Journal of Social Entrepreneurship

ISSN: 1942-0676 (Print) 1942-0684 (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rjse20

Performance of Social Enterprises in the Czech

Republic

Alexandr Asmalovskij, Tomáš Sadílek, Vít Hinčica & Michala Mizerová

To cite this article: Alexandr Asmalovskij, Tomáš Sadílek, Vít Hinčica & Michala Mizerová (2018):
Performance of Social Enterprises in the Czech Republic, Journal of Social Entrepreneurship

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/19420676.2018.1521865

Published online: 15 Nov 2018.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 3

View Crossmark data

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

http://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=rjse20
JOURNAL OF SOCIAL ENTREPRENEURSHIP
https://doi.org/10.1080/19420676.2018.1521865

Performance of Social Enterprises in the Czech Republic

Alexandr Asmalovskija, Tom
as Sad
ıleka, V
ıt Hincicab and Michala Mizerov
ab
a
Faculty of International Relations, Department of Retailing and Commercial Communications,
University of Economics, Prague, Czech Republic; bFaculty of International Relations, Department
of International Business, University of Economics, Prague, Czech Republic

ABSTRACT KEYWORDS
The paper investigates how Czech social economy has currently Social entrepreneurship;
been performing. In the text, the authors mainly focus on an performance measurement;
analysis of various financial indicators of social enterprises in the economic indicators
Czech Republic as well as on different relations between these
indicators. The performed analysis comprises descriptive statistics,
correlation matrix using Pearson correlation with a two-tailed test of
significance for dependent and independent variables, and multiple
regressions for significantly dependent variables. The main outcome
of the research reveals that a high variance is present between the
given SEs in productivity and debt-to-equity ratio.

1. Introduction
Social economy has been undergoing a significant expansion in the recent years. The
sector is now well recognized and attracts more attention from the public, investors
and beneficiaries (Keizer et al. 2016). However, the term ‘social economy’ is not new
to the world and, according to Dohnalov
a and Průsa (2011), was first used in France
as early as in 1830 by Charles Dunoyer.
Scholars have covered the topic from different perspectives and while some of
them discussed rather theoretical background of social economy, either in a global or
a local context, as for example Huncov
a (2007), Borzaga and Defourny (2003), Olinsson
(2017), Barraket et al. (2017), or Zimmer and Obuch (2017) did, others preferred to
concentrate their attention more on the enterprises that participate within it. Thus,
there is quite a large array of articles, the titles of which include the term ‘social
economy’, but also those that mention the terms ‘social entrepreneurship’ and ‘social
enterprises’ (further abbreviated as ‘SEs’). As of February 2018, Web of Science regis-
ters over 6,000 articles of such kind.
While the general theory of SEs may be considered to have been handled and
processed to a satisfactory level, there remains a significant gap in empirical know-
ledge of social enterprises (as also pointed out by Syrj€a, Sjo
€gr
en, and Ilmarinen 2015)
and therefore, there is still much space for further investigation. Little has been said
about how social enterprises perform in practice in today’s rapidly changing world.

CONTACT Tom
as Sad
ılek tomas.sadilek@vse.cz

ß 2018 Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group
2 A. ASMALOVSKIJ ET AL.

