Social entrepreneurship advocates solving social problems through market methods, and emphases the mixed logic drive and dual identity, which has contributed significantly to poverty reduction, environmental protection and sustainable social development. However, there are some problems with social entrepreneurship such as difficulty in transforming social opportunities, high cost of resource acquisition, difficulty in coordinating the interests of partners and difficulty in measuring social value, which need to be solved by innovation in opportunities, resources, governance, and value measurement. Digital technology has shaped the development of emerging industries and changes in social systems, and provided effective solutions for enriching social problem solutions, reducing the threshold for the integration of social resources, building a trust network, and measuring social influence. Digital social entrepreneurship, a new form of entrepreneurship to deal with the several challenges of the digital era, refers to the process oriented by solving social problems and satisfying the social demand that integrates digital technology with social entrepreneurship and promotes the digitization of social entrepreneurship opportunities, resources, governance and value measurement, so as to more effectively realize social entrepreneurship activities with mixed economic and social values. Through the comparative study with social entrepreneurship and digital entrepreneurship, digital social entrepreneurship has differences in opportunities, resources, governance methods and value measurement, which are manifested in the functions of outstanding characteristics of intelligent social problem connection, real-time response to social problems, visualization of social value, and indexation of social entrepreneurship. Hence, this paper preliminarily maps a research framework, which contains the connotation, process elements and operation mechanism of digital social entrepreneurship. The factors interact with each other to form a unique operating mechanism. Based on the case study of the “Xintairuan” which is a Chinese golden social enterprise, we have depicted the digital social entrepreneurship process including four basic elements, such as digital social entrepreneurs, digital social citizens, digital social entrepreneurship platforms and the digital social regulation. It forms the unique operation of mechanism of the artificial integration of opportunities-resources, the twinning of empowerment-regulation, mixed value of creation with joint efforts, and the scale of social influence. This article proposes the concept, elements and operating mechanism of digital social entrepreneurship in a novel way, describes the inherent commonalities between digital technology and social entrepreneurship, reconstructs the basic content of traditional entrepreneurship, and pays more attention to the initiative and dynamics of social entrepreneurial innovation processes under digital technology. It is also of great practical value to fill the gaps in digital social entrepreneurship research and improve efficiency. This paper holds that the nature of the operation process of digital social entrepreneurship is the process of social value creation by social entrepreneurs, participation of citizens in digital society from bottom to top and their active value dissemination, and promotion of value sharing and governance improvement by digital social entrepreneurship platforms. In the future, the research of digital social entrepreneurship urgently needs to construct a new paradigm of integration, contextualization, problematization and humanization under the vision of mixed value logic and digital drive. This study further develops the research’s connotation of digital entrepreneurship and social entrepreneurship, which has important practical meaning for promoting the digital application and the improvement of efficiency for social entrepreneurship.
/ Journals / Foreign Economics & Management
Foreign Economics & Management
LiZengquan, Editor-in-Chief
ZhengChunrong, Vice Executive Editor-in-Chief
YinHuifang HeXiaogang LiuJianguo, Vice Editor-in-Chief
Digital Social Entrepreneurship: Theoretical Framework and Research Outlook
Foreign Economics & Management Vol. 42, Issue 04, pp. 3 - 18 (2020) DOI:10.16538/j.cnki.fem.20200228.402
Summary
References
Summary
[1] Cai Li, Yang Yaqian ,Lu Shan, et al.. Review and prospect of research on the impact of digital technology on entrepreneurial activities[J]. Studies in Science of Science,2019a, (10): 1816-1824+1835.
[2] Cai Li, Ge Baoshan, Cai Yiru. Entrepreneurial opportunity and resource development behavior of entrepreneurial firms: A study from China' s transitional economy[J]. Quarterly Journal of Management, 2019b, 4(2): 44-62+134.
[3] Liu Zhiyang, Li Bin, Chen Hewu. Research on social entrepreneurship under the perspective of entrepreneurship[J]. Management World, 2018, (11): 171-173.
[4] Liu Zhiyang, Zhuang Xinhe, Li Bin. Geograhpic Scope, attention allocation and mission deviation in social enterprises[J]. Business Management Journal, 2019, (8): 73-90.
[5] Tao Qiuyan, Gao Tengfei. Social innovation: Origin, research context and theoretical framework[J]. Foreign Economics & Management, 2019, 41(06): 85-104.
[6] Akemu O, Whiteman G, Kennedy S. Social enterprise emergence from social movement activism: The fairphone case[J]. Journal of Management Studies, 2016, 53(5): 846-877.
[7] Amit R, Han X. Value creation through novel resource configurations in a digitally enabled world[J]. Strategic Entrepreneurship Journal, 2017, 11(3): 228-242.
