International Journal of Advances in Social Sciences.

6(1): January- March, 2018

ISSN 2347-5153 (Print) Available online at

2454-2679 (Online) www.anvpublication.org
DOI: 10.5958/2454-2679.2018.00001.4
International Journal of Advances in
Vol. 06| Issue-01|
January- March 2018 Social Sciences

RESEARCH ARTICLE

Organisational Culture in Social Entrepreneurship Ventures: A

Consideration from Practitioners Perspective
Dr. Mir Shahid Satar
Department of Management Studies, University of Kashmir (South Campus) Anantnag Jammu and Kashmir,
India
*Corresponding Author E-mail: mirshahid261@gmail.com

ABSTRACT:
The dimensions of organisational culture have been found to be associated with structure, resources and
capabilities of the organisations. Besides influence the decisions and behaviors of employees, a strong
organisational culture helps in enhancing the capabilities of the employees. While, there are myriad of studies
examining the organisational culture in-profit organisations, the studies analyzing the facets of organisational
culture in social enterprises are meager. Since, social enterprises are characterized by distinctive features; the
management of organisational culture poses distinct and substantial challenges within such enterprises. The
study pioneers in exploring the organisational culture dimension within social entrepreneurship ventures in light
of the findings of the survey of 146 social enterprises in India.
The study while identifying the cultural challenges in social enterprises identified social business values and
strong social mission as two vital components of social entrepreneurship culture. The findings while having
pertinent managerial implications for social entrepreneurship practitioners, expectedly advances the literature on
social entrepreneurship as well.

KEYWORDS: Social Entrepreneurship; Organisational Culture; Social Enterprise; Social Business Values.