Public awareness of social entrepreneurship is generally not high either; for

instance, in Russia, a low percentage of the population are aware of what ‘social enter-
prise’ indeed means and, according to different Russian surveys held in the past 10
years, their numbers ranged from 4 to 7% (Kiseleva et al. 2017). Collecting relevant
data on social enterprises is not only time-consuming, but often hindered by the
objective inability to find them in sufficient amount – some companies do not publish
main data on their performance completely or at least partly, nor may they always be
willing to share it. Some of the enterprises disappear almost as quickly as they are
founded, which makes their tracking impossible. Moreover, classification of SEs is still
unclear in many countries. Rey-Mart
ı, Ribeiro Soriano and S
anchez-Garc
ıa (2016) sup-
port the idea that ‘social entrepreneurship is difficult to define because of the complexity
in defining its two constituent concepts: Entrepreneurship and social outreach.’
Nevertheless, several countries have made an effort in supporting the newly estab-
lished sector of the economy. For instance, a synthesis report (Spear 2013) prepared
for the European Commission states that ‘in recent years in many European countries
considerable effort has been made to modernise existing non-profit and co-operative
legislation, alongside the development of new legislation for social economy organisa-
tions, social enterprise and social co-operatives’ (5).
This paper intends to contribute with an additional piece of knowledge to the
debate on what is known about social enterprises and how they work. The aim of the
article is to collect selected statistical data on social enterprises in the Czech Republic
thus identifying their basic economic performance, and discover whether there are
any significant dependencies among the given variables. The information obtained
from the research will help to better understand what aspects may or may not signifi-
cantly affect the economic performance of SEs.

2. Investigating performance of social enterprises

As said previously, there is still plenty to discover on how social enterprises actually
perform in real life. Szijarto et al. (2018) point to the well-known fact that hybrid mixes
of economic and social aims distinguish SEs from conventional not-for-profit and social
sector organizations as well as from purely for-profit businesses.
Arogyaswamy (2017) divides evolution of social entrepreneurship in three stages by
claiming that ‘social entrepreneurship (SE) has evolved from an initial period of explosive
growth (SE 1.0), during which research focused on organizational and founder character-
istics, to a stage that witnessed the rise of institutions facilitating SE formation and
growth (SE 2.0). At present, while expansion in the number and scope of social enterprises
continues, there is also a concerted effort underway to ascertain whether social enter-
prises are performing as expected (SE 3.0)’ (603).
The so-called phase SE 3.0 may be decisive as it regards to further direction and
overall evolution of the whole sector. This is because the existing data has not clearly
shown yet that the sector had already overcome all main challenges and started
becoming self-sustainable. Bengo, Azzone, and Calderini (2015) indicate that social
business initiatives still struggle to survive and grow as they have to deal with pro-
gressive reconfiguration taking place in the social business ecosystem and requires a
 JOURNAL OF SOCIAL ENTREPRENEURSHIP 3

change of mindset from the operators as well as the adoption of new manager-
ial tools.
In their article on SEs, Crucke and Decramer (2016) assert that there is a growing
consensus that the adoption of performance measurement tools is of particular inter-
est for social enterprises in order to support internal decision-making and address the
demands of accountability towards their stakeholders.
The above mentioned synthesis report prepared for the European Commission cites
a stakeholder statement that the world crisis of this century has increased pressure on
economic and social performance of the social economy; particularly in the context of
weakened public funding (Spear 2013). When it comes to public funding, we may
point to Picciotti’s (2017) paper which reveals that in 2011, 72.2% of revenue of the
Italian social cooperatives was of public origin. Such high dependence on external,
mostly public, financing is not rare. In Russia, where social entrepreneurship is under-
developed, as of 2017 there were more than 10 governmental programs through
which it was possible to obtain financing for socially-oriented projects (Kiseleva et al.
2017), and the number of applications for the public support has been growing signifi-
cantly in the past years. Although the number of accepted projects has not grown but
rather remained stable. Public grants are provided in the UK and the Adventure
Capital Fund established in this country in 2002 as a strategic response to the need of
shifting resources away from grants towards investment in social enterprises was in
fact also a State initiative (Meadows and Pike 2010). Also, Greek legislation includes
support for SEs (Triantafyllopoulou 2012). Other examples from various countries can
be found showing how important the role of public support still is in maintaining
social economy prospering, although across much of the developed world there has
recently been a ‘rolling back’ of state involvement in the provision of citizen welfare
(Tanekenov, Fitzpatrick, and Johnsen 2018).
Nonetheless, regardless of the country, it holds that whenever there is any kind of
support in the form of financial donations, grants, or subventions provided by a State
from public resources, i.e. ordinarily taxes collected from citizens and companies, there
is naturally a public interest in receiving information on how the beneficiaries of such
support work. Thus, terms such as ‘performance’, ‘result’, ‘efficiency’ come to one’s
mind also in the case of social enterprises. It is to expect that with growing popularity
of social entrepreneurship worldwide the pressure on knowing how key indicators
develop within SEs will further grow. As McQuilten (2017) indicates, in practice, social
enterprise has not proven a tonic for reduced government funding. Other subjects
outside the public sector, materially supporting social economy have also the right to
ask where their contributions go.
In this sense, Meadows and Pike (2010) alert that investors wanting to enter the
sector of social entrepreneurship must reckon four groups of risks one of which is
‘Weak organization capacity’ that lists lack of financial control (over budgeting, losses).
Another group identified by these researchers is ‘Poor financial performance’ to which
they also assign lack of reserves/cash flow and inadequate capitalisation.
So, as Syrj€a, Sjo
€gr
en, and Ilmarinen (2015) emphasize, social enterprises need to
start measuring their performance in a systemic way in order to support decision mak-
ing and ensure accountability towards their stakeholders.
4 A. ASMALOVSKIJ ET AL.

