1.1 Social enterprise and S4SC

This current study is situated in a larger, global study that aims at contributing to the development of social enterprise theory for S4SC. Sport is more than just a platform for entertainment and competition; it is a tool for social change when used intentionally and with purpose (UNICEF, 2003). Therefore, S4SC is the umbrella term referring to organizations that use sport to yield “positive influence on [the] public health” of often marginalized and vulnerable communities (Lyras & Peachey, 2011, p. 311). Over 900 community-based organizations across low-income, middle-income, and high-income countries engage this approach to address the social determinants of health, including increasing social inclusion, building community capacity, and fostering social change (Nathan et al., 2013; Whitley et al., 2019). On an important note, we understand that for many scholars, this field is bigger than just the community-based non-profit. For example, some scholars argue community sport programs should be considered in this field. This brings existing sport programs and governing bodies into the boundaries of the S4SC field. However, we agree with those who consider S4SC as operations outside of existing sports systems (Peachey, Schulenkorf, & Spaaij, 2019; Thorpe & Chawansky, 2017). Svensson, Hancock & Hums (2017) provide a prominent argument in our favor by suggesting the “social change-focused mission” of the community-based non-profit differentiates them from the traditional sport organization and from sport governing bodies (p. 2). In addition, we find community-based non-profits operate most of the S4SC programs, though with the support and cooperation of other actors such as international NGOs, community-based non-profits, governments, and corporations (Giulianotti, 2011; Giulianotti & Armstrong, 2013).

Until recently, there has been an absence of research dedicated to understanding “the provision and actual management of these S4SC programs” in order to discuss the “associated practical and policy implications” (Schulenkorf, Sherry, & Rowe, 2016, p. 1). To address this gap, social enterprise has become an emerging concept in the S4SC scholarship. However, it is rarely queried on its own and typically folded into research on social innovation and/or social entrepreneurship (e.g., Hayhurst, 2014; Svensson & Mahoney, 2020). This muddies the conceptual clarity of what social enterprise actually means. It is important to distinguish the differences between these terms and social enterprise to ensure we do not provide misguided representations (Peredo and McLean, 2006).

For example, Hayhurst (2014) introduces the concept of social enterprise in her study on the impact of the Nike “Girl Effect” program. She argues social entrepreneurship is a viable strategy for this organization to face the environmental challenges we cited earlier. This occurred in two ways. First, the program empowers female youth to become social entrepreneurs to face gender stigmatization in their communities. Svensson and Cohen (2020) note a similar form of innovation in the Play International program and the Playlab experiment. This is a program that is designed with the intent to promote social entrepreneurship amongst program youth. Second, she introduces the term social enterprise as a mechanism to cut ties from the “purse strings of donors” (p. 310). By employing both these forms of entrepreneurship, the organization should engage in smart development economics to empower the organization and the youth. It is probable that Hayhurst considered that social enterprises are vessels for social entrepreneurial activity (El Ebrashi, 2013). However, we did not find explicit clarification to distinguish the two.

Other scholars query the antecedents of social innovation in the field (Svensson et al., 2020a,b; Whitley et al., 2019). One such study explores how to resource social innovation. Whitley et al. (2019) argue that one antecedent to social innovation is a comprehensive realignment of funders intention to the innovation goals of the organization. Joachim, Schulenkorf, Schlenker, and Frawley (2020) suggest a reorientation of S4SC management so that innovation will stem from a human-centered design. Yet, it is Svensson's complex work on organizational capacity and social innovation that provides much of what we know about social enterprise within the field to date (Svensson & Cohen, 2020; Svensson, Mahoney, & Hambrick, 2020). One key study (Svensson, 2017) explores social innovation through hybrid logic. Organizations adapt their traditional models to respond to environmental stresses. In order to do this, they must balance competing institutional values, beliefs, rules, and systems (“the logics”), which may not have been present in early program delivery. How they balance them informs the overall hybrid model of program delivery. Svensson (2017) offers insight into how this occurs in the S4SC organization. For some, they may adapt their funding strategy and balance the new funder's values with their own. Others may engage in a differentiated model. In this model, for example, a revenue-generating activity is structurally different than the social delivery. What Svensson (2017) offers in this article is an introduction to social enterprise organization structure. These structures are those we may find in the S4SC space. He clarifies that these types of innovation taken by the community-based non-profit is dependent on the context of the organization.

