons, Inc, New Jersey. Wackernagel, M., 2002. Strategic sustainable development - selection, design
Kuckertz, A., Wagner, M., 2010. The influence of sustainability orientation on and synergies of applied tools. J. Clean. Prod. 10, 197e214.
entrepreneurial intentions d Investigating the role of business experience. Robinson, J., 2004. Squaring the circle? some thoughts on the idea of sustainable
J. Bus. Ventur. 25, 524e539. development. Ecol. Econ. 48 (4), 369e384.
Kwon, S.-W., Arenius, P., 2010. Nations of entrepreneurs: a social capital perspec- Roy, M.J., Donaldson, C., Baker, R., Kerr, S., 2014. The potential of social enterprise to
tive. J. Bus. Ventur. 25, 315e330. enhance health and well-being: a model and systematic review. Soc. Sci. Med.
Lans, T., Blok, V., Wesselink, R., 2014. Learning apart and together: towards an in- 123, 182e193.
tegrated competence framework for sustainable entrepreneurship in higher Sachs, J.D., 2012. From Millennium development goals to sustainable development
education. J. Clean. Prod. 62, 37e47. goals. Lancet 379, 2206e2211.
Leadbeater, C., 1997. The Rise of the Social Entrepreneur. Demos, London. Schumpeter, J.A., 1934. The Theory of Economic Development. Harvard University
Lorek, S., Spangenberg, J.H., 2014. Sustainable consumption within a sustainable Press, Cambridge.
economy _ beyond green growth and green economies. J. Clean. Prod. 63, Schumpeter, J.A., 1942. Capitalism, Socialism, and Democracy. Harper & Row, New
33e44. York.
Mackey, J., Sisodia, R., George, B., 2013. Conscious Capitalism: Liberating the Heroic Schumpeter, J.A., 1987. Theorie der wirtschaftlichen Entwicklung. Duncker &
Spirit of Business. Harvard Business Review Press. Humblot GmbH, Berlin.
Martin, Roger L., Osberg, Sally R., 2015. Getting beyond Better: How Social Entre- Schumpeter, J.A., 2002. New Translations from Theorie der wirtschaftlichen
preneurship Works. Harward Business Review Press. Entwicklung. Am. J. Econ. Sociol. 61 (2), 405e437.
Mcintosh, M., 2015. Thinking the Twenty-first Century: Ideas for New Political Sheehy, B., 2015. Defining CSR: problems and solutions. J. Bus. Ethics 131 (3),
Economy. Greenleaf Publishing, UK. 625e648.
Mikami, K., 2014. An alternative framework for the analysis of social enterprises. Silajdzic, I., Kurtagic, S.M., Vucijak, B., 2015. Green entrepreneurship in transition
J. Co-op. Organ. Manag. 2, 92e97. economies: a case study of Bosnia and Herzegovina. J. Clean. Prod. 88, 376e384.
Morris, M., Schindehutte, M., Allen, J., 2005. The entrepreneur's business model: Simo n-Moya, V., Revuelto-Taboada, L., Guerrero, R.F., 2014. Institutional and eco-
toward a unified perspective. J. Bus. Res. 58, 726e735. nomic drivers of entrepreneurship: an international perspective. J. Bus. Res. 67,
Morris, M.H., Webb, J.W., Franklin, R.J., 2011. Understanding the manifestation of 715e721.
entrepreneurial orientation in the non-profit context. Entrepreneursh. Theory Sirsly, C., Lamretz, K., 2008. When does a corporate social responsibility initiative
Pract. 35 (5), 947e971. provide a first-mover advantage? Bus. Soc. 47, 343e369.
Nicholls, A., 2006. Social Entrepreneurship: New Models of Sustainable Social Steyaert, C., Hjorth, D., 2006. Entrepreneurship as Social Change: a Third Move-
Change. Oxford University Press, NY. ments in Entrepreneurship Book. Edward Elgar Publishing Limited, North-
Nicholls, A., 2010. The legitimacy of social entrepreneurship: reflexive isomorphism ampton, US.
in a pre-paradigmatic field. Entrepreneursh. Theory Pract. 611e633. Teasdale, S., Lyon, F., Baldock, R., 2013. Playing with numbers: a methodological
Neron, P.-Y., Norman, W., 2008. Citizenship Inc. e do we really want businesses to critique of the social enterprise growth myth. J. Soc. Entrepreneursh. 4 (2),
be good corporate citizens? Bus. Ethics Q. 18 (1), 1e26. 113e131.
Ostrom, E., 1999. Coping with tragedies of the commons. Annu. Rev. Political Sci. 2, The Institute for Social Entrepreneurs, 2008. Evolution of the Social Enterprize In-
493e535. dustry: a Chronolgy of Key Events.