There have been numerous attempts of assessing, measuring, and evaluating per-
formance of social enterprises but, as Ebrahim and Rangan (2014) claim, most of the
literature on the topic of performance in the social sector – where they include organ-
izations such as non-for-profit, nongovernmental organization and social enterprises –
is under-theorized and in need of conceptual framing. Moreover, scholars still have
not managed to find consensus on how to evaluate some of the key aspects of SE
functioning; the discussion is still ongoing. Leadership can serve a good example:
Jackson, Nicoll, and Roy (2018) indicate there are considerable debate and confusion
around the appropriate ways in which to assess leadership performance within social
enterprises.
The reasons why it is challenging to develop a model universally suitable for all kinds
of social enterprises are listed by Crucke and Decramer (2016). The basic overview of
assessment and measurement tools of the performance of SEs are provided by Syrj€a,
Sjo€gr

en, and Ilmarinen (2015) or by Arena, Azzone, and Bengo (2015). From a wide
range of tools mentioned therein, it is worth mentioning the one by Bagnoli and Megali
(2009). These researchers attempted to create a performance measurement system for
social enterprises, that is, how to measure their success. They used three reference fields
for management, those are economic-financial performance, social effectiveness, and
institutional legitimacy. Their approach is innovative, since the last two reference fields
had not been introduced in previous performance measurement systems.
Nonetheless, any effort to propose an assessment tool that will help better under-
stand how different social enterprises work and perform shall not be belittled, espe-
cially due to the special nature of SEs (European Union and OECD 2015). The
knowledge collected and analysed may help to improve avoiding certain risks, as well
as repeating the past mistakes and better address the future challenges of the whole
sector. In conclusion, the issue is that there are dozens of performance measurement
systems or at least tools, but the detailed data on enterprises which could be intro-
duced into these systems are missing.

3. Scope of the paper and methodology

Crucke and Decramer (2016) identify five basic types of performance: economic, envir-
onmental, community, human, and governance performance. The first four types are
partly connected to (or interacting with) the last one. This paper mainly focuses on
issues of economic performance. As the first part of this article suggests, economic
performance assessment of SEs cannot be overshadowed. Nevertheless, Hein and
Kappel (2015) point out that the main objective of a social enterprise is to achieve
social impact rather than make profit for its owners.
This article seeks to collect relevant data on numerous social enterprises based in
the Czech Republic, thus helping to fill the perceivable gap in the existing empirical
research as regards availability of such data.
The Czech Republic is usually grouped into the region of Central and Eastern
Europe (CEE). The current experience with social entrepreneurship in this region is
relatively limited due to the level of social and economic development. The countries
in this region faced various transformation problems in the nineties of the last century,
 JOURNAL OF SOCIAL ENTREPRENEURSHIP 5