INTRODUCTION: A strong organisational culture while helping in

The dimensions of organisational culture have been
found to be associated with structure, resources and
capabilities of the organisations. The cultures of
organisations have been identified as mainly based on
cognitive systems and thus provide valuable insights in
learning how the people within organisations think and
make decisions (Pettigrew, 1979). Thus, culture has been
interpreted mainly as the collective thinking of minds
(Hofstede, 1980); set of values and behaviors (Schein,
1990) which guide the organization’s success.
Received on 11.02.2018 Modified on 28.02.2018
Accepted on 11.03.2018 © A&V Publications All right reserved
Int. J. Ad. Social Sciences. 2018; 6(1):35-41.
DOI: 10.5958/2454-2679.2018.00001.4
35
establishing an enterprising atmosphere, maximize the
capabilities of the employees (Kim, et. al., 2010).
Through influencing the decisions and behaviors of
employees, a strong organisational culture helps in better
understanding of organisational events and objectives on
the part of employees. Alternatively, it leads to increase
in the effectiveness and efficiency of the employees.
Further, cultural dimensions work as ‘social glues’ in
integrating the shared values of corporate culture.
Consequently, it enhances the self-confidence and
commitment of the people thereby reduces the job stress
and improves the ethical behavior of employees. Thus,
strong cultural values would not only ensure
unidirectional flow of organisational energy but will also
ease the process of positive development within
organisations.
 International Journal of Advances in Social Sciences. 6(1): January- March, 2018
Over the time, there has been substantial growth in the
literature examining different facets of organisational
culture within the private sector. However, the
dimensions and elements of the organisational culture
within social enterprises are yet to be explored. In
consideration of distinctive features (discussed later) of
social enterprise business models, crafting an effective
culture within such enterprises is essential for creating
contexts, circumstances, and opportunities to ensure that
the social enterprise achieves its dual (social and
economic) objectives. Therefore, the present study was
undertaken with the primary objective of identifying the
critical components of organisational culture within
social entrepreneurship ventures. The central questions
that underline the research are: what are the distinctive
attributes of organisational culture within social
enterprises? What shall be the key factors that will
structure the thoughts of decision makers in strategy
formulation for social entrepreneurship cultures? The
outcomes of the research will accordingly enable the
social entrepreneurship practitioners in aligning their
useful energies towards the crucial elements of
organisational culture, while saving their considerable
amount of their precious time.
THEORETICAL BACKGROUND:
SOCIAL ENTREPRENEURSHIP:
Social entrepreneurship has become the topic of
momentous attraction for the academicians, practitioners
and the researchers worldwide (Dees, 2008; Korosec and
Berman, 2006; Satar and John, 2016; in press; Satar et
al., 2016; Satar, 2015; 2016). Nevertheless, social
entrepreneurship as a typical emerging field of research
has ill-defined boundaries and lacks conceptual clarity
(Hill et al., 2010). The research approaches so far have
mainly been case study and qualitative based with an
explicit focus over defining the social entrepreneur
individuals, the motivation behind their undertakings
(Nga and Shamuganathan, 2010), its outcomes
(McDonald, 2007), and forms of social enterprises
(Townsend and Hart, 2008). Thus there is little empirical
research on how social enterprises are developed
(Haugh, 2007).
The multidimensional nature and diversity in the
mission, strategies, structures, and processes of social
enterprises have rendered them as challenging businesses
to manage (Peattie and Morley, 2010). Although there is
growing number of studies manifesting the interest of
business and management scholars in social enterprise
discourse, the focus till date have tended to be over
defining the definitional controversies or the differences
between the social enterprises and commercial ventures
(Mair and Marti, 2006). Very scant studies have
attempted to examine the strategic aspects of such
ventures. Nonetheless, the strategic management of such
social enterprises poses distinct and substantial
36
challenges (Satar and John, 2016; in press).
Nevertheless, efforts are being continuously made to
provide valuable foundation to move the field forward in
this direction (Peredo and McLean, 2006; Satar, 2016; in
press). The key issues that would affect the dynamic
functioning of the social enterprises in achieving their
social and economic objectives have been brought to
light by many researchers from time to time (Satar and
John, 2016; Wronka, 2013).
THE DISCOURSE ON SOCIAL ENTERPRISES:
The social entrepreneurs are seen to lead some ‘unique
endeavors’ through the establishment of some social
purpose organizations. Although, entrepreneurs in
general do launch or operate an organisation but it is not
assumed to be a necessity (Peredo, 2003). Likewise, all
business enterprises and start-ups are entrepreneurial in
nature (Carland, et al., 1984), but there are good
numbers of reasons to say that all entrepreneurs don’t
launch new organizations (Shane and Venkataraman,
2000).A breadth of literature explicitly cites the success
stories of social entrepreneurs having established some
for-profit or not-for profit ventures. Furthermore, it is a
universal observation that after perceiving the
opportunities of social value creation, the social
entrepreneurs restlessly look for some sustainable formal
structures to carry forward and actualize their mission of
social transformation. This goes in line with Sullivan et
al., (2003) who believe that social entrepreneurship leads
to the establishment of new social enterprises and the
continued innovation in existing ones. The literature
mostly demonstrates the use of innovative approaches by
the individuals to solve the social needs (Grenier, 2003),
often through non-profit organizations, but also through
the for-profit sector as well (Alex, 2006). In order to
realize their social goals associated with either public or
non-profit sectors, social enterprises have been identified
as applying the business strategies from the private
sector. Thus, they emerge as blended or hybrid forms
(Defourny and Nyssens, 2006; Satar and John, 2016).
Alternatively, social enterprises have been recognized as
organisations existing between public and private
organisational forms. In a way, they possess the
characteristics of both the types in a blended form.
Meanwhile, the concept of social enterprise is being
referred to as the innovative side of certain social
enterprises as well as the financial risks they are taking
(Young, 2001). Here in this case, the concept of social
enterprise enclaves a broad spectrum of organizations,
ranging from pure non-profit organizations engaged in a
social mission supporting commercial activity to for-
profit ones operating some socially beneficial activities
(Kerlin, 2006). Thus, such socially inclined
organizations can take the form of either non-profit or
for-profit social enterprises depending upon the
perceived benefits of each form and the legal
 International Journal of Advances in Social Sciences. 6(1): January- March, 2018

