Index

ABSTRACT

There is a growing recognition in South Africa that social enterprises can and do create the most jobs because it focuses on solving social problems and establishing economic sustainability. This article was based on a conceptual analysis aimed at assessing the development of social entrepreneurship in South Africa, as well as its prevalence and influence. We analyzed why social entrepreneurship has grown in importance and popularity in South Africa, as well as its relevance, and whether it has come to stay in South Africa. We also highlighted that the most common sources of finance for most South African social entrepreneurs are sales of goods and services, government grants, membership fees, and corporate social investment. This paper further highlighted some challenges faced by social entrepreneurs such as grant funding, which is the second major source of funding for these enterprises as well as a lack of proper buildings and equipment.

Keywords: Social entrepreneurship, Social entrepreneurship relevance, Social entrepreneurship impact, South Africa, Social entrepreneurship challenges, National development plan.

DOI: 10.55284/ijebms.v9i1.644

Citation | Dinah Quacoe; Kong Yusheng; Daniel Quacoe (2022). Assessing Social Entrepreneurship in South Africa. International Journal of Economics, Business and Management Studies, 9(1): 28-38.

Copyright: © 2022 by the authors. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).

Funding : This study received no specific financial support.

Competing Interests: The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

History : Received: 28 March 2022 / Revised: 4 May 2022 / Accepted: 18 May 2022 / Published: 8 June 2022.

Publisher: Online Science Publishing

1. BACKGROUND TO THE STUDY

Since the preceding years, there has been a growing focus on the subject of social entrepreneurship, this is mainly because of the findings and realizations of fiscal analysts globally that small industries contribute meaningfully to the economic development and liveliness of any society or country at large. Hence, the majority of people pursue entrepreneurial occupations and paths because they believe they will provide higher financial and psychological rewards compared to the traditional repetitive methods. Gradually, social entrepreneurship is growing into a key player, important, and vital part of the global conversation about volunteerism and civic engagement (Gandhi & Raina, 2018). Social entrepreneurship is a subject of study that straddles entrepreneurship, social innovation, and nonprofit administration, to name a few. Scholars are beginning to contribute to the development of this new field by seeking to trace the history of social entrepreneurship (Dacin & Paul-Tracey, 2011).

South Africa is considered an emerging market by the World Bank (Rivera-Santos, Holt, Littlewood, & Kolk, 2015), to get there, more work is required by following the guidelines of more developed economies such as the United States and Europe. These criteria apply to everything from how people are exposed to and educated about how businesses operate and the technology employed (Gordon Institute of Business-GIBS., 2019).

Following South Africa's first democratic elections, the government pledged to restructure and develop the country's social, economic, and political systems, as well as to remove the legacy and imbalances of the former apartheid regime. South Africa's progress in reforming its society and economy has been uneven so far. With a Gini index of 63.4 and 31% of the inhabitants living beneath the national poverty line, South Africa is one of the world's most unequal countries (Rivera-Santos et al., 2015). In contrast to other types of enterprises, which are driven by profit maximization, social entrepreneurs are primarily motivated by a social purpose (Pathak & Muralidharan, 2016). Scholars such as Dzomonda (2020); Lepoutre, Justo, Terjesen, and Bosma (2013) consider social entrepreneurship as a bridge between the government's and non-governmental organizations' shortcomings in the case of tackling social concerns. The business has a crucial role to play in the change and growth of South Africa. This covers not only traditional for-profit enterprises but also non-profit organizations, particularly through CSR activities (Han, Zhuangxiong, & Jie, 2018; Singh & Misra, 2021) .  Social enterprises, on the other hand, are businesses that integrate havin both economic and social objectives, with the latter factored into their business strategies. Interest in and involvement with social entrepreneurship and innovation as means of tackling social issues has increased in line with global trends and the rest of Africa's development, complicated serious issues with long-term development in South Africa (Petrovskaya & Mirakyan, 2018). This is reflected in an upsurge in international and local research on social entrepreneurship in South Africa (Karanda & Toledano, 2012). Although there has been a large body of literature on social entrepreneurship in South Africa, there has been little research on the history and growth of the sector. As a result, the study's originality is that; it examines in-depth the development of social entrepreneurship in South Africa, as well as its prevalence and impact. As a result, we investigate: Why SE has grown in importance and popularity in South Africa, as well as if it is here to stay. As a result, the gap in the literature is filled.