and the status of social entrepreneurship in CEE countries has slowly changed since
their accession to the EU (Pelucha, Kourilov
a, and Kveton
 2017).
Social enterprises began their establishment in the Czech Republic in the 90s of the
last century. The largest increase in the number of social enterprises was between the
years 2009–2014 when at least 10 such companies were founded every year. The
record number of 47 new social enterprises was achieved in 2012, also years 2011 and
2013 were considerably strong when 38 and 32 new social enterprises were estab-
lished respectively (Asmalovskij and Sad
ılek 2016b).
In the Czech Republic, there is neither an official database of social enterprises, nor
the exact number of social enterprises is known. Due to the lack of legislation defining
and determining the criteria for social entrepreneurship, we can only speculate about
their number (Asmalovskij and Sad
ılek 2016a).
One of the most comprehensive resources in the Czech Republic is the Czech
Social Entrepreneurship website (http://www.ceske-socialni-podnikani.cz/), which con-
tains a list of SEs. The directory includes organizations that are committed to the idea
of social entrepreneurship. The register was created based on telephone surveys in
autumn of 2012 and has been regularly updated. The source of contacts used for sur-
veying the businesses was a list of SEs created by the organization TESSEA. Businesses
may also add their own data into the database. They shall simply fill in a questionnaire
on the website of the Czech Social Entrepreneurship, which is then assessed so the
given company is either added to the register of social enterprises, or the request is
refused (Asmalovskij and Sad
ılek 2016b).
Despite being the only up-to-date source of information on Czech social economy,
the aforementioned database, if we might call it so, does not include any information
about the success or any financial indicators of the SEs listed. Even though financial
profit is not the main purpose of SEs existence as described previously, the authors
consider such information important. To measure the scale of the Czech social econ-
omy and analyze what factors affect its development, it is necessary to gather financial
information on Czech SEs. To this day, in the scientific literature, such data have not
been published by any of the authors publishing on this topic. Therefore, the authors
have collected such publicly available data on Czech SEs listed in TESSEA’s database,
using mainly the business registry of the Ministry of Justice (https://or.justice.cz/ias/ui/
rejstrik) and SEs websites (Asmalovskij and Sad
ılek 2016a). In the cases where data
could not be obtained, the authors addressed the SEs directly via email or phone. The
search for the data was performed throughout January 2018.
The data shows approximate size of the Czech social economy and values of finan-
cial indicators of the Czech SEs. The aim is to analyze the data using indicators, which
can be further used to investigate performance rate of Czech SEs, and discover
whether there are any relations between the indicators (variables). The paper reveals
how and what variables affect performance of the SEs. First, indicators of size and per-
formance are measured using descriptive statistics. In order to discover dependencies
and factors influencing performance, a correlation matrix using Pearson correlation
with a two-tailed test of significance for dependent and independent variables is pre-
sented, afterwards multiple regression analysis is used for significantly depend-
ent variables.
6 A. ASMALOVSKIJ ET AL.

4. Data and hypotheses

4.1. Variables and indicators
The authors have been able to collect relevant financial data on 112 SEs (n ¼ 112; out
of total 219 SEs by January 2018) valid by the end of year 2016, in particular those
are: total assets, yearly earnings (EBIT), income from goods/services sold, own equity,
debt (other party capital), number of employees, and age of the companies.
The following indicators are used as independent variables to analyze SEs. Age of
SEs is given by year of establishment. Also, any company’s performance depends on
the lifecycle stage and economies of scale, therefore, company size is introduced and
measured by the natural logarithm of total assets. Capital structure or debt ratio of SEs
is measured by debt-to-equity ratio. The following indicators are used as dependent
variables in the model. Profitability is represented by return on assets (ROA), calculated
as earnings before interest and tax (EBIT) over total assets, as it is one of the most
common performance indicators. Productivity is calculated as total revenue over the
number of employees.