environment of the country in which the social definition of social enterprise. It is not, however, the
entrepreneur operates. general definition of social enterprise that appears to be
problematic, but rather the specific ways that can be used
While, social enterprises represent a relatively under- to identify and measure social ventures on a broad scale.
developed field of thought and knowledge, their role is Thus, it is tough to metricize the contribution made by
experiencing an ‘explosion’ both in theory and practice. social enterprises due to the reason that the benefits
Social enterprises have been acknowledged as fetched by social enterprises are predominantly of non-
possessing vast potential in addressing a wide variety of monetary nature and thus difficult to value.
social welfare issues (Alter, 2006) and this potential
seems to be enticingly growing worldwide. There is THE INTRICACY OF SOCIAL ENTERPRISE
significant convergence over the thought of social MANAGEMENT:
enterprises as adopting some financially sustainable Unlike their commercial counterparts, social enterprises
strategies to realize unique social aims and combat a represent a paradigm shift by leading a renewed bottom-
range of societal problems. The social aims they pursue up approach of development. The simultaneous pursuing
and the social problems they solve can range from of both the financial and social goals often creates
substantial alleviation of poverty, unemployment, tension while taking the strategic operational decisions
deprivation, social exclusion, inequalities in health care of the enterprise (Boschee, 2006). Social enterprises
services, corruption, high incidences of crime, have to managing double bottom line which necessitates
inequalities in wealth distribution, drug abuse, a careful balance when striving to build and maintain
constellation of education, economic, political, cultural competitive advantages. Failure to maintain balance
problems, environment regeneration and any undesirable between the social and economic objectives often
outcome which can ‘stuck’ a society becomes the target threatens the organisational sustainability (Rubin and
of social enterprise’s activities. The world asserts that Stankiewicz, 2001). Thus, maintaining an appropriate
social enterprises can prove to be a power to drag the balance between social impact and financial viability
society to new heights of developments. They can maintaining an appropriate balance between social
permeate social sector overwhelmingly and can play a impact and financial viability is critical aspect of social
critical role in mobilizing the resources and directing enterprise management. Nevertheless, while there is
them towards a desirable change. Societies can be growing number of studies manifesting the interest of
redeveloped with these well planned and established business and management scholars in social enterprise,
centers and especially their role in the developing the focus till date have tended to be over defining the
economies (e-g India) can go beyond accounting. definitional controversies or the differences between the
Leadbeater, (1997) for example, argues that while it is social enterprises and commercial ventures (e.g. Mair
possible to be a successful entrepreneur without being and Marti, 2006). Very scant studies have attempted to
innovative, social entrepreneurs almost always use examine the strategic aspects of such ventures.
innovative methods: Social entrepreneurs will be one of Nonetheless, the strategic management of such
the most important sources of innovation. Social enterprisesposesdistinct and substantial challenges.
entrepreneurs identify underutilized resources, people,
buildings, equipment and find ways of putting them to The variegated nature of social issues themselves poses
use to satisfy unmet social needs. Although, the challenges to their solvers and thus to effectively serve
commercial non-profits ventures have pioneered the such pressing social issues often demands fundamental
concept of social enterprise, the for-profit ventures have alterations in the economic, political and social systems
rightly carried over some of those insights. This that underpin current stable states (Sarah et al., 2002). In
modified and redesigned role of social enterprises is now the pursuit of measuring the ‘social entrepreneurship’,
attracting significant attention at the policy levels, one of the greatest challenges identified so far is to find a
primarily due to their assumed potential to contribute to means of measuring both the levels of social
social, economic and environmental regeneration. entrepreneurial activity and the impact that social
However, this heightened interest has been mainly policy entrepreneurship fetches in terms of macro variables of
driven than research-led, and consequently many claims job-creation, poverty reduction etc. (Harding, 2004). In
have been proposed regarding the potential of social order to critically apply and thoughtfully practice the
enterprises towards contributing to social capacity model of social enterprise towards fulfilling their social
building, responding to unmet needs, creating new forms mission, the social entrepreneurs or the social workers in
of work (Amin et al., 2003), promoting local general have to understand its relevance in individual
development, defining new goods and services, fostering and community empowerments.
integration, creating jobs, improving attractiveness of an
industry and locality, empowerment, and consolidating For the purpose of measuring the activities of social
local assets (ECOTEC, 2001). Again, the problem is enterprises, one has to be necessarily capable of first
chiefly the result of the ambiguity lying with the identifying ventures generating revenues which are
37
 International Journal of Advances in Social Sciences. 6(1): January- March, 2018