Despite these efforts, there remains a “discrepancy between theory and practice” and how to progress innovations in the S4SC field (Svensson & Cohen, 2020, p. 139). Svensson and Cohen (2020) claim that despite this, “it is just as crucial to relay these findings to SDP [S4SC] stakeholders” (p. 142). However, in our experience, this is not enough when it comes to working through complex, umbrella-like terms such as social enterprise and social innovation. Although these findings stem from methodological practice which is typically participatory in nature (e.g., Giulianotti, Coalter, Collison, & Darnell, 2019; Joachim et al., 2020), participation requires a strong paradigmatic foundation and protocol that structures how we give voice and give accountability to those living the experience (Oetzel et al., 2018). For our purposes, it is best to negotiate the conceptual underpinnings of social enterprise with the end-user before operationalizing the term in our own study. Why we assume this is explored below.

1.2 Background and purpose

Not surprisingly, finance plays an integral role in the capacity of the organization, making it this study's original entry point into social enterprise theory (Svensson & Cohen, 2020; Svensson & Hambrick, 2019). There are financial challenges within the field that cannot be missed. Kidd (2008) went so far to claim that they are “woefully underfunded” alongside being poorly planned and unregulated. Against the backdrop of the COVID-19 pandemic, the financial realities become more evident and frightening for the survival of the field. Approximately 56.2% of organizations believe that it will take up to 3 years to recover to a pre-pandemic level of funding and program delivery (Oaks Consultancy, 2020).

This research team, working in partnership with the largest network of S4SC organizations, Streetfootballworld (SFW),¹ has developed a global, in-depth exploration of social enterprise in the field of S4SC for the purpose of supporting the ongoing development of a social enterprise capacity-building program. A pilot survey provided our initial step into this research by mapping the types of sustainable funding mechanisms used in the field of S4SC. In response, 27 S4SC organizations indicated the development of social enterprise activity within the past 5 years to face the challenges associated with the “non-profit starvation cycle” (Elkington, Bunde-Birouste, & Apoifis, 2019). In-depth follow-up was conducted during a series of preliminary capacity-building events. In addition to providing key insights, this initial exploratory process made us question the research team's interpretation of social enterprise. At this junction of the process, our interpretation of social enterprise aligned with an earned-income description (Arpinte, 2010; Kerlin, 2010). Defourny and Nyssens (2017) explain this as the entrepreneurial non-profit (ENP), an organization with a trading arm to earn income that will directly support their social programs. They pursue commercial activity alongside traditional non-profit operations and governance to “compliment public grants and donations with new sources of funding” (Defourny & Nyssens, 2017, p. 2481). Yet, not all organizations querying a transition to social enterprise aligned their interest to this definition.

This study, in response, sought a methodology that puts the voices of the study end-users first. Community-based non-profits often fall subject to the whims of external stakeholders, and many times, this can include the researcher (Anheier, Simmons, & Winder, 2007). This can lead, though not all the time, to an understanding and appreciation of the dimensions of the research that are possibly limited and biased (Johansson, Ericsson, Boström, Björklund, & Fristedt, 2018; Potvin & McQueen, 2008). We observed this bias in our own research. Therefore, we engage Fourth-Generation Realist Evaluation (4GE). This evaluation protocol promotes the negotiation between researcher and end-user, whereby both are participants in developing the research trajectory. The end-users enter into negotiation as lived experts on the topic. The researcher, in contrast, enters with a firm theoretical foundation.