4.2. Hypotheses
Based on the collected data and its consideration by the authors, the following
hypotheses have been suggested.
H1: Profitability of SEs is positively influenced by their size.

H2: Profitability of SEs is positively influenced by their age.

H3: Profitability of SEs is negatively influenced by their debt ratio.

H4: Productivity of SEs is positively influenced by their size.

H5: Profitability of SEs is positively influenced by their productivity.

5. Results
The following statistical analyses were performed in PSPP. Table 1 shows descriptive
statistics for all dependent and independent variables.
From descriptive statistic values, it is notable that productivity has extremely high
variance as some SEs are financially very productive and other SEs’ productivity is
extremely low. Such result might be explained by the nature of SEs, as their primary

Table 1. Descriptive statistics (n ¼ 112).

Indicator Mean St. dev Median Mode Variance Kurt Skew Min Max
Age 9.50 0.56 7 7 34.42 1.76 1.55 2 27
Size 20.8 2.80 9 – 872.03 15.08 3.30 1 208
Debt 5.23 4.01 0.62 – 1692.21 46.02 4.81 175.54 338.50
Profitability 0.12 0.80 0.04 0 0.65 31.53 4.94 6.18 0.84
Productivity 20.84 177.06 5.23 0 31351.23 35.70 5.43 1355 183
Source: authors’ calculations.
 JOURNAL OF SOCIAL ENTREPRENEURSHIP 7

Table 2. Correlation matrix for dependent and independent variables (n ¼ 112).

Indicator Productivity Debt Age Size
Profitability 0.4 0.01 0.08 0.1
Productivity – 0.02 0.08 0.1
Debt – – 0.03 0.02
Age – – – 0.42
Source: authors’ calculations.
significant at the 0.05 level; significant at the 0.01 level.

Table 3. Multiple regression (n ¼ 112).

Unstandardized
Standardized
B St. Error Beta t statistics p-value
(Constant) 1.19 0.40 0.00 2.93 .004
SIZE 0.15 0.06 0.27 2.60 .011
Coefficients (PROFITABILITY).
Source: authors’ calculations.

goals are social and not for-profit. They deliver a social value, e.g. a solution or contri-
bution to a social issue, but on the other hand spend a large amount of capital in
order to achieve their goals. Standard deviation for debt is higher than mean of debt
and median of debt is 0.62. This describes high variance of the debt. That is because
some SEs use a large amount of external capital, and some, on the other hand, do not
use any. Also, negative skewness in profitability and productivity and median higher
than mean suggest that the vast majority of SEs are not profitable. In fact, the data
shows that almost 40% of the listed SEs are unprofitable and suffer financial losses.
Significant positive correlation is found between dependent variables profitability
and productivity at significance level of 0.05. Among the independent variables, posi-
tive correlation between size and age is found at significance level of <0.1. It seems
natural that the longer SEs are on the market the more likely they are to increase in
size if they are successful. The relations discovered are further tested by multiple
regression analysis.
Significant results of multiple regression for independent variables and their relation
to profitability and productivity are shown in Table 3. Due to heteroskedasticity in
multiple regression that has no influence on coefficient estimates but raises concern
about standard errors, the regression model uses heteroskedasticity-consistent stand-
ard errors following Davidson and MacKinnon (1993). The model has no multicollinear-
ity issues.
The only significant result of the multiple regression confirms that size positively
affects profitability at significance level lower than 0.05. Other independent variables
measured do not have any significant influence on profitability or productivity, neither
do productivity in relation to profitability.

