If you would like to write for this, or any other Emerald publication, then please use our Emerald for Authors service information about how to choose which publication to write for and submission guidelines are available for all. Please visit www.emeraldinsight.com/authors for more information. About Emerald www.emeraldinsight.comEmerald is a global publisher linking research and practice to the benefit of society. The company manages a portfolio of more than 290 journals and over 2,350 books and book series volumes, as well as providing an extensive range of online products and additional customer resources and services.Emerald is both COUNTER 4 and TRANSFER compliant. The organization is a partner of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) and also works with Portico and the LOCKSS initiative for digital archive preservation. AbstractPurpose -The purpose of this paper is to present a detailed analysis of the social enterprises (SE) and social entrepreneurship (SEship) literature that has been published in international journals from 1991 to 2010, determining the intellectual structure of both fields and their maturity as academic fields of study. Design/methodology/approach -Using a quantitative methodology for literature study, named bibliometric analysis, relevant papers were obtained from three important international databases, and SE and SEship journals. An initial number of 1,343 records were identified and, after applying various filters, a total of 286 papers were studied for bibliometric indicators and epistemological orientation. Findings -The study identified a significant increase in the scholarly investigation of SE and SEship in recent years, together with greater collaboration and international research. It was demonstrated that some countries are dominating the SE and SEship research area, such as the UK and the USA, whereas institutional and individual research output is spread more equally. Currently, no author or institution dominates the SE and SEship literature. The epistemological orientation suggests that the published literature is largely of a theoretical and descriptive nature in both fields, with only a small number of predictive papers. Originality/value -This paper provides important contributions. First, it presents an intellectual structure of SE and SEship as a discipline. Second, it determines the current maturity of the field based on its epistemological orientation, concluding that SE and SEship are maturing, with theory development followed by empirical testing and validation generating an increase in consensus on the boundaries of the field.

Purpose This paper aims to explore what social enterprises (SEs) in the UK know and how they acquire, convert, apply and protect this knowledge. This will enable them to manage their knowledge effectively and, hence, improve their practices and maximise the creation of social, environmental and economic value. Design/methodology/approach This study follows a qualitative approach, comprising 21 interviews with founders and senior members of SEs in the UK. Findings The results show that the investigated SEs have knowledge management (KM) practices similar to the already identified in SMEs, associated with informality, reliance on external sources and focus on socialisation activities, but they have unique challenges on managing their knowledge related to their hybrid mission, to include social and economic objectives and their closed relationship with stakeholders. Research limitations/implications As there is limited research on KM practices in SEs; they were defined based on previous studies in large, private and public companies. Therefore, not all practices may be included. This research is a starting point in the study of KM in SEs. Practical implications This study identifies knowledge activities that enable the creation of social, environmental and economic value in SEs. This allows SEs, small firms and non-profit organisations to review their current practices and develop plans for their further improvement. Originality/value This paper is one of the first empirical studies exploring KM practices in SEs, highlighting their informal nature as well as their impact in and on the enterprise.

PurposeIdentify the drivers of social innovation (SI) that bring together the main management tools and approaches associated with the creation of SI in social enterprises (SEs).Design/methodology/approachA systematic review was developed in the Web of Science, Scopus and EBSCO databases, using the keywords: social innovation, social enterprise and management. After analysis of quality and application of inclusion and exclusion criteria, 54 articles were selected for full analysis.FindingsSI process was systemised into four steps: mapping and development, consolidation, scaling up and evaluation. The drivers of SI were mapped and classified into three main factors: contextual, organisational and managerial.Practical implicationsIn organisational factors, business model was emphasised, as well as partnerships, participatory culture and intrapreneurship, adequate levels of bricolage and continuous learning. The management factors included the characteristics of the entrepreneur/innovator and managerial practices, where those that facilitate teamwork and the participation of all involved are best suited. In contextual factors, the highlight was the need for support from policy makers; community participation and demand for innovations that consider local context and usability.Originality/valueThis study connects previously scattered knowledge in a generic model of SI, highlighting routines and processes used, and provides a starting point for innovators and social entrepreneurs in the complex, uncertain and often unknown process of SI. Additionally, several research gaps were identified to be addressed by future research in the context of SI management.

Purpose -This paper presents results from a large comprehensive global survey of knowledge management (KM). The question that this paper looks to answer is how a KM strategy can be developed that will enable its successful management in organisations of many sectors and sizes. In light of the observed developments since the previous knowledge management surveys, the purpose of this paper is to redefine the KM function, and how it should be performed. Design/methodology/approach -The research instrument was a global online hosted survey answered by nearly 700 participants. Hypotheses on the KM management process in contemporary organisations, emphasising the importance of strategy, cover this work. These hypotheses are tested by a set of questions and supported by the survey responses. Findings -It is demonstrated that in many organisations technology has failed to have much impact on the way knowledge is transferred and shared. Research limitations/implications -It should be noted that no control was made over the participants to the survey and no stratification of sampling was made. This means that the results are based on breadth as opposed to depth. Originality/value -Due to the breadth and depth of this survey, the results reported here provide a global snapshot of how knowledge is currently being managed across nations, organisations and various forms of KM function. The findings should be of great use to both practitioners and academics.

We investigate how social enterprises actively engage with their stakeholders to legitimise their hybrid position in addressing both social and businesses audience. This is particularly important in their effort to capturing stability (expectation to 'fit in') within an emerging field and at the same time to address change and growth (expectation to 'stand out') with their limited resources, in order to be profitable enterprises, while creating social value. We analyse in-depth interviews to senior members of twenty-one UK-based social enterprises, and we find that for many SEs involved in legitimisation exercise through the supportive system, collective system, and stakeholders' impression. By outlining the integrated framework on stakeholder engagement for hybrid legitimacy, we found that (i) legitimisation exercise through collective sharing of SE identity help to build SE image and legitimise SE socially driven mission, while (ii) legitimisation through supportive system (resources and business advantage) help building credibility by demonstrating SE capability to grow economically.