For the purpose of this study, we must therefore return to the literature to firm up an approach to how we can conceptualize social enterprise for the purpose of this negotiation (Guba & Lincoln, 1989). We engage in a systematic narrative review, executed according to RAMESES standards, to address the question: How can we communicate social enterprise in negotiation with SFW network members who look to transition to a social enterprise model? We first present why RAMESES is an appropriate method of synthesis. Then we turn to a description of our findings before presenting the conclusion.

2.1 The narrative review

We draw on the guidelines of the RAMESES narrative review. Review types such as the systematic or meta-analysis predominantly aim at identifying gaps in research and subsequently form hypotheses, which may fill these gaps (Gunnell, Poitras, & Tod, 2020). The narrative review does not take this approach. We aim at viewing social enterprise “through multiple sets of eyes,” a nod to the realist underpinning of this review type and our understanding that context informs how researchers ask their questions (Wong, Greenhalgh, Westhorp, Buckingham, & Pawson, 2013, p. 2). Based on this, we create a narrative arc to credit the different perceptions. For the quality assurance purposes of this review, the established 20 RAMESES standards were followed to ensure validity and reliability of the findings (Wong et al., 2013). The following is laid out according to these steps. Table 1 provides a description of how we engaged each task. For conceptual purposes, we have aggregated the steps into high-level dimensions to remain considerate of the length of the paper. Those that merit further description are illustrated by the subheadings. The following search and appraisal were conducted by three members of the research team.

2.2 The literature search process

We first conducted an informal exploration of the current literature on social enterprise (Wong et al., 2013). We found this is a particularly appropriate step to commence a literature search exploring social enterprise as the concept “remains hard to grasp” because at the core of the term is a “complexity of overlapping key concepts [which] create major challenges” (Maier et al., 2016, p. 64). We initiated the conversation with those across the SFW network, including members of the steering committee and respondents to the pilot survey. We also read publications and attended two conferences on social enterprise to broaden our interpretation of the concept to be applied to this research. Following this initial foray into the literature, we found it is in our best interest to source information on social enterprise, which associates across multiple research approaches and terms. However, we must only consider the literature, which regards the community-based non-profit as the key actor engaging in enterprise activity, rather than a corporation (Ridley-Duff and Bull, 2015; Trivedi & Stokols, 2011).

Based on this initial foray, we selected Scopus and ProQuest as appropriate databases to conduct the next, in-depth search. These databases were selected based on their multidisciplinary approach to index and provide access to bodies of knowledge. For example, it was beneficial to this review to aggregate literature across the ProQuest index of databases, including those related to humanities, education, business, and public health. This ensures we give credit to the underpinning health and development objectives as well as the models of program delivery across the S4SC field. We conducted an individual search for each association of terms selected, which encompass the social enterprise literature (i.e., “social enterprise*” AND “NGO*” as one search, and “Social enterprise* AND “non-profit*” as another, and so on and so forth). The list of associated terms to social enterprise included: “NGO*”, “nongovernmental organization*”, “non-profit*,” “NPO*,” and “non-profit organization*,” “third sector,” “civil society,” and “social economy.”

Inclusion of the broad terms social economy, third sector, and civil society was considered necessary to account for, either rightly or wrongly, their occasional, synonymous use across the literature (Viterna, Clough and Clarke, 2015). According to scholars, these terms encompass a myriad of individual activities and institutions including non-profits, non-governmental organizations, independents, charities, faith-based organizations, and voluntary organizations (e.g., Corry, 2010; Dacheux & Goujon, 2011; Salamon, Hems, & Chinnock, 2000). Specifically, within this literature, we are interested in the community-based organizations, which engage in problem-solving, advocating, shaping society norms and articulating society purpose, and democratic change. Therefore, further inclusion of the terms non-profit, non-governmental organizations, and associated entries were submitted (Knutsen, 2016). Many times, the non-governmental organizations (NGOs) and non-profit organization are used synonymously, but this is not without flaw and conceptual incongruity (Salamon & Anheier, 1997; Salamon & Sokolowski, 2016). For some, the NGO is subsumed within the non-profit literature or the private arm of governments' international interest (Sama, 2009). Yet, for others, such as conceptualizations in the United States, the NGO broadly accepts the place of the non-profit and arguably shares the same purpose. We cannot, for the purpose of this review, delineate by law or organizational structure, as these are too context-dependent for the scope of organizations we aim to support (Til, 2009).