principally reinvested in their social purpose business orsake of acquiring revenue targets (ibid). Thus,
invested in meeting their community betterment goals. maintaining the trade-off between social impact and
Thus, a central challenge lies with identifying and financial viability often represents a complex interplay
analyzing data from appropriate samples (McKenny et and poses the managerial challenge of balancing
al., 2011). The preceding delinquency arises primarily between mission and income (Foster and Bradach,
due to the multidimensional nature of social enterprises, 2005). Related to this tension between the social and
as well as the significant diversity prevailing in their financial goals, the literature suggests that ‘the
mission, structures, strategies and processes (Satar and difficulties of balancing for-profit and non-profit
John, 2016). principles and cultures’’ serves as the biggest threat the
survival of the social enterprises (Rubin and
Indian markets have been and are continuously Stankiewicz, 2001).
witnessing an ample number of entrepreneurial activities
with some social purpose. Such activities carrying seeds Thus, in light of above the culture of the social enterprise
of social development are being established and has to take care of specific dilemmas and thus may differ
managed in diverse geographical contexts and on many dimensions from that of traditional businesses.
organizational forms. However, they have marginally Many such cultural differences between not-for-profit
been receiving the attention of researchers and policy and commercial organisations have been highlighted by
makers. Surprisingly, majority of the Indian social different authors from time to time (Boschee, 2006;
entrepreneurial efforts stay with meager results. They go Weerawardena and Mort, 2006; Dees, 2007, 1998;
unorganized and unnoticed by dint of poor support and Emerson and Twersky, 1996). The differences
recognition they are getting from multiple agents. They highlighted by these authors mainly consist of
stay with financial difficulty on a self-employed scale. ‘‘community participation versus industry competition,
Here we argue that while there is mounting number of ‘‘mission related bottom line versus profit focused
social issues prevailing in Indian markets, they bottom line, ‘‘grants orientation versus market
simultaneously offer some powerful opportunities for orientation, ‘‘philanthropic versus commercial values’’
social enterprise efforts to spur up. and varying degrees of risk tolerance.

ORGANISATIONAL CULTURE AND FIRM
PERFORMANCE:
Over the time, there has been substantial growth in the
literature showing the positive correlation of
organisational culture with organisational performance
(Moshe and Lerner, 2006; Wheeler and Thomson, 2003).
The organization’s cultural content has been deemed
important for achieving the higher levels of
organisational performance. Denison (1984) analyzed 34
American firms and correlated the five years
organisational data with the firm performances. In his
study, he found that organisational culture significantly
affected the performance of these firms. Further, there
have been claims of organisational culture influencing
the competitive advantage of firms (Reichers and
Schneider, 1990; Kotter and Heskett, 1992).
SOCIAL ENTERPRISES AND THE
ORGANISATIONAL CULTURE:
The renewed interest in social enterprises arose
particularly because they combine the social missions
with the business acumen thereby unlocking new
entrepreneurial opportunity with a high customer focus.
However, they remain driven by a strong commitment to
public benefit unlike the business profit maximization of
private sector. Nevertheless, the pursuit of social good
may sometimes directly conflict with the pursuit of profit
(Foster and Bradach, 2005). Even the literature has cited
many incidences where the social enterprises had to
settle for decreased social/environmental impact for the
38
Thus, social enterprises have to take care of some
challenging cultural environment which may have
ramifications over the type of the people the social
enterprise is going to engage with. Hiring people with
business skills and market focus may not suffice (Dees,
1998). The above differences in culture have been
regarded as noteworthy because failing to balance them
can be a source of great threat to the survival of SE
(Rubin and Stankiewicz, 2001). The organisation must
be capable of cherishing a social entrepreneurial culture
which can integrate the skills and values of people in line
with its social goals.
While as the interest in measurement of non-financial
outcome has grown tremendously and the organisational
culture has simultaneously been recognized as playing
an important role in holding together that non-financial
orientation within organisations. Although, the
complexity of cultural dimensions is tremendous for a
SE, their role in determining the success of social
enterprise is equally high. For example; in a recent study
of determining the critical success factors of 185 social
enterprises in South Korea, Yong Tae Kim, et. at., 2010)
found that the organisational culture is significantly
affecting the social and economic outcome of social
enterprises under consideration. Further, in a qualitative
analysis of factors affecting the launch of social
enterprises by not-for-profit organisations in Alberta;
social enterprise culture has been found to be positively
affecting the social enterprise success (Andres, 2013).
 International Journal of Advances in Social Sciences. 6(1): January- March, 2018