The following is the rest of the paper: Section 2 History of SE in south Africa, assesses the relevance of its impact in South Africa; Section 3 Challenges Section 4 Discussions Section 5 conclusions and the way forward for social entrepreneurship in South Africa.

1.1. History of SE in South Africa

South African social enterprise has a long history, the country's first co-operative was founded in Pietermaritzburg in 1892, and the country built a strong civil society and culture of social engagement during the apartheid era. From 1966 to 1980, civic advocacy centered on local material issues such as greater service delivery and the broader downfall of apartheid, as well as the emergence of agricultural and commercial co-operatives (Rivera-Santos et al., 2015). Social enterprises have since been on the increase since the 1990s to date, for example, the Gordon Institute of Business Science was formed in 2000 as a business school focused on general management in dynamic marketplaces to dramatically increase responsible individual and organizational performance (Gordon Institute of Business-GIBS, 2019). In 2001 the Southern African natural products industry's trade organization, Phyto Trade Africa, was founded to reduce poverty and safeguard biodiversity. The Centre for Social Entrepreneurship and the Social Economy (CSESE) was founded in 2010 at the University of Johannesburg. The Bertha Center for Social Innovation and Entrepreneurship was also established in 2011 (Rivera-Santos et al., 2015).

There are also a variety of current laws and regulations that apply to social businesses that have evolved particularly in the areas of business creation, employment, and, most importantly, conducting business with authorities. The Income Tax Act No. 58 of 1962, the Companies Act No. 61 of 1973, and the Companies Act No. 71 of 2008, which came into effect in 2010, the Close Corporations Act, No. 69 of 1984, The Non-Profit Organization Act, No. 71 of 1997 (NPO Act), the Preferential Procurement Policy Framework Act, No. 5 of 2000 that encourage social entrepreneurs and one of the most important enablers (Lana & Ansulie, 2019).

In South Africa, the social economy has flourished as a result of social entrepreneurship. In recent years, there has been an ever-expanding corpus of knowledge in South Africa spanning from academic, peer-reviewed literature to practical guidelines and support resources for social entrepreneurs and ecosystem practitioners on the social economy and social enterprise. In South Africa, social entrepreneurship was thought to be beneficial to unemployed young people, in particular (Gordon Institute of Business Science, 2018; Urban, 2020). According to the Gordon Institute of Business Science (2018) study, South African social entrepreneurs are more likely to be male, have a high school certificate or above, between the ages of 25 and 45 ,and be headquartered in a city (Herrington & Kew, 2017). In South Africa, a variety of elements are thought to influence the desire to start a social enterprise, moral judgment ,and empathy, as well as success and self-efficacy, are all factors which may be cultivated in secondary and post-secondary classrooms (Urban & Galawe, 2019). Motivation and accessibility of access were revealed to be important factors in recent research on university students for starting a social venture an initial steps in supporting social entrepreneurs (Urban & Kujinga, 2017). As a result, it appears that social entrepreneurship appeals to a large number of young people to break into the workforce (Gordon Institute of Business Science, 2018).

1.2. Relevance of SE in South Africa

Authors like Lana and Ansulie (2019) describe how South Africa's transformational environment affects the way social enterprises hire people and collect resources. Social enterprises in South Africa are typically registered as both for-profit and non-profit businesses, allowing them to access both grant and commercial funding. This opens up a world of possibilities, from securing debt and equity funding to establishing a revenue stream that provides organizations with predictable, unrestricted money (Gordon Institute of Business Science, 2018).  Social entrepreneurs include traditional NGOs, not-for-profit SEs, hybrid SEs, for-profit SEs, and socially focused enterprises (Visser, 2011).

In South Africa, there is currently no legislative structure that is appropriate for social enterprises. However, in a study of social enterprise legal systems a variety of policy initiatives appear to be supporting the establishment of social companies, according to Claeye (2017), they are small, community-based organizations that focus on providing essential requirements in the fields of education, health, and housing. The vast majority of people care about improving their skills, education, and literacy. The focus is frequently on certain underprivileged populations, youngsters and teenagers ,for example, women's empowerment, or community improvement. As a result, many have increased the quality of their goods/services and written a business strategy. Approximately half of the organizations had increased the number of people they served, formed a new and crucial partnership, or introduced new products and services. Social enterprises pride themselves on being creative and inventive (Lepoutre et al., 2013). They all agree that innovation improves the efficiency of their businesses, allowing them to serve a larger number of clients while also providing higher-quality goods and services. Many people have benefited from innovation to make more money and operate at a cheaper cost than their competitors. In making decisions, half of them consult advisory boards, boards of directors, community trusts, and stakeholders. Many have implemented internal monitoring and learning systems, with some even producing integrated reports on their social and environmental impact. Most organizations keep track of their progress and accomplishments on a weekly or monthly basis, and they regularly assess their impact on recipients (Lana & Ansulie, 2019).