We included all articles between 2000 and 2020. These dates were chosen in consideration of the most contemporary conceptualizations of the term. Even though social enterprise is not a novel concept, it has been continually refined and reworked with considerable efforts since the early 2000s (Sepulveda, 2015). The search was limited to English, peer-reviewed articles and editorials where the full-article was available. Title, abstract, and keywords were initially searched, returning 1,238 articles (See Table 2). This was conducted within the study objective to consider the association between social enterprise and existing community-based organizations. Thereby, if the association was not made within the abstract, title, or keyword, then it was not the key consideration of the article. Articles were then collated across databases and checked for duplicates, resulting in the removal of 411 articles.

2.3 Selection and appraisal of documents

The appraisal phase of the narrative review is not a technical process, but one that brings to light those articles that best contribute to the validity of the literature search. In order to achieve this, we had to map the remaining literature against the study objective in accordance with RAMESES guidelines (Wong et al., 2013). To start this evaluation process, the criteria in Table 3 were set and agreed to by the research team to ensure the results are feasible and reflect the study's purpose (Wong et al., 2013). For example, we considered that those articles that strictly consider social enterprise within medical literature outside the current scope of the SFW network and, therefore, outside of the scope of this review. To start this process, the lead author screened the database hits against the criteria, using title information/abstracts to conduct the review. Where there were any questions, the article was set aside to be dually reviewed and negotiated by the research team. A further removal of 671 articles ensued.

2.4 Data extraction, analysis, and synthesis

A total of 156 full-text articles were assessed to classify the key concepts reflective of the study objective (see Figure 1). This method led to the identification of an additional 16 relevant references. We conducted thematic coding of these remaining articles. Following an inductive process, we applied descriptive codes to each article (Braun & Clarke, 2006). We placed similar codes (child codes) together, so they formed metacodes (Bazeley, 2013; Saldana, 2016) (see Figure 1). These metacodes were a means to paint a larger picture of the overarching considerations researchers have brought into the discussion of social enterprise as it relates to existing non-profits. This process was iterative as we continued to digest conflicting and complimentary approaches to social enterprise. The child codes will be discussed within our summary of findings. We find these underpin these overarching considerations. However, in reality, there is an overlap of codes across the sourced articles suggesting social enterprise conceptualizations may draw on the same foundations but with different objectives of the explanation. This is illustrated in the flow diagram. In addition, these codes were not based on any particular keywords or phrases within the studies. They represented what the authors believe are the main ways the current research frames the balance between social purpose and financial mission. The primary author was the lead researcher conducting the analysis. Quality assurance was provided by discussion with feedback from the larger research team and colleagues at the researchers' institutional base.

3.1 Social enterprise: Context and purpose

Many scholars find that social enterprise is best understood as a place-based approach (Ferguson, 2018; Mazzei, 2018). In this sense, the concepts associated with social enterprise are based on consideration of context first. For some scholars, this association is made through the relationship of enterprise activity to the social, institutional, and environmental factors within a specific context (Kerlin, 2013). Social enterprise has gained increasing currency to fill key gaps caused by the retrenchment of state welfare and to respond to the inclusion or absence of international interest (Arantes, 2020). What this means is social enterprise is a response to certain socioeconomic factors which influence a context's overall civil sector (Kerlin, 2012; Zimmer & Obuch, 2017). In South Korea for example, the non-profit sector is moving away from state-sponsored approaches providing greater room for bottom-up driven enterprises (Jang, 2017).