6. Discussion
As the results of the analyses have shown, only the size of social enterprises has
significant positive influence on their profitability at a significance level of <0.05.
Therefore, H1 is supported as the authors have assumed. That is confirmed by correl-
ation as well as multiple regression. The result is most probably explained by the
8 A. ASMALOVSKIJ ET AL.

volume and strength of total assets. The more assets the company has, the larger it is
and the more capital it is able to employ to develop its business. In the third sector,
this is even a more sensitive factor than in other areas of the economy as SEs are not
mainly focused on profit and capital growth, but on social values they deliver. Usually,
SEs do not possess large amounts of capital and it is rather difficult for them to reach
it. That is one of the main reasons why larger SEs are able to generate more profit
than the rest of the third sector.
Also, considering the support of H1, it would be logical to assume that more estab-
lished, mature SEs with more experience and capital are more profitable than those
younger, newly established ones. But such hypothesis is not supported by statistical
analysis. The assumption H2 has not been explained by the analysis meaning that age
has no direct influence on productivity or profitability of the analyzed SEs. On the
other hand, a positive correlation between size and age is found, partially explaining
that the size of SEs grows in time, which seems natural for most businesses if they are
successful. In summary, age has only indirect and rather weak influence on profitability
through the size of SEs. Another presumption might be that profitability rather
depends on area of business or ability to introduce innovations in the social area. This
is to be further studied by the authors in future research.
H3 and H4 have not been approved by statistical analysis either, which means that
influence of debt ratio on profitability, and influence of SE size on productivity have
not been confirmed. It may seem somewhat surprising that there is no direct link
between debt and profitability. The data prove, that some enterprises are profitable
despite having a high debt-to-equity ratio, and on the contrary, external resources
may even boost the success and growth of SEs.
Regarding the last assumption of the authors expressed in H5, statistical analysis has
shown that a significant positive correlation exists between productivity and profitabil-
ity. Thus, profitability may partially be dependent on productivity, but it is by far not the
case of all the tested SEs. Multiple regression has not shown a significant link between
the two dependent variables. Hypotheses H5, thus, stays unconfirmed by statistical ana-
lysis. It is therefore questionable whether productivity of the given SEs has a real influ-
ence on their profitability. The authors agree that on the one hand, a certain correlation
is present due to the fact both indicators are based on profit and revenue. On the other
hand, there may be a number of other factors affecting profitability that are yet to be
discovered by further research. Those may be existence and development of a thought-
out business plan, efficient resource allocation and revenue gathering linked to market-
ing, pricing strategy and margins, complex and long-term business orientation, stable
and growing customer base and future business potential. The authors will set focus on
the aforementioned factors in their ongoing study of SEs in the Czech Republic.

7. Conclusion
Recently, social economy has been growing rapidly on a global scale, receiving more
and more attention from the public and actors of the economy. Social enterprises
have been in the scope of research for years and thousands of scientific papers may
 JOURNAL OF SOCIAL ENTREPRENEURSHIP 9

be found in various research pools. Nevertheless, the research covers theoretical back-
ground of social entrepreneurship in most parts and still lacks practical implication.
In this paper, the authors focus on the analysis of financial indicators of the social
economy in the Czech Republic and relations between them. However, it is challeng-
ing to obtain the relevant data, as in many countries including Czech Republic there is
no systematic, uniform approach in keeping track of social enterprises and their finan-
cial indicators. That is due to lack of legislation covering the area, but also low general
awareness of the social economy by the public, as well as investors. The authors have
collected the financial data of 112 SEs known to them from previous research. They
believe that such a size of the sample should be sufficient to provide an overview of
the financial situation of the SEs in the Czech Republic and their economic behaviour.
The outcomes obtained from the research are to help better understand the signifi-
cance of aspects that have influence on economic performance of SEs in reality.
The following data were collected on the selected SEs: total assets, EBIT, income
from goods/services sold, own equity, debt (other party capital), number of employees
and age of the companies. Based on these data, the following indicators were calcu-
lated by the authors and marked as independent variables to perform statistical ana-
lysis: age, company size and debt-to-equity ratio. Indicators of profitability and
productivity were chosen by the authors as dependent variables in the model. The
analysis comprises of descriptive statistics, correlation matrix using Pearson correlation
with a two-tailed test of significance for dependent and independent variables, and
multiple regression for significantly dependent variables.
Outcomes of the research reveal that high variance is present between the given
SEs in productivity and debt-to-equity ratio. This development could be explained by
socially oriented and not for-profit nature of SEs. High variance in debt to equity ratio
is caused by the use of external capital by some enterprises, while other SEs barely
use any. Most Czech SEs are not profitable, nearly 40% of enterprises suffer financial
losses. Significant positive correlation exists between profitability and productivity, as
well as between size and age of the SEs in the sample. Size expressed by total assets
is the only analyzed variable that has significant influence on performance of the SEs
and positively affects their profitability. That seems to be given by the natural evolu-
tion of a business in general – the more assets the company has, the more capital it is
able to use for business development. That is, however, a highly difficult goal to
achieve in the social economy due to its primary goal – deliver social impact.