According to the GEM 2018 report, in 2017, 75% of all early-stage entrepreneurs in South Africa were women. motivated by a business opportunity, which is greater than in other African countries. This suggests that rather than starting firms out of necessity, more South Africans are doing so because they believe there is a business potential (Herrington & Kew, 2017).

For example, the waste sector in South Africa was generally uncontrolled, with informal rubbish collection. At the same time, because of this informality, issues such as health and safety were frequently disregarded, and these collectors had little social safety nets. Businesses like Siya Buddy help formalize informal rubbish collection by establishing connections with the formal sector. This means that even if the public infrastructure is missing, much-needed services can be given, increasing environmental and quality-of-life results while also integrating with a community's economic structures and activities (Cline, 2014; Lana & Ansulie, 2019). Gradesmatch uncovered the complexity associated with each year's intake at institutions across South Africa as part of their ambition to apply technology to better the journey from education to employment (Lana & Ansulie, 2019; Urban & Kujinga, 2017) .

According to Gordon Institute of Business Science (2018) survey on Social Enterprises in South Africa, they found out that sales of products or services were the highest-ranked source of funds and the highest percentage of revenue. Followed by government entities, corporate social investment, and charitable foundations/membership fees, the study further indicates how money came into social enterprises and how they are used in South Africa. In general, monies requested through in-kind gifts and corporate social investment, funds from any source were used to pay operational costs or improve assistance for existing beneficiaries. In rare cases, funding was also used to build new premises in new areas (Myres, Mugudza, & Jankelowitz, 2017). An overview of this is seen in Table 1.

Table 1 shows that sales of products or services are one of the most important sources of funds for social entrepreneurs, as well as the most important source of revenue, accounting for 40% of all revenue for social enterprises in South Africa. Government entities, which include grants, come in second with a revenue share of 31%.  Membership fees and Corporate social investment such as gifts or donation come in third and fourth place with a revenue percentage of 24% and 23%.

1.3. Impact

It's difficult to define social entrepreneurship  because different countries have different definitions (Bhasin, 2019). In South Africa, social entrepreneurship is becoming a combination of for-profit and non-profit initiatives, blending the value and trust of social groups with the efficiencies and profit motive of business. There is a contradiction here that challenges the traditional notion of charity, in which profiting from social services is seen as innately unethical and counter-intuitive to the goal of civil society. This dissonance is what makes social entrepreneurship so strong in South Africa because it encourages entrepreneurs to question what they think they know about what is right and wrong (Gandhi & Raina, 2018; Gordon Institute of Business Science, 2018).

SE is extremely good at disseminating job possibilities because they tend to hire from the communities in which they operate such as rural towns (Hoogendoorn, 2016a; Villeneuve-Smith & Temple, 2015). Disadvantaged groups, such as disabled individuals and minorities are particularly vulnerable, hence, frequently employed by social entrepreneurs which are typically disregarded for mainstream job prospects (Cline, 2014; Gibbons & Hazy, 2017). In South Africa, social entrepreneurship can move our civil society to a new way of doing things. It puts a premium on long-term viability, high-quality service, efficiency, and transparency. It combines economic teachings with the diversity and complexity of social ideals, creating tremendous chances for transformation (Gordon Institute of Business-GIBS, 2019; Pande, Sengar, & Chaudhary, 2021).