Many social enterprise definitions are attributed to a single context, taking into account these contextual factors (Gonzales, Forrest, & Balos, 2013). According to Kerlin (2012) “world regions have come to identify different definitions and concepts with the social enterprise movement in their areas” (p. 91). Pestoff and Hulgård (2016) progress this consideration by claiming that definitions are the results of a particular political agenda. Across our findings, three examples are prominently used as examples, including the United States, the United Kingdom, and EMES, a social enterprise research network that investigates the development of social enterprise across the European Union (Arpinte, 2010; Rostron, 2015). The United Kingdom Department of Trade and Industry defines social enterprise “as a business with primarily social objectives whose surpluses are principally reinvested for that purpose in that business or in the community rather than being driven by the need to maximize profit for shareholders and owners” (as cited in Rostron, 2015, p. 88). The contextual drivers of this definition stem from a retrenchment of welfare funds, and as such, social enterprises are those that benefit the welfare objectives of the country, by creating “new goods and services” where mainstream businesses and potentially, the government, will not go (Spear, 2009).

A more explicit interpretation is found within the United States, whereby the social enterprise definition stems from the role of the social entrepreneur (Pestoff & Hulgård, 2016). The entrepreneur is one that takes risks, innovates, adapts, and pursues any opportunity that will benefit the social purpose (Jones & Keaugh, 2006). Social enterprise is therefore, in this context, a non-profit organization that builds upon these characteristics of the social entrepreneur and moves “away from reliance on more traditional forms of income” by developing their own businesses to approach revenue generation (Arpinte, 2010, p. 154).

The legality of social enterprise is an additional concept to consider as an underpinning descriptor of context-based approaches. Is there a welcoming environment for social enterprise activity (Orhei, Vinke, & Nandram, 2014; Praszkier, Petrushak, Kacprzyk-Murawska, & Zabłocka, 2017)? For instance, recent policy reform has created a welcoming gateway for social entrepreneurship activity to generate new and innovative routes to employability in Italy. This includes the enactment of new legal organizational forms, means of governance, and encouragement of cross-sector interaction and partnership (Pulino, Maiolini, & Venturi, 2019). Yet, this type of environment is not fluid across countries (Doherty & Kittipanya-Ngam, 2020). For example, Hojnik (2020) concludes in her review of social entrepreneurship in Slovenia that there is not a welcoming legal environment to support this activity. What she means by this is that there is an ecosystem surrounding social enterprises, which we must consider when questioning the viability of social enterprise in a specific context. This includes potential for impact measurement and communication, certification, external stakeholder support from businesses, investment market, and the current legal system in which the enterprise will operate. Hojnik concludes that even though there is not a breadth of legal social enterprises, there are many organizations in Slovenia currently operating according to social enterprise principles. What we take away from this is the heightened need for context-based advocacy to create a more welcoming environment for this enterprising activity. In addition, even though there are not always stringent laws to guide social enterprise development, organizations may be able to operate according to social enterprise principles reflective in the social enterprise definitions put forth. Therefore, we may be able to assume that it is up to the organization to articulate the principles, which may be the most welcoming and applicable to their own context (Babić & Baturina, 2020; Monzon-Campos & Herrero-Montagud, 2016).

But why do this in the first place? The literature considers context not only within definition and regulatory environment, but within the social purpose of the enterprise. Roy et al. (2014) suggest that social enterprises exist for the main purpose of alleviating the “preventable and unfair differences between social groups, populations and individuals” (p. 183). This is achieved, for example, by empowering communities with accessible healthcare (Henderson, Reilly, Moyes, & Whittam, 2018); the unregulated sale of basic medicines in impoverished low-income countries (Smith-Nonini, 2016); building capacity of female entrepreneurs (Hossein, 2017); and facilitating community adaptation to the decline of the welfare state by providing opportunities such as housing and employment (Cornelius & Wallace, 2013; Murtagh & McFerran, 2015).