Disclosure statement
The authors declare that they do not have any competing financial, professional, or personal
interests from other parties.

Funding
This work was supported by the Internal Grant Agency of the University of Economics, Prague,
within the project IGA No. F2/50/2017, ‘Social and sustainable business in the context of inter-
national trade’.
10 A. ASMALOVSKIJ ET AL.

References
Arena, M., G. Azzone, and I. Bengo. 2015. “Performance Measurement for Social Enterprises.”
Voluntas: International Journal of Voluntary and Nonprofit Organizations 26 (2): 649–672.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11266-013-9436-8
Arogyaswamy, B. 2017. “Social Entrepreneurship Performance Measurement: A Time-Based
Organizing Framework.” Business Horizons 60 (5): 603–611. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bushor.
2017.05.004
Asmalovskij, A., and T. Sad
ılek. 2016a. “Social entrepreneurship in the Czech Republic.” In 9th
annual conference of the EuroMed academy of business. 315–330. Spain: Sevilla.

e Republice a na
Asmalovskij, A., and T. Sad
ılek. 2016b. “Soucasnost Soci
aln
ıho Podnik
an
ı v Cesk
Slovensku.” Sociologia 48 (4): 319–339.
Bagnoli, L., and C. Megali. 2009. “Measuring Performance in Social Enterprises.” Nonprofit and
Voluntary Sector Quarterly 40 (1): 149–165.
Barraket, J., H. Douglas, R. Eversole, C. Mason, J. McNeill, and M. Bronwen Morgan. 2017.
“Classifying Social Enterprise Models in Australia.” Social Enterprise Journal 13 (4): 345–361.
https://doi.org/10.1108/SEJ-09-2017-0045
Bengo, I. M., G. Azzone, and M. Calderini. 2015. “Indicators and Metrics for Social Business: A
Review of Current Approaches.” Journal of Social Entrepreneurship 7 (1): 1–24. https://doi.org/
10.1080/19420676.2015.1049286
Borzaga, C., and J. Defourny. 2003. The Emergence of Social Enterprise. London: Routledge.
Crucke, S., and A. Decramer. 2016. “The Development of a Measurement Instrument for the
Organizational Performance of Social Enterprises.” Sustainability 8 (2): 161–130. https://doi.
org/10.3390/su8020161
Davidson, R., and J. G. MacKinnon. 1993. Estimation and Inference in Econometrics. New York:
Oxford University Press.
Dohnalov
a, M., and L. Průsa. 2011. Socia 
a republika.