Authors like Laeis and Lemke (2016) looked at relationships between diverse stakeholders in their investigation of how tourist social businesses affect livelihoods in surrounding communities. They observed due to opposing interests, the idea they were studying did not reach its full potential goals of profit and purpose, leading to a lack of clarity in vision and strategy. A Gordon Institute of Business-GIBS (2019) study drew a final sample of 453 people from a database of 33,784 social enterprises and civil society groups in South Africa. One of the most interesting findings was that more than half of the businesses polled defined themselves as non-profit. The majority of these organizations work to improve skills or promote education and literacy, with the majority focusing on satisfying fundamental needs in the school, health, and housing sectors. Most organizations employ one to fifty employees, serve less than 100 beneficiaries per month, and are not reliant on grants (Myres et al., 2017). Authors like Urban and Kujinga (2017) uncovered evidence that businesses must be skilled in knowledge gathering and application, risk management, organizational dialogue, and participatory decision-making to be social innovators. There is a growing recognition in South Africa that social enterprises can and do create the most jobs. This is because it focuses on solving social problems and establishing economic sustainability, social entrepreneurship is a way of improving both a country's economic and social situations (Kim & Lim, 2017; Urban, 2020; Visser, 2011) .

A survey by Myres et al. (2017) indicates that the social enterprise sector employs more people in South Africa, accounting for 6.7% of all jobs which is higher than the yearly percent growth rate in the country's economy. Making entrepreneurship critical for wealth generation and long-term livelihoods, according to Adebola (2018).

Globally, social entrepreneurs are generally upbeat about their prospects for expansion (Singh & Singh, 2020). Business optimism, according to academics, is a key indicator of the sector's health because it have an immediate impact on future investment and jobs (Banodia & Dubey, 2017; Raisiene, 2017). Table 2 outlines some activities and practices of social entrepreneurs in South Africa. In South Africa, social enterprises grew by 13% from 2017 to 2018 and by 23% from 2018 to 2019 (Lana & Ansulie, 2019) demonstrating that social enterprise has grown at a rate of 67 percent faster than inflation (Gordon Institute of Business Science, 2018). It appears that social entrepreneurs are creating more jobs (Andrea & Domingo, 2015). The government of South Africa has recently recognized the social economy as a critical contributor to important national development goals, particularly in terms of job creation. As a result, beginning in 2020, the National Department of Economic Development created a social sector policy aimed at growing the entire social economy (Lana & Ansulie, 2019).

2. CHALLENGES

While many of the problems that social entrepreneurs encounter are universal, South Africa has its own set of issues. Many social businesses, were formed by previously disenfranchised community people in their neighborhoods, hence, lacking basic business tools such as business cards and a proper cost structure (Kritikos, 2019; Meyer & Sroka, 2021).  The economy of South Africa was expected to develop at a rate of only 0.7 percent in 2017, whiles unemployment has reached its greatest level since the country's democratic beginnings, with an expanded rate of somewhat more than 40%. Unemployment and underemployment among young people reached as high as 80% in some areas (Gordon Institute of Business-GIBS, 2019; Herrington & Kew, 2017). South Africa's economy continues to grow at a relatively slow pace, putting pressure on all businesses but particularly tiny, new businesses with thin profit margins (Dzomonda, 2020). According to the conclusions of the GEM 2013 Report on SMEs in South Africa, the rate of firm closure is higher than the rate of established entrepreneurship, meaning that the country's overall entrepreneurship system is in decline. These are small businesses that are still in the early stages of investigating opportunities with minimal or difficult income prospects. One of these challenges is selling to consumer populations with limited resources, who are difficult to contact, and about whom little is known. They frequently have to push certain solutions rather than having easily available adequate demand, among other issues (Herrington & Kew, 2017).

According to a survey on Creative and Social Enterprise in South Africa and Social Enterprises in South Africa, (Lana & Ansulie, 2019; Myres et al., 2017) the majority of social enterprises polled lost money, which was the single largest group when compared to those that profited, as seen in Figure 1.