The approach employed by EMES offers potential solution to this challenge to embedding social purpose and context within the definition of social enterprise. We find it does so without strict parameters. These dimensions are guidelines for social enterprises to define as well as refine their approach (see Table 4; Defourny & Nyssens, 2017).

3.2 Context, social enterprise, and S4SC

We find there is a clear purpose for social enterprise development. This can be directly attributed to the organization context. Much of the literature focuses heavily on broad institutional factors, such as those articulated by Kerlin (2012). Yet, is in our opinion that the organizations we work with are already filling a key gap in their nation's social economy but are searching for ways to do this more efficiently. Therefore, we draw from this finding very practical insight into the factors that may inform how the existing non-profit organization transitions to a social enterprise model. Without fail, there must be an environment that supports their activity. Clearly, the literature suggests it is easier to progress to this model when policy supports the transition. However, we do find that even without clearly defined legal structures, organizations can continue to draw on the principles of social enterprise. We must also take into account the niche factors within specific contexts, which are attributed to the larger socioeconomic factors. These are defined by the organization's primary purpose such as to provide education, to provide employment, and to foster space for women entrepreneurship. Finally, we also find in this first entry point consideration of social enterprise definitions. Scholars argue that definitions in the social sphere tend to be in flux, yet they remain widely used to describe certain activity within the social enterprise space (Bazeley, 2013). Therefore, it is appropriate for this review to consider definitions as guidelines; potential avenues for social enterprise operationalization that may be fluid across context. Context-based explorations into social enterprise, though offering strategically narrow insight into particular cases, are a lens into the varying social enterprise typologies.

3.3 Purpose: A matter of model and typology

For the second entry point, we find researchers consider organization purpose through the lens of institutional logic (Besharov & Smith, 2014; Thornton, Ocasio, & Lounsbury, 2015). These logics are the overarching norms, values, missions, and rules that guide enterprise development (Battilana and Dorado, 2010; Thornton et al., 2015). In the transition to social enterprise from traditional non-profit, these logics are subject to change, whereby the innovation the organization seeks may not be directly aligned to the organization's existing values and beliefs. This potentially leads to ethical dilemmas, another entry point into the consideration of organizational purpose (Albrecht, Varkey, Colville, & Clerkin, 2018; Bull, 2008; McDonald, Weerawardena, Madhavaram, & Mort, 2015; Raišienė & Urmanavičienė, 2017). What this means is that non-profits transitioning into a social enterprise approach may change their underpinning values, beliefs, and systems, which govern how they approach their participants and their communities. Yet, these organizations want to stay true to their social engagement by reconciling the tensions between “social purpose and market” and that this balancing act is how organizations work towards the double-bottom line (Child, Witesman, & Spencer, 2016).

Researchers consider social enterprise typologies as a conceptual approach to orienting how these logics, or more broadly, organization purposes, work within the overall operation of the social enterprise (Besharov & Smith, 2014). Typologies are lenses to explore social enterprise; they provide an entry point into understanding why a social enterprise exists, for what purposes, and the types of operations it conducts to address that purpose. Typologies are a way to show how organizations enact the balance of their core purposes; that is, how these organizations trade to fulfill their purpose (Defourny & Nyssens, 2017). Social enterprises present themselves in many ways, and very differently within the literature, falling under different names, which tend to articulate their purpose.