ln
ı Ekonomika. Praha: Wolters Kluwer Cesk
Ebrahim, A., and V. K. Rangan. 2014. “What Impact? A Framework for Measuring the Scale and
Scope of Social Performance.” California Management Review 56 (3): 118–141.
European Union and OECD. 2015. Policy Brief on Social Impact Measurement for Social Enterprises
Policies for Social Entrepreneurship. Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union.
Hein, W., and R. Kappel. 2015. A Background Paper on the Performance and Impact of Social
Entrepreneurs. M€ unchen: Siemens Stiftung.
Huncov
a, M. 2007. Socia
ln
ı ekonomika a socia
ı nad Labem: Univerzita J.E. Purkyne;

ln
ı podnik. Ust



v Ust
ı nad Labem.
Jackson, B., M. Nicoll, and M. J. Roy. 2018. “The distinctive challenges and opportunities for cre-
ating leadership within social enterprises.” Social Enterprise Journal 14 (1): 71–91. https://doi.
org/10.1108/SEJ-03-2017-0016
Keizer, A., A. Stikkers, H. Heijmans, R. Carsouw, and W. van Aanholt. 2016. Scaling the Impact of
the Social Enterprise Sector. New York: McKinsey and Company.
~o-Am
ezquita, T. L. Veinbender, and V. Z.
Kiseleva, L. S., J. L. Nin  Dubkovskij. 2017. “Social entre-
preneurship as an economic phenomenon: Innovation and development indicators.”
Marketing and Innovation Management (4): 250–259.
McQuilten. G. 2017. “The Political Possibilities of Art and Fashion Based Social Enterprise.”
Continuum 31 (1): 69–83. https://doi.org/10.1080/10304312.2016.1262103
Meadows, M., and M. Pike. 2010. “Performance Management for Social Enterprises.” Systemic
Practice and Action Research 23 (2): 127–141.
Olinsson, S. B. 2017. “Social Entrepreneurship-Committing Theory to Practice.” Journal of Social
Entrepreneurship 8 (2): 225–247. doi:10.1080/19420676.2017.1375547
Pelucha, M., J. Kourilov
a, and V. Kveton
. 2017. “Barriers of Social Entrepreneurship Development
– A Case Study of the Czech Republic.” Journal of Social Entrepreneurship. https://doi.org/10.
1080/19420676.2017.1313303
Picciotti, A. 2017. “Towards Sustainability: The Innovation Paths of Social Enterprise.” Annals of
Public and Cooperative Economics 88 (2): 233–256.
 JOURNAL OF SOCIAL ENTREPRENEURSHIP 11

Rey-Mart
ı, A., D. Ribeiro-Soriano, and J. L. S
anchez-Garc
ıa. 2016. “Giving Back to Society: Job
Creation through Social Entrepreneurship.” Journal of Business Research 69 (6): 2067–2072.
Spear, R. 2013. Social Economy - Laying the Groundwork for Innovative Solutions to Today’s
Challenges: A Synthesis Report Prepared for the European Commission. Luxembourg:
Publications Office of the European Union.
Syrj€a, P., H. Sjo
€gr

en, and A. Ilmarinen. 2015. “Performance Measurement in Social Enterprises – A
Conceptual Accounting Approach.” Paper presented at 5th EMES International Research
Conference on Social Enterprise - Building a scientific, Helsinki, Finland, 29 June–3 July.
Szijarto, B., P. Milley, K. Svensson, and J. B. Cousins. 2018. “On the Evaluation of Social
Innovations and Social Enterprises: Recognizing and Integrating Two Solitudes in the
Empirical Knowledge Base.” Evaluation and Program Planning 66 (1): 20–32. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.evalprogplan.2017.08.010
Tanekenov, A., S. Fitzpatrick, and S. Johnsen. 2018. “Empowerment, Capabilities and
Homelessness: The Limitations of Employment-Focused Social Enterprises in Addressing
Complex Needs.” Housing, Theory and Society 35 (1): 137–155. https://doi.org/10.1080/
14036096.2017.1290676
Triantafyllopoulou, A. 2012. “Social Entrepreneurship – Social Enterprises: European Experience
and the Greek Case.” Review of European Studies 4 (1): 115–124.
Zimmer, A., and K. Obuch. 2017. “A Matter of Context? Understanding Social Enterprises in
Changing Environments: The Case of Germany.” Voluntas: International Journal of Voluntary
and Nonprofit Organizations 28 (6): 2339–2359.