The Influence of the Ecosystem on the Motivation of Social Entrepreneurs

Abstract

Social entrepreneurs have particular characteristics that differentiate them from commercial entrepreneurs, but research on this differential behavior is still a field in which many questions need to be explored. Specifically, a factor of special relevance is the ecosystem where social entrepreneurial activity takes place. The aim of this study is to analyze how the ecosystem affects the motivation of social entrepreneurs compared to commercial entrepreneurs. This general objective is divided into two specific objectives. First, we analyze how the ecosystem influences the probability of being a social entrepreneur, considering both factors of the entrepreneurial environment and economic and financial factors. Second, we analyze whether the effect of the entrepreneurial ecosystem is determined by the level of development of the country where the activity takes place. The results show that the entrepreneurial ecosystem (the entrepreneurial, financial, and institutional environment) determines the motivation of social entrepreneurs in a different way compared to commercial entrepreneurs. In addition, we find that this influence is different according to the level of development of countries.

Implications of Entrepreneurial Intentions of Romanian Secondary Education Students, over the Romanian Business Market Development

“…Carriles-Alberdi et al analyzed the influence of the entrepreneurial ecosystem and highlighted important aspects, namely that people with higher education have a greater inclination towards entrepreneurship. The authors also found that in countries based on innovation, women are more easily incorporated into the entrepreneurial phenomenon [16]. Also, a large part of potential entrepreneurs never starts entrepreneurial activity, or shortly after starting their business, they abandon it.…”

Managing the external financing constraints of social enterprises: A systematic review of a diversified research landscape

“…Studies from the sub‐theme social enterprise formation find that although many specific financing options for social enterprises have recently been established, social entrepreneurs still have fewer financing options than regular entrepreneurs, especially in the early start‐up stage (Carriles‐Alberdi et al., 2021; Harding, 2007; Hoogendoorn et al., 2019). This lack of financial support not only prevents social entrepreneurs from starting social enterprises, but also influences their decisions, for example, whether to choose a for‐profit or non‐profit legal form (Child et al., 2015; Stirzaker et al., 2021).…”

“…On the one hand, researchers argue that a strong economy dominated by market logics and functioning traditional financial markets facilitates private investments in social enterprises (Kistruck et al., 2011; Popov et al., 2018; Zhao & Lounsbury, 2016). On the other hand, studies find that exactly such markets are not beneficial for social enterprises (Carriles‐Alberdi et al., 2021; Cobb et al., 2016; Mendoza‐Abarca et al., 2015).…”

“…laws and regulations) influence entrepreneurial resources and strategies to access or exploit financing opportunities. As legal and economic factors are rarely favourable towards social enterprises (Carriles‐Alberdi et al., 2021; Umfreville & Bonnin, 2021), a focus on cultural aspects—such as highlighting the positive effects of their business models for society as a whole (e.g. Calic & Mosakowski, 2016; Paniagua et al., 2015)—could be a strategy to positively influence legitimacy and thus subject to future research.…”

A digital ecosystem as an institutional field: curated peer production as a response to institutional voids revealed by COVID‐19

“…They did do by becoming part of an entrepreneurial ecosystem connecting global designers and fabricators through digital networks. Second, their network formation in a disembedded space, united only by a sense of the social value that they could contribute through the ecosystem they were forming (Carriles‐Alberdi et al, 2021 ), was also entrepreneurial. Finally, they were entrepreneurs in the Schumpeterian sense of social engineering identified by Zahra et al ( 2009 ).…”