For example, a WISE is a Work Integrated Social Enterprise. These “employment provider” social enterprises conduct trade for the purpose of providing disadvantaged persons the opportunity to earn an income. It is an enterprise that serves “the low-qualified, long-term unemployed at risk of permanent exclusion from the labor market” by directly employing them to sell goods or services, which further generates revenue for the social enterprise (Woodside, 2018, p. 41). The WISE model, however, is also not a “one size fits all” approach. Our findings show that context also informs WISE typology. In a review of a London-based charity's transition to social enterprise to better support the city's homeless, Leadbeater (2013) noted that “some social enterprise models have a better ‘fit’ for supporting the homeless sector than others” (p. 266). Similarly, drawing on a series of cases in Spain, Salvà and Rosselló (2012) identified two prominent types of WISEs. These are special employment centers and insertion enterprises. A review of Nordic enterprises it is a matter of both name and law. Developing accessible work opportunities must be pursued by those that label themselves “social enterprises” (Pestoff & Hulgård, 2016). In this sense, the WISE is synonymous with social enterprise by law.

Much of the recent scholarship we find considers typologies through the EMES approach. Defourny and Nyssens (2017) suggest that in order to hone our understanding of typologies, we need to consider the stakes and interest in social enterprise. They present these interests across four typologies. These typologies are based on the interest of three stakeholder groups: the specific population (mutual); the broad population (general); or for capital interest. Traditionally, mutuals and cooperatives work for mutual interest, the state and traditional non-profits work for general interest, and a for-profit business works for capital interest. Social enterprises are essentially spin-off organizations of each traditional business by drawing on and incorporating other interests into their business model. The following four typologies represent these spinoffs.

The ENP encompasses traditional non-profits, which derive a trading arm to earn income that will directly support their social programs. They pursue commercial activity alongside traditional non-profit operations and governance to “compliment public grants and donations with new sources of funding” (Defourny & Nyssens, 2017, p. 2481). The Social Cooperative (SC) derives from the traditional cooperative and mutual, which works for the benefit of members by giving members the governance of the organization. The SC also works for general interest, such that their trading activity may benefit a larger development objective. The authors provide the example of a social energy cooperative, which seeks to provide financially accessible energy to its members, but because it pursues renewable energy, it also works towards larger environmental objectives, which benefit the population. The Social Business (SB) draws on capital interest. However, the authors claim that when a for-profit business is instituted by a social entrepreneur, the business actually draws on both capital and general interest because it provides goods or services for the public good. The provision of a good or service is embedded in the business model, and inherently generates general interest no matter the governance structure or profit distribution. For example, a business that provides affordable housing to the elderly or a fair-trade organization.

3.4 Purpose, typology, and S4SC

It is clear that the organizations we work with will face tensions in their underpinning logic. This particular finding illustrates ways to consider these tensions, a notion we find beneficial to our own negotiation. We cannot assume for an organization how they balance rival and corresponding logics and the typology that overarchingly describes their operations. Therefore, we must put it to the organization, offering insight into the potential typologies. Yet, we do find that without fail, both context and the overall creation of social value remain at the core of the enterprises we work with. There is considerable insight within the literature that social enterprise typology is informed by both organizational and community needs.

3.5 Purpose and the external environment

Finally, we find research must consider the inherent challenges in social enterprise despite ongoing consideration of this activity as a tool to face the challenges within the non-profit environment. Therefore, there is a durst of research, which focuses on meeting these challenges—another purpose for us to consider (Herbst, 2019). One scholarly track focuses on the “organizational ecology” in which the social enterprise operates (Searing, Lecy, & Andersson, 2016). In order to meet their purposes, they must operate across multiple stakeholders, a market of participants, customers, funders, and policy officials (Defourny & Nyssens, 2010). Operating in this external environment is based on the organization's strategic position and overall management of knowledge to achieve this position. Strategic position is a business term that describes how the organization distinguishes itself from its competitors (Salavou & Manolopoulos, 2019). The literature tells us that social enterprises increase the business capacity of the organization such that they become more appealing to the external partners and donors (Mikołajczak, 2019). Organizations that transition to social enterprise for this purpose do so to build not only financial capacity, but also human resource, structural and operational capacity for the purpose of fulfilling external relationships and positive social development, factors appealing to others in the organizational ecosystem (Christensen & Gazley, 2008; Eisinger, 2002).