Ostrom, E., 2010. Polycentric systems for coping with collective action and global Vickers, I., 2010. Social Enterprise and the Environment: a Review of the Literature.
environmental change. Glob. Environ. Change 20, 550e557. Third Sector Research Centre.
Parrish, B.D., 2010. Sustainability-driven entrepreneurship: principles of organiza- Visser, W., 2010. The age of Responsibility: CSR 2.0 and the new DNA of business.
tion design. J. Bus. Ventur. 25, 510e523. J. Bus. Syst. Gov. Ethics 5 (3), 7e22.
Perrini, F., 2006. The New Social Entrepreneurship: what Awaits Social Entrepre- Visser, W., 2015. Sustainable Frontiers: Unlocking Change through Business, Lead-
neurship Ventures? Edward Elgar, Cheltenham, U.K. ership and Innovation. Greenleaf Publishing, UK.
Pink, D.H., 2006. A Whole New Mind: where Right-brainers Will Rule the Future. Waddell, S., 2000. New institution for the practive of corporate citizenship: his-
Riverhead books, New York. torical, intersectional, and developmental perspectives. Bus. Soc. Rev. 105 (1),
Pinte
r, L., Alma ssy, D., Antonio, E., Hatakeyama, S., Niestroy, I., Olsen, S., 107e126.
Pulawska, G., 2014. Sustainable Development Goals and Indicators for a Small Waddock, S.A., Graves, S.B., 1997. The corporate social performance financial per-
Planet: Part I: Methodology and Goal Framework. Asia-Europe Foundation formance link. Strategic Manag. J. 18 (4), 303e319.
(ASEF), Singapore. Ward, B., 1966. Spaceship Earth. Columbia University Press.
Porter, M.E., Kramer, M.R., 2011. Creating Shared Value. Harvard Business Review, WCED., 1987. Report of the World Commission on Environment and Development:
pp. 1e17. Our Common Future (UN).
Prahalad, C.K., 2004. The Fortune at the Bottom of the Pyramid, vol. 26. Wharton Woolthuis, R.K., Hooimeijer, F., Bossink, B., Mulder, G., Brouwer, J., 2013. Institu-
School Publishing. tional entrepreneurship in sustainable urban development: dutch successes as
Rahdari, A.H., 2016. Developing a fuzzy corporate performance rating system: a inspiration for transformation. J. Clean. Prod. 50, 91e100.
petrochemical industry case study. J. Clean. Prod. 131, 421e434. York, J.G., Venkataraman, S., 2010. The entrepreneureenvironment nexus: uncer-
Punch, K.F., 2009. Introduction to Research Methods in Education. SAGE tainty, innovation, and allocation. J. Bus. Ventur. 25, 449e463.
Publications. Yunus, M., 2008. Creating a World without Poverty: Social Business and the Future
Rahdari, A.H., Anvary Rostamy, A.A., 2015. Designing a general set of sustainability of Capitalism. Public Affairs, New York.
indicators at the corporate level. J. Clean. Prod. 108, 757e771. Zott, C., Amit, R., Massa, L., 2011. The business model: recent developments and
Ramalingam, B., Scriven, K., Foley, C., 2009. Innovations in international humani- future research. J. Manag. 37 (4), 1019e1042.
tarian action. In: Ramalingam, B., et.al. (Eds.), 8th Review of Humanitarian Zsuzsanna, S.K., Herman, E., 2012. Innovative entrepreneurship for economic
Action. ANLAP, pp. 1e88. development in EU. Procedia Econ. Finance 3, 268e275.
Rauter, R., Jonker, J., Baumgartner, R.J., 2015. Going One's own way: drivers in

Achieving Sustainability Through Schumpe

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Achieving Sustainability Through Schumpe

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Achieving Sustainability Through Schumpe

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Journal of Cleaner Production 137 (2016) 347e360

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Journal of Cleaner Production

Achieving sustainability through Schumpeterian social

1. Introduction 1970s through a series of environmental conferences, the concerns

Embedded within Corporate Social Scaled up

Fig. 1. SE to sustainability canvas.

Fig. 2. Social impact and sustainability of institutions at different levels of analysis.

Fig. 3. Integration vs. Maturity Levels.

Fig. 4. Best practices for the agents of change.

The following table (Table A1) provides an overview of the

Goals Description Level

Goal 1 End poverty in all its forms everywhere. M

(MM: Micro and Meso Levels - M: Macro Level).

You might also like