[8] Amit R, Zott C. Crafting business architecture: The antecedents of business model design[J]. Strategic Entrepreneurship Journal, 2015, 9(4): 331-350.
[9] André K, Pache A C. From caring entrepreneur to caring enterprise: Addressing the ethical challenges of scaling up social enterprises[J]. Journal of Business Ethics, 2016, 133(4): 659-675.
[10] Autio E, Nambisan S, Thomas L D W, et al. Digital affordances, spatial affordances, and the genesis of entrepreneurial ecosystems[J]. Strategic Entrepreneurship Journal, 2018, 12(1): 72-95.
[11] Bacq S, Eddleston K A. A resource-based view of social entrepreneurship: How stewardship culture benefits scale of social impact[J]. Journal of Business Ethics, 2018, 152(3): 589-611.
[12] Battilana J, Sengul M, Pache A C, et al. Harnessing productive tensions in hybrid organizations: The case of work integration social enterprises[J]. Academy of Management Journal, 2015, 58(6): 1658-1685.
[13] Bavdaz A. Past and Recent Conceptualisations of Sociomateriality and its Features: Review[J]. Athens Journal of Social Sciences, 2018, 5(1): 51-78.
[14] Calton J M, Werhane P H, Hartman L P, et al. Building partnerships to create social and economic value at the base of the global development pyramid[J]. Journal of Business Ethics, 2013, 117(4): 721-733.
[15] de Moraes J A, de Andrade E B. Who are the citizens of the digital citizenship[J]. International Review of Information Ethics, 2015, 23: 4-19.
[16] Dees J G. A tale of two cultures: Charity, problem solving, and the future of social entrepreneurship[J]. Journal of Business Ethics, 2012, 111(3): 321-334.
[17] Dutton W H, Blank G. Cultures on the Internet[J]. InterMedia, Winter, 2014, 42(4-5): 55-57.
[18] Ebrahim A, Battilana J, Mair J. The governance of social enterprises: Mission drift and accountability challenges in hybrid organizations[J]. Research in Organizational Behavior, 2014, 34: 81-100.
[19] Gopalkrishnan S S. A new resource for social entrepreneurs: Technology[J]. American Journal of Management, 2013, 13(1): 66-78.
[20] Grund T, Waloszek C, Helbing D. How natural selection can create both self-and other-regarding preferences and networked minds[J]. Scientific Reports, 2013, 3(1): 1480.
[21] Hanseth O, Lyytinen K. Design theory for dynamic complexity in information infrastructures: The case of building internet[J]. Journal of Information Technology, 2010, 25(1): 1-19.
[22] Hermsen S, Frost J, Renes R J, et al. Using feedback through digital technology to disrupt and change habitual behavior: A critical review of current literature[J]. Computers in Human Behavior, 2016, 57: 61-74.
[23] Hinings B, Gegenhuber T, Greenwood R. Digital innovation and transformation: An institutional perspective[J]. Information and Organization, 2018, 28(1): 52-61.
[24] Hockerts K, Wüstenhagen R. Greening goliaths versus emerging davids — theorizing about the role of incumbents and new entrants in sustainable entrepreneurship[J]. Journal of Business Venturing, 2010, 25(5): 481-492.
[25] Hockerts K. Determinants of social entrepreneurial intentions[J]. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 2017, 41(1): 105-130.
[26] Hsieh Y J, Wu Y J. Entrepreneurship through the platform strategy in the digital era: Insights and research opportunities[J]. Computers in Human Behavior, 2019, 95: 315-323.
[27] Iansiti M, Levien R. Strategy as ecology[J]. Harvard business review, 2004, 82(3): 68-78, 126.
[28] Isin E, Ruppert E. Being digital citizens[M]. Rowman & Littlefield International, 2015.
[29] Kistruck G M, Beamish P W. The interplay of form, structure, and embeddedness in social intrapreneurship[J]. Entrepreneurship theory and practice, 2010, 34(4): 735-761.
[30] Ko W W, Liu G. Understanding the process of knowledge spillovers: Learning to become social enterprises[J]. Strategic Entrepreneurship Journal, 2015, 9(3): 263-285.
[31] Kraus S, Niemand T, Halberstadt J, et al. Social entrepreneurship orientation: development of a measurement scale[J]. International Journal of Entrepreneurial Behavior & Research, 2017, 23(6): 977-997.
[32] Lezaun J, Soneryd L. Consulting citizens: Technologies of elicitation and the mobility of publics[J]. Public Understanding of Science, 2007, 16(3): 279-297.
[33] Li L, Su F, Zhang W, et al. Digital transformation by SME entrepreneurs: A capability perspective[J]. Information Systems Journal, 2018, 28(6): 1129-1157.
[34] Mair J, Sharma S. Performance measurement and social entrepreneurship[M]//Social entrepreneurship and social business. Gabler Verlag, 2012: 175-189.