METHODOLOGY: map to the cultural management within their commercial

The present paper is a part of larger research project on counterparts. Nonetheless, the practitioners in social
social entrepreneurship in India (Satar and John, in entrepreneurship ventures confront many dilemmas
press).The 2016 social entrepreneurship survey was similar to the ones faced by the HR managers of small
conducted in India with the objective of identifying the and emerging firms in general. For example; like the
social entrepreneurship critical success factors in Indian case with small enterprises, the prime source of HR
social enterprises. The study primarily strived to identify capital in social enterprises is the entrepreneur himself.
and analyze the factors that contribute to social As such there is disorientation towards creating formal
entrepreneurship success in social enterprises. Besides cultures within such organisations. As identified by the
reviewing extant literature, the researchers examined survey, such disorientation is partially attributable to the
privileged documents of the selected social enterprises, liabilities emerging from their newness and dominantly
held in-depth interviews as well as carried out several to the lack of awareness about managing people
validation exercises (seminars) in Delhi, India. strategically. Arguably, the latter reason obscures the
Accordingly, we asked a broad spectrum of social entrepreneurs from realizing the potential of
entrepreneurs and organizations working on social issues organisational culture in driving the bigger goals of
across India to tell us which factors are critical in social value creation mission. Besides, it was found that
determining the success of their ventures. Our final since job descriptions are not laid down properly, this
sample included 146 SE’s which are engaged in diverse gives rise to role ambiguity within their employees
social entrepreneurship activities across different social which hampers build-up of effective cultures.
settings within India. The researcher carried out field-
based research by disseminating and collecting data on a The delve deep interviews have revealed that the leaders
structured questionnaire from November 2015 to of surveyed social enterprises are passionate about the
December 2016. The statistical analysis of the cause and most are good at the maximum of the tasks
questionnaire was conducted through ranking and factor they undertake. They are rightly helping their enterprise
analysis. Further, several post survey interviews were navigate more esoteric and humanistic topics to drive
also conducted with the select SE’s. The overall research tangible and real results through people. Interestingly,
process was guided by a general framework which was we found them apt at generating improved levels of trust
subsequently adjusted and refined to provide a structured among all enterprise beneficiaries’.
map for investigating the individual critical success
factors and their different levels of contribution to social Consequently, the factors associated with organisational
entrepreneurship success (Satar and John, 2016, in culture namely; strong social business values and strong
press). social mission are essential in order to take care of some
challenging cultural environment which may have
The survey endorsed the notion that organisational ramifications over the type of the people the social
culture with its various associated elements provides the enterprise is going to engage with. Hiring people with
requisite key managerial support towards social value business skills and market focus may not suffice (Dees,
creation mission of social enterprises. Nonetheless, the 1998). Thus a sense of strong social business values is
existence of the double or triple bottom line approaches necessary in order to glue together people to maintain
makes the cultural decisions distinctively difficult for a their commitment and dedication to venture success.
social enterprise than it is for either commercial profit or Overall, the finding of the survey is moderately in