Many scholars also propose that interaction with actors in this ecosystem must be grounded in the cocreation of value. Yet, this can happen in a myriad of ways (Brinkerhoff & Brinkerhoff, 2011; Herbst, 2019; Pulino et al., 2019). One means has already been discussed in our findings. This is the cocreation of a welcoming social enterprise environment at the policy level. In this sense, the social enterprise takes on the role of an advocate or policy influencer given their lived experience. However, Karanda and Toledano (2020) have suggested this remains a challenging space to occupy. Even though the social enterprise provides instrumental insight as a case study to policy reform, many times the policy process is not participatory, limiting the potential for social enterprise advocacy in the space.

Scholars also focus on social enterprises that co-develop strategies with the government and other actors in the organization's ecosystem (Cook, Benson, & Inman, 2014). In one sense, we see social enterprises operating in partnership with governments. Based on the UK definition of social enterprise, these organizations are the “spin outs” of public welfare provision following the retrenchment of public funds (Spear, 2009). Yet, we find in the literature that this discussion resonates across varying contexts. Herbst (2019) illustrates the benefits of government alignment in Australia. Social enterprises that embed their interventions in either government or other institutional strategies have neutralized external threats to their program survivability. Working with higher-degree institutions to develop employment-specific certifications for intervention participants or working with government agencies to subsidize programs that work across product supply chain to create a more circular and environmentally conscious product production provide key examples (Salavou & Manolopoulos, 2019). Not only does this subsidize costs and increase program survivability, production, and delivery of consumer goods and services is grounded in consumer-supported ethos (Herbst, 2019). Thompson, Williams, Kwong, and Thomas (2015) additionally illustrate that many social enterprises, particularly in deprived, rural locales, require subsidization by government funding, despite trading activity. This funding can support organizational costs, but if organizations aim at continuing their program delivery, a funding mix, potentially assumed through partnership, must be achieved.

Ko and Liu (2015) offer the lens of knowledge spillover for further explanation on working in and outside of the organization's direct ecosystem. Knowledge spillover refers to an unintentional flow of knowledge from one member of the ecosystem to another. It is grounded in social interaction. Yet, based on Ko and Liu's findings, this social interaction must be intentional to aid the enterprises survival. It is in the organization's best interest to work with a diversity of actors both in their direct ecosystem and external to it to gain critical knowledge to business management. They should also work in accordance with local experts to understand the community market for their goods and services (Kirkman, 2012). Contrary to this research approach are those that consider actors in this ecosystem as detrimental to the organization core purpose.

Scholars also enter this discussion by focusing on the internal capacities of the organization as key to the organization ecosystem. These capacities drive the strategic position. Peng and Liang (2019), for example, explore the challenges within the transition from non-profit to social enterprise. What they find is creative leadership and staffing are core to the success of this transition. Without this, the social enterprise may remain ambiguous to developing competitive advantage as they remain risk averse rather than pursue the risk associated with social entrepreneurship. In addition, scholarly findings show that those non-profits with integral understanding of the core business of the enterprise will progress the transition (Cho & Sultana, 2015).

3.6 Organization ecosystem, social enterprise, and S4SC

What we find in this specific discussion is the inherent need for potential enterprise to actively engage with their direct and indirect ecosystems to face competitive challenges. This requires clear communication and strategy. We have already concluded that organizations must consider the legal environment in which to operate a social enterprise. Now we find that they may act as advocates towards the creation of this environment by engaging with and working across the key actors in the organizational ecosystem. Actors in the organizational ecosystem are also beneficial to the social enterprise in the transition from community-based non-profit. We must consider moving forward the opportunity in this engagement and how those in the SFW network may consider social enterprise through partnership and interaction with other actors.