Access to resources is a major element in many of the highlighted organizations' difficulties. This involves issues with donations and grant financing, as well as a lack of proper buildings and equipment, capital, and support and consulting services. This funding difficulty, according to some scholars, is what gave rise to blended-value thinking, as individuals involved looked to find ways to produce resources to self-finance their activities (Bergamini, 2017; Roslan, Hamid, Ijab, Yusop, & Norman, 2020). Financial resource management, such as cash flow and late payments from customers, presents a comparable challenge. Respondents also expressed dissatisfaction with macro-environmental variables such as the economy and crime, as well as regulatory conditions and access to public services (Jackson, 2018). Respondents face a skills shortage, owing to a failure to pay for the right people, as well as a lack of financial, managerial, technical, and marketing abilities, which is possibly less than expected. It's also challenging to locate senior executives and non-executive board members at the executive level (Lana & Ansulie, 2019). If one invests resources in the support of a venture, it is normal to expect to wield some type of influence to protect one's interests (Sud, VanSandt, & Baugous, 2009). The nature of this funding compromise, however, may jeopardize the desired goal and demoralize the social entrepreneurial team. On a worldwide scale, (Rivera-Santos et al., 2015; Villeneuve-Smith & Temple, 2015) believe that social entrepreneurs face a slew of environmental difficulties, living conditions, entrance restrictions, venture capital availability, and customer and supplier negotiating power. This highlights the challenge of investment readiness as well as a funding gap, or a mismatch between what small businesses want and what is usually available in South Africa (Dacin & Paul-Tracey, 2011; Lana & Ansulie, 2019). It is difficult to establish a meaningful impact on society in this situation (Rawhouser, Cummings, & Newbert, 2019). Many social enterprises are ignorant to the prospects of structured finance because of a lack of knowledge about financial matters and financial market characteristics. These historically non-profit operations frequently admit to being terrified of the financial aspect of a company, having few industry networks in this area, and relying on their understanding to acquire adequate funding to support their ideas (Villeneuve-Smith & Temple, 2015). The difficulty of South African start-ups to survive underscores the necessity for legislative involvement aimed at assisting and mentoring new businesses (Herrington & Kew, 2017).

3. DISCUSSIONS

The goal of this research was to learn more about the development of social entrepreneurship in South Africa, as well as its prevalence and impact. As a result, we investigate why it has grown in importance and popularity, as well as if it is here to stay. To evaluates the importance, significance, and scope of social entrepreneurship in South Africa, we address our first question, which we discovered through numerous theoretical analogies, based on the many theoretical analogs. According to a poll (Lana & Ansulie, 2019) South African social businesses focus on providing basic needs in the education, health, and housing sectors, as well as employing one to 50 people, indicating the importance of entrepreneurship for wealth creation and sustainable livelihoods. This is in line with authors such as Groen (2017) who analyzed social entrepreneurship's significance in national innovation systems and concluded that the role of social entrepreneurship in national innovation ecosystems is critical.

We highlighted that most social entrepreneurs expect their organizations to develop significantly by releasing new products and services to attract new clients thereby leading to our second question, "whether these enterprises have come to stay". The selling of goods and services is the primary source of revenue for most social enterprises (Gordon Institute of Business Science, 2018). As part of the government's policy initiative (The National Development Plan (NDP), 2018) aims to address some of these social enterprise major issues such as the inability of SE to acquire financial and physical resources, which is also their second source of funding according to Gordon Institute of Business Science (2018). If these challenges are not addressed, however, it will limit the social enterprises in South Africa’s ability to grow. All organizations' formation and survival are influenced by their ability to access capital (Antony Bugg-Levine & Nalin, 2012), thereby not impacting society as it intends to be. This analysis is consistent with authors such as Andrea and Domingo (2015) who found out that Social enterprises that create jobs are financially supported and have experienced founders. In contrast, social companies that do not typically produce jobs are not financially supported and have a founder who lacks expertise and suitable professional training. Also Hoogendoorn (2016b) discovered that the proportion of social start-ups in total start-ups is positively related to favorable institutional circumstances. We, therefore, conclude that these enterprises have come to stay, however, if most of their major challenges are not addressed their ability to impact society will be minimal.

4. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

One of the greatest reasons for the effective functioning and development of businesses nowadays is the focus on social aspects in the mainstream of innovative activity (Aksoy, Alkire, Choi, Kim, & Zhang, 2019).  At the same time, it's important to remember that social enterprises exist to make a profit while also tackling issues of social and environmental concern (Raisiene, 2017). In this research, we got to understand that social entrepreneurs in South Africa have four major sources of funding that is Sales of products or services, government entities, corporate social investment, and charitable foundations/membership fees according to Gordon Institute of Business Science (2018) research. This funding are used to pay operational costs and to create new premises in new locations on rare occasions (Myres et al., 2017) Among these four fundings, the ones that generate a higher percentage of revenue are sales of products or services, and government entities(grants). However, access to funding is a crucial factor in many of the highlighted organizations’ problems. We also highlighted that social enterprises in South Africa grew by 13% from 2017 to 2018 and by 23% from 2018 to 2019 (Lana & Ansulie, 2019) demonstrating that social enterprise has grown at a rate of 67 percent faster than inflation (Gordon Institute of Business Science, 2018). Thereby creating more jobs. Social entrepreneur is becoming more creative in their business strategies, which could be a way to generate more long-term revenue. In developing countries like South Africa, social entrepreneurs play a critical role in development (Rivera-Santos et al., 2015). A long-term South African development plan is designed by The National Development Plan (NDP) (2018) to solve several issues that South Africans are confronted with, including low educational quality, high unemployment, bad infrastructure, the spatial gap, and an unbalanced economy. Among its many goals, the NDP lists the creation of jobs and the reduction of unemployment as the most pressing concerns to boost economic growth (Kalinov, 2017). Some of its policies may be useful in promoting and growing social entrepreneurship to some extent, as well as providing financial support, which has been one of the major problems with social enterprise in South Africa (Meyer & Sroka, 2021). Strengthening the ecosystem, according to the Gordon Institute of Business-GIBS (2019), is projected to have a significant impact on the current and future development of social entrepreneurship in South Africa, to the benefit of all of its citizens. Several studies have advocated for the training of social leaders and entrepreneurs in social entrepreneurship (Kritikos, 2019; Thorgren & Omorede, 2018), developing more long-term business concepts that are both commercially viable and have a positive social impact as well as customized products and services to varied markets (Pakurár, Khan, Benedek, & Oláh, 2020). In addition, these enterprises have come to stay however if most of their major challenges are not addressed impacting on society will be minimal.

In South Africa, research on social entrepreneurship is growing, but there is still much to learn and much to do in terms of changing the environment (Lana & Ansulie, 2019). The goal of this research was to assist to the global community of social entrepreneurship researchers, and practitioners to better understand the development, relevance, impact and challenges of social entrepreneurship in South Africa in-depth. With the help of our research questions given more research can be conducted in this area.

REFERENCES

Adebola, O. (2018). Challenges of and strategies for repositioning entrepreneurship education in selected public tertiary institutions in ogun state. Nigerian Journal of Business Education, 4(2), 167-175.

Aksoy, L., Alkire, L., Choi, S., Kim, P., & Zhang, L. (2019). Social innovation in service: A conceptual framework and research agenda. Journal of Service Management, 30(3), 429-448.

Andrea, R.-M., & Domingo, R.-S., B, J. L. S.-G. (2015). Giving back to society: Job creation through social entrepreneurship. Journal of Business Research, 69(6), 2067-2072.Available at: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2015.12.010.

Antony Bugg-Levine, B. K., & Nalin, K. (2012). A new approach to funding social enterprises. Harvard Business Review, 90(1), 118-123.

Banodia, S., & Dubey, N. (2017). Role of social entrepreneurs as social change agents: An insight. Research Journal of Management Sciences, 6(2), 19-22.

Bergamini, T. C. N. I. H. (2017). Is crowdfunding an appropriate financial model for social entrepreneurship? Academy of Entrepreneurship Journal, 23(1), 44-57.

Bhasin, H. (2019). What is Social Entrepreneurship? Importance, Examples and Characteristics. Retrieved from: https://www.marketing91.com/social-entrepreneurship-importance-examples/.

Claeye, F. (2017). A typology of social entrepreneuring models in South Africa. Social Enterprise Journal, 13(4), 427-442.Available at: https://doi.org/10.1108/SEJ-09-2017-0041.

Cline, J. (2014). The importance of social entrepreneurship. Retrieved from: https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/20140407142909-1039282-the-importance-of-social-entrepreneurship.

Dacin, T. M., & Paul-Tracey, P. A. D. (2011). Social entrepreneurship: A critique and future directions. Journal of Informs Pubsonline, 22(5), 1203-1213.Available at: https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.1100.0620.

Dzomonda, O. (2020). Social entrepreneurship and sustainable development in South Africa. Journal of Reviews on Global Economics, 8, 274-281.Available at: https://doi.org/10.6000/1929-7092.2020.09.27.

Gandhi, T., & Raina, R. (2018). Social entrepreneurship: The need, relevance, facets and constraints. Journal of Global Entrepreneurship Research, 8(1), 1-13.Available at: https://doi.org/10.1186/s40497-018-0094-6.