traditional not-for-profit ones. Interestingly, the survey parallel with the study outcomes of authors like Moshe
while identifying many organisational cultural and Lerner, (2006); Saa-Pe’re and Garcia-Falcon,
challenges in social enterprises, discovered two unique (2002); Rubin and Stankiewicz, (2001); Kim, et al.,
dimensions namely; strong social business values and (2010) who have argued for the positive influence of
social mission, as implicitly regulating the cultural organisational culture on organisational performance and
functions within such firms. While the two dimensions competitive advantage of firms.
originally stem from the hybrid nature of social
entrepreneurship business models, they plausibly have CONCLUSION:
profound implications in navigating many cultural Social entrepreneurship as a social problem solving
challenges of small businesses in general. endeavor, is emerging as a socially innovative business
model for the required social transformation vis-à-vis
ORGANISATIONAL CULTURE IN SOCIAL socio-economic development. Nonetheless, social
ENTERPRISES -CONCLUSIVE OVERVIEW IN entrepreneurship is having fragmented literature and
LIGHT OF THE SURVEY FINDINGS: there is lack of consensus regarding the framework and
The management of culture within social enterprises, theory of social entrepreneurship on a global level.
while characteristically differs from management within Besides, while social enterprises are carrying out the
large or established organizations also doesn’t clearly daunting tasks of social entrepreneurship, nothing much
39
 International Journal of Advances in Social Sciences. 6(1): January- March, 2018
has been researched towards their management.
Unlike the traditional top-down approach of
development, social enterprises represent a paradigm
shift by leading a renewed bottom-up approach of
development. While as the distinctiveness of their
business models can emerge as strength, they
concurrently pose some unique challenges in their
strategic management. For example, unlike commercial
social enterprises have to managing double bottom line
which necessitates a careful balance when striving to
build and maintain competitive advantages. The
difficulties of balancing for-profit and non-profit
principles and cultures serve as the biggest threat to the
survival of social enterprises. Therefore, such enterprises
must be capable of cherishing a social entrepreneurial
culture which can integrate the skills and values of
people in line with its social goals. While there are
abundant studies examining the organisational culture of
for-profit firms, social entrepreneurship culture and
knowledge of its related facets is fragmented and
absolutely imprecise and incomplete.
Considering the immense role organisational culture
plays in regulating the commitment, performance and,
ethical behavior of employees, the present study
attempted to explore the dimension of organisational
culture in social enterprises. In the background of a
survey, the study identified ‘social business values’ with
a ‘strong dedication to social mission’ as unique
dimensions of managing culture within social
enterprises.
Accordingly, the study suggested that social enterprises
must cherish an organizational culture manifesting the
strong social business values. The espoused cultural
values will expectedly serve as ‘social glues’ in
integrating the skills and values of people in line with the
social enterprise’s bottom of pyramid goals. The finding
moderately corresponds with the study outcomes of
authors like Authority (2007); Kim, at el., (2010);
Moshe and Lerner, (2006). Further, the factor of strong
dedication to social mission finds its legitimacy on
account of the fact that the people joining social
enterprises must be having a total dedication to the
venture success with a passion for solving social issues.
Further, a strong dedication to social mission prevents
‘mission drift’ in social entrepreneurs (Satar and John,
2016).While social enterprises mainly drive results