[35] Marres N. The redistribution of methods: On intervention in digital social research, broadly conceived[J]. The Sociological Review, 2012, 60(S1): 139-165.
[36] Miller T L, Grimes M G, McMullen J S, et al. Venturing for others with heart and head: How compassion encourages social entrepreneurship[J]. Academy of Management Review, 2012, 37(4): 616-640.
[37] Mossberger K, Tolbert C J, McNeal R S. Digital citizenship: The Internet, society, and participation[M]. Cambridge: MIT Press. 2007.
[38] Muafi M. Green IT empowerment, social capital, creativity and innovation: A case study of creative city, Bantul, Yogyakarta, Indonesia[J]. Journal of Industrial Engineering and Management, 2015, 8(3): 719-737.
[39] Nambisan S, Sawhney M. Orchestration processes in network-centric innovation: Evidence from the field[J]. Academy of management perspectives, 2011, 25(3): 40-57.
[40] Nambisan S. Digital entrepreneurship: Toward a digital technology perspective of entrepreneurship[J]. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 2017, 41(6): 1029-1055.
[41] Nambisan S. Architecture vs. ecosystem perspectives: Reflections on digital innovation[J]. Information and Organization, 2018, 28(2): 104-106.
[42] Nambisan S, Wright M, Feldman M. The digital transformation of innovation and entrepreneurship: Progress, challenges and key themes[J]. Research Policy, 2019, 48(8): 103773.
[43] Orlikowski W J. Sociomaterial practices: Exploring technology at work[J]. Organization Studies, 2007, 28(9): 1435-1448.
[44] Orlikowski W J, Scott S V. Sociomateriality: Challenging the separation of technology, work and organization[J]. The Academy of Management Annals, 2008, 2(1): 433-474.
[45] Pache A C, Santos F. Inside the hybrid organization: Selective coupling as a response to competing institutional logics[J]. Academy of Management Journal, 2013, 56(4): 972-1001.
[46] Poortinga W. Community resilience and health: The role of bonding, bridging, and linking aspects of social capital[J]. Health & place, 2012, 18(2): 286-295.
[47] Priem R L. A consumer perspective on value creation[J]. Academy of Management Review, 2007, 32(1): 219-235.
[48] Saebi T, Foss N J, Linder S. Social entrepreneurship research: Past achievements and future promises[J]. Journal of Management, 2019, 45(1): 70-95.
[49] Santos F M. A positive theory of social entrepreneurship[J]. Journal of Business Ethics, 2012, 111(3): 335-351.
[50] Schradie J. The digital production gap: The digital divide and Web 2.0 collide[J]. Poetics, 2011, 39(2): 145-168.
[51] Srinivasan A, Venkatraman N. Entrepreneurship in digital platforms: A network-centric view[J]. Strategic Entrepreneurship Journal, 2018, 12(1): 54-71.
[52] Steininger D M. Linking information systems and entrepreneurship: A review and agenda for IT—associated and digital entrepreneurship research[J]. Information Systems Journal, 2019, 29(2): 363-407.
[53] Sussan F, Acs Z J. The digital entrepreneurial ecosystem[J]. Small Business Economics, 2017, 49(1): 55-73.
[54] Symon G, Whiting R. The sociomaterial negotiation of social entrepreneurs’ meaningful work[J]. Journal of Management Studies, 2019, 56(3): 655-684.
[55] Tilson D, Lyytinen K, Sørensen C. Research commentary—Digital infrastructures: The missing IS research agenda[J]. Information systems research, 2010, 21(4): 748-759.
[56] Tiwana A, Konsynski B, Bush A A. Research commentary: Platform evolution: Coevolution of platform architecture, governance, and environmental dynamics[J]. Information Systems Research, 2010, 21(4): 675-687.
[57] Yoo Y, Henfridsson O, Lyytinen K. Research commentary—the new organizing logic of digital innovation: An agenda for information systems research[J]. Information Systems Research, 2010, 21(4): 724-735.
[58] Young D R, Lecy J D. Defining the universe of social enterprise: Competing metaphors[J]. VOLUNTAS: International Journal of Voluntary and Nonprofit Organizations, 2014, 25(5): 1307-1332.
[59] Zahra S A, Gedajlovic E, Neubaum D O, et al. A typology of social entrepreneurs: Motives, search processes and ethical challenges[J]. Journal of Business Venturing, 2009, 24(5): 519-532.
Cite this article
Liu Zhiyang, Zhao Chenfang, Li Bin. Digital Social Entrepreneurship: Theoretical Framework and Research Outlook[J]. Foreign Economics & Management, 2020, 42(4): 3-18.
Export Citations as:
For
ISSUE COVER
RELATED ARTICLES