Gibbons, J., & Hazy, J. K. (2017). Leading a large-scale distributed social Enterprise: How the leadership culture at goodwill industries creates and distributes value in communities. Nonprofit Management and Leadership, 27(3), 299-316.Available at: https://doi.org/10.1002/nml.21253.

Gordon Institute of Business-GIBS. (2019). Why social entrepreneurship in South Africa? retrieved from: https://www.bbrief.co.za/content/uploads/2019/03/Gibbs-Social-Enterprises-in-South-Africa-Report.pdf.

Gordon Institute of Business Science, G. (2018). Social enterprises in South Africa: Discovering a vibrant sector. SSESA Report. Available: ww.gibs.co.za, 26-29.

Groen, G. S. A. (2017). The importance of social entrepreneurship in national systems of innovation— An introduction. Technological Forecasting & Social Change.

Han, W., Zhuangxiong, Y., & Jie, L. (2018). Corporate social responsibility, product market competition, and product market performance. International Review of Economics & Finance, 56, 75-91.Available at: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.iref.2018.03.019.

Herrington, M., & Kew, P. (2017). Is there a change in attitude towards the small and medium business sector in South Africa Global Entrepreneurship Report. 44-74. Retrieved from: https://www.gemconsortium.org/file/open?fileId=50411.

Hoogendoorn, B. (2016a). The prevalence and determinants of social entrepreneurship at the macro level. Journal of Small Business Management, 54(1), 278-296.Available at: https://doi.org/10.1111/jsbm.12301.

Hoogendoorn, B. (2016b). The prevalence and determinants of social entrepreneurship at the macro level. Journal of Small Business Management, 54(1), 278–296.Available at: https://doi.org/10.1111/jsbm.12301.

Jackson, B. M. N. M. R. (2018). The distinctive challenges and opportunities for creating leadership within social enterprises. Social Enterprise Journal, 14(1), 71-91.Available at: https://doi.org/10.1108/sej-03-2017-0016.

Kalinov, A. (2017). About social entrepreneurship-research, methods and problems. Entrepreneurship, 5(2), 16-31.

Karanda, C., & Toledano, N. (2012). Social entrepreneurship in South Africa: A different narrative for a different context. Social Enterprise Journal, 8(3), 201-215.Available at: https://doi.org/10.1108/17508611211280755.

Kim, S. S., & Lim, W. K. (2017). A study on effect of social support on baby boomer's entrepreneurial opportunity competence: Focusing on mediating effect of entrepreneurial self-efficacy. Asia-Pacific Journal of Business Venturing and Entrepreneurship, 12(5), 101-115.Available at: https://doi.org/10.16972/apjbve.12.5.201710.101.

Kritikos, A. S. (2019). Entrepreneurs and their impact on jobs and economic growth. Retrieved from: https://wol.iza.org/articles/entrepreneurs-and-their-impact-on-jobs-and-economic-growth/long.

Laeis, G. C., & Lemke, S. (2016). Social entrepreneurship in tourism: Applying sustainable livelihoods approaches. International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, 28(6), 1076-1093.Available at: https://doi.org/10.1108/IJCHM-05-2014-0235.

Lana, L., & Ansulie, C. (2019). Creative and social enterprise in South Africa. Retrieve from: https://www.britishcouncil.org.za/sites/default/files/surveying_creative_and_social_enterprise_in_sa.pdf  DICE.

Lepoutre, J., Justo, R., Terjesen, S., & Bosma, N. (2013). Designing a global standardized methodology for measuring social entrepreneurship activity: The Global Entrepreneurship Monitor social entrepreneurship study. Small Business Economics, 40(3), 693-714.Available at: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11187-011-9398-4.

Meyer, N., & Sroka, W. (2021). A theoretical analysis of social entrepreneurship: The case of Poland and South Africa. Journal of Eastern European and Central Asian Research (JEECAR), 8(1), 133-148.Available at: https://doi.org/10.15549/jeecar.v8i1.596.

Myres, K. M. A., Mugudza, N., & Jankelowitz, L. (2017). Survey of social enterprises in South Africa, entrepreneur development academy. Gordon Institute of Business Science, University of Pretoria. Retrieved from: ww.gibs.co.za, 52-57.