through people, it rightly behooves the practitioners to
work towards establishing formal organisational cultural
practices. However, in situations filled with the liabilities
of enterprise smallness and newness, the social
enterprise leaders can stand greatly benefited by
optimizing the above two unique functions. Upholding
an organisational culture with strong social values will
ensure the required level of employee motivation and
40
dedication required to work both in non-profit and for-
profit context simultaneously.
REFERENCES:
1. Alex, N. (2006). Social Entrepreneurship: New Models of
sustainable social change. Oxford University Press.
2. Alter, S. K. (2006). Social enterprise models and their mission
and money relationships. Social Entrepreneurship: New Models
of Sustainable Social Change, 28, 205-232.
3. Amin, A., Cameron, A., and Hudson, R. (2003). Placing the
Social Economy. Routledge.
4. Andres, J. (2013). Critical success factors for non-profit
organisations starting social enterprises. Master degree Thesis
submitted to University of Calgary, Haskayne School of business,
Alberta.
5. Authority, G. L. (2007). Social Enterprises in London: A review
of London Annual Business Survey (LABS) Evidence. London:
GLA.
6. Boschee, J. (2006) ‘Strategic marketing for social entrepreneurs’,
Retrieved from http://www.socialent.org/pdfs/Strategic
Marketing.pdf (accessed October 24, 2015).
7. Carland, J. W., Hoy, F., Boulton, W. R., and Carland, J. A. C.
(1984). Differentiating entrepreneurs from small business
owners: A conceptualization. Academy of Management Review,
9(2), 354-359.
8. Dees, J. (1998). Enterprising Non-profits. Harvard Business
Review, 76(1), 54--67.
9. Dees, J. G. (2008). Philanthropy and enterprise: Harnessing the
power of business and social entrepreneurship for development.
Innovations, 3(3), 119-132.
10. Dees, J. (2007).Taking Social Entrepreneurship Seriously.
Society, 44(3), 24--‐31.
11. Defourny, J. and Nyssens, M. (2006) in Nyssens, M. (Ed.), Social
Enterprise: At the Crossroads of Market, Public Policies and
Civil Society, Routledge, London, pp. 3-26.
12. Denison, D. R. (1984). Bringing corporate culture to the bottom
line. Organizational Dynamics, 13(2), 5-22.
13. ECOTEC. (2001). External evaluation of the Third System and
Employment Pilot Action, Ecotec Research and Consulting
Limited, Final Report, August. Referred to in OECD 2003.
Birmingham England.
14. Emerson, J., and Twerksy, F. (Eds.). (1996). New social
entrepreneurs: The success, challenge and lessons of non-profit
enterprise creation. San Francisco: Roberts Foundation,
Homeless Economic Development Fund.
15. Foster, W., and Bradach, J. (2005). Should nonprofit seek profits.
Harvard Business Review, 83(2), 92-100.
16. Grenier, P. (2003). Reclaiming enterprise for the social good: The
political climate for social entrepreneurship in UK. In 32nd
Annual ARNOVA Conference, Denver, CO.
17. Harding, R. (2004). Social enterprise: the new economic engine?.
Business Strategy Review, 15(4), 39-43.
18. Haugh, H. (2007). Community‐led social venture creation.
Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 31(2), 161-182.
19. Hill, T. L., Kothari, T. H., and Shea, M. (2010). Patterns of
meaning in the social entrepreneurship literature: a research
platform. Journal of Social Entrepreneurship, 1(1), 5-31.
20. Hofstede, G. (1980). Culture’s consequences: National
differences in thinking and organizing. Beverly Hills, Calif.:
Sage.
21. Kerlin, J. (2006). Social Enterprise in the United States and
Europe: Understanding and learning from the differences,
Voluntas,17(3),246-262.
22. Kim, Y.T., Woo, J.L, David, Y.C (2010). An empirical study of
factors affecting the performance of social enterprises in South
Korea. One lmu drive, los angeles CA 90045 (310) 338 2344;
dchoi@lmu.edu.
23. Kim, Y.T., Woo, J.L, David, Y.C (2010). An empirical study of
factors affecting the performance of social enterprises in South
Korea. One lmu drive, los angeles CA 90045 (310) 338 2344;
 International Journal of Advances in Social Sciences. 6(1): January- March, 2018

dchoi@lmu.edu. Psychologist, Vol. 45 No. 2, pp. 109-19.

24. Korosec, R. L., and Berman, E. M. (2006). Municipal support for 46. Shane, S., and Venkataraman. (2000). The Promise of
social entrepreneurship. Public Administration Review, 66(3), Entrepreneurship as a Field of Research. Academy of
448-462. Management, 25(1), 217-226.
25. Kotter, J.P. and Heskett, J.L. (1992), Corporate Culture and 47. Sullivan Mort, G., Weerawardena, J., and Carnegie, K. (2003).
Performance, Macmillan, New York, NY. Social entrepreneurship: Towards conceptualisation.
26. Leadbeater, C. (1997). The Rise of the Social Entrepreneur (No. International Journal of Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector
25). Demos. Marketing, 8(1), 76-88.
27. Mair, J., and Marti, I. (2006). Social entrepreneurship research: A 48. Townsend, D. and Hart, T. (2008). Perceived institutional
source of explanation, prediction, and delight. Journal of world ambiguity and the choice of organizational form in social
business, 41(1), 36-44. entrepreneurial ventures, Entrepreneurship: Theory and Practice,
28. McDonald, R. E. (2007). An investigation of innovation in 32(4), 685-700.
nonprofit organizations: The role of organizational mission. 49. Weerawardena, J., and Mort, G. S. (2006). Investigating social
Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 36(2), 256-281. entrepreneurship: A multidimensional model. Journal of world
29. McKenny, A. F., Short, J. C., Zachary, M. A., and Payne, G. T. business, 41(1), 21-35.
(2011). Assessing espoused goals in private family firms using 50. Wheeler, D., McKague, K., Thomson, J., Davies, R., Medalye, J.,
content analysis. Family Business Review, 0894486511420422. and Prada, M. (2005). Creating sustainable local enterprise
30. Moshe, S., and Lerner, M. (2006). Gauging the Success of Social networks. MIT Sloan Management Review, 47(1), 33-40
Ventures Initiated by Individual Social Entrepreneurs, Journal of 51. Wronka, M. (2013), “Analyzing the success of social enterprises:
World Business, 41(1), 6-20. critical success factors perspective”, In Active Citizenship by
31. Nga, J. K. H., and Shamuganathan, G. (2010). The influence of Knowledge Management and Innovation: Proceedings of the
personality traits and demographic factors on social Management, Knowledge and Learning International Conference
entrepreneurship start up intentions. Journal of Business Ethics, Zardar Croatia, 19(21) June 2013, pp. 593-605. To Know Press,
95(2), 259-282. Bangkok.
32. Peattie, K., and Dr. Morley, A. (2010).Social Enterprises: 52. Young, D. R. (2001). Organizational identity in nonprofit
Diversity and dynamics, contexts and contributions. ESRC Centre organizations: Strategic and structural implications. Nonprofit
for Business Relationships, Accountability, Sustanability and Management and Leadership, 12(2), 139-157.
Society 4(10),(BRASS)
33. Peredo, A. M. (2003). Emerging strategies against poverty the
road less traveled. Journal of Management Inquiry, 12(2), 155-
166.
34. Peredo, A. M., and McLean, M. (2006). Social entrepreneurship:
A critical review of the concept. Journal of world business, 41(1),
56-65.
35. Pettigrew, A. M. (1979). On studying organizational cultures.
Administrative Science Quarterly, 24(4), 570-581.
36. Reichers, A. E., and Schneider, B. (1990). Climate and culture:
An evolution of constructs. In B. Schneider (Ed.), Organizational
Climate and Culture, pp. 1-39, San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass
Publishers.
37. Rubin, J. S., and Stankiewicz, G. M. (2001). The Los Angeles
Community Development Bank: The Possible Pitfalls of
Public‐Private Partnerships. Journal of Urban Affairs, 23(2), 133-
153.
38. Saá-Pérez, P. D., and Garcia-Falcon, J. M. (2002). A resource-
based view of human resource management and organizational
capabilities development. International Journal of Human
Resource Management, 13(1), 123-140.
39. Sarah, H., Alvord, L., David, B., and Christine, W. Letts. (2002).
Social Entrepreneurship and Social Transformation: An
Exploratory Study. Working Paper Series no. 2002.15, Hauser
Center for Nonprofit Organizations and the Kennedy School of
Government, Harvard University.
40. Satar, M. S. (2015). ‘Social entrepreneurship: Solution to topical
problems’, The Rising Kashmir, 31st Oct. 2015. Available at
http://www.risingkashmir.com/news/social-entrepreneurship-
solution-to-topical-problems[Accessed: October 31st 2015).
41. Satar, M. S. (2016). A Policy Framework for Social
Entrepreneurship in India, IOSR Journal of Business and
Management (IOSR-JBM), 18(9), 30-43.
42. Satar, M. S., and John, S. (2016). A conceptual model of critical
success factors for Indian social enterprises. World Journal of
Entrepreneurship, Management and Sustainable Development,
12(2), 113-138.
43. Satar, M. S., John, S., and Siraj, S. (2016). Use of marketing in
social enterprises. International Journal of Social
Entrepreneurship and Innovation, 4(1), 16-24.
44. Satar, M.S., and John, S. (in press). The critical success factors of
social entrepreneurship in India: An empirical study. Int. J.
Entrepreneurship and Small Business.
45. Schein, E. (1990), “Organizational culture”, American

41