Pakurár, M., Khan, M. A., Benedek, A., & Oláh, J. (2020). The impact of green practices, cooperation and innovation on the performance of supply chains using statistical method of meta-analysis. Journal of International Studies, 13(3), 111-128.Available at: https://doi.org/10.14254/2071-8330.2020/13-3/8.

Pande, S., Sengar, R., & Chaudhary, N. S. (2021). Barriers and drivers of social entrepreneurship: A qualitative insight from Indian social entrepreneurs. International Journal of Business and Globalisation, 28(4), 351-366.Available at: https://doi.org/10.1504/ijbg.2021.117354.

Pathak, S., & Muralidharan, E. (2016). Informal institutions and their comparative influences on social and commercial entrepreneurship: The role of in-group collectivism and interpersonal trust. Journal of Small Business Management, 54, 168-188.Available at: https://doi.org/10.1111/jsbm.12289.

Petrovskaya, I., & Mirakyan, A. (2018). A mission of service: Social entrepreneur as a servant leader. International Journal of Entrepreneurial Behaviour and Research, 24(3), 755-767.Available at: https://doi.org/10.1108/ijebr-02-2016-0057.

Raisiene, A. A. U. (2017). Mission drift in a hybrid organization: How can social business combine its dual goals? Economic Journal: Review of Contemporary Entrepreneurship, Business, and Economic Issues, 30(2), 301-310.

Rawhouser, H., Cummings, M., & Newbert, S. L. (2019). Social impact measurement: Current approaches and future directions for social entrepreneurship research. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 43(1), 82-115.Available at: https://doi.org/10.1177/1042258717727718.

Rivera-Santos, M., Holt, D., Littlewood, D., & Kolk, A. (2015). Social entrepreneurship in sub-Saharan Africa. Academy of Management Perspectives, 29(1), 72-91.

Roslan, M. H. H., Hamid, S., Ijab, M. T., Yusop, F. D., & Norman, A. A. (2020). Social entrepreneurship in higher education: Challenges and opportunities. Asia Pacific Journal of Education, 1-17.Available at: https://doi.org/10.1080/02188791.2020.1859354.

Singh, K., & Misra, M. (2021). Linking corporate social responsibility (CSR) and organizational performance: The moderating effect of corporate reputation. European Research on Management and Business Economics, 27(1), 100139.Available at: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.iedeen.2020.100139.

Singh, D. K. T., & Singh, M. S. (2020). Social entrepreneurship "a case of development initiatives by youth volunteers' union". Retrieved from: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/338969314_SOCIAL_ENTREPRENEURSHIP_A_CASE_OF_DEVELOPMENT_INITIATIVES_BY_YOUTH_VOLUNTEERS'_UNION.

Sud, M., VanSandt, C. V., & Baugous, A. M. (2009). Social entrepreneurship: The role of institutions. Journal of Business Ethics, 85(1), 201-216.

The National Development Plan (NDP). (2018). NDP. Retrieved from: http://www.nstf.org.za/wp-content/uploads/2018/04/All-The-NDP.pdf.

Thorgren, S., & Omorede, A. (2018). Passionate leaders in social entrepreneurship: Exploring an African context. Business & Society, 57(3), 481-524.Available at: https://doi.org/10.1177/0007650315612070.

Urban, B., & Kujinga, L. (2017). The institutional environment and social entrepreneurship intentions. International Journal of Entrepreneurial Behavior & Research, 23(4), 638-655.Available at: https://doi.org/10.1108/IJEBR-07-2016-0218.

Urban, B., & Galawe, J. (2019). The mediating effect of self-efficacy on the relationship between moral judgement, empathy and social opportunity recognition in South Africa. International Journal of Entrepreneurial Behaviour and Research, 26(2), 349-372.Available at: https://doi.org/10.1108/ijebr-05-2019-0271.

Urban, B. (2020). Entrepreneurial alertness, self-efficacy and social entrepreneurship intentions. Journal of Small Business and Enterprise Development, 27(2), 489-507.Available at: https://doi.org/10.1108/JSBED-08-2019-0285.

Villeneuve-Smith, F., & Temple, N. (2015). Leading the world in social enterprise. UK: Social Enterprise.

Visser, K. (2011). Social entrepreneurship in South Africa: Context, relevance and extent. Industry and Higher Education, 25(4), 233-247.Available at: https://doi.org/10.5367/ihe.2011.0050.