Hostname: page-component-7b7567c8c-7pwfn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-11-15T14:37:35.638Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

A Systems Approach to Social Entrepreneurship

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 January 2026

C. De Ruysscher,
C. Claes,
T. Lee,
F. Cui,
J. Van Loon,
J. De Maeyer and
R. Schalock
C. De Ruysscher*
Affiliation:
Faculty of Education Health and Social Work, University College Ghent, Valentin Vaerwyckweg 1, 9000 Ghent, Belgium
C. Claes*
Affiliation:
Faculty of Education Health and Social Work, University College Ghent, Valentin Vaerwyckweg 1, 9000 Ghent, Belgium
T. Lee*
Affiliation:
Vocational Training Center, Taipei, Taiwan
F. Cui*
Affiliation:
One Plus One Group for Disability, Xiluoyuan 2 Qu, Building #22, Room 604, Fengtai District, Beijing 100077, China
J. Van Loon*
Affiliation:
Arduin Foundation, Seissingel 4, 4333 GV Middelburg, The Netherlands
J. De Maeyer*
Affiliation:
Faculty of Education Health and Social Work, University College Ghent, Valentin Vaerwyckweg 1, 9000 Ghent, Belgium
R. Schalock*
Affiliation:
Department of Psychology, Hastings College, PO Box 285 2435, Cottonwood Creek Road, Chewelah, WA 99109, USA
*
clara.deruysscher@ugent.be
claudia.claes@hogent.be
tim.lee@vtcidd.org
fcui@law.harvard.edu
jloon@arduin.nl
jessica.demaeyer@hogent.be
rschalock@ultraplix.com
Get accessRights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Currently, disabilities organizations are increasingly being challenged by the requirement for individualized service, expectations to show personal outcomes, and the need to base their services on evidence-based practices. Social entrepreneurship (SE) is being put forward as an innovative approach for dealing with these challenges. This article presents a systems approach to SE based on a program logic model. This model identifies the input factors (a strong social vision, exploiting opportunities, maximizing resources), throughput strategies (entrepreneurial orientation, critical thinking skills, networking, capacity building), and outcome components (improving people’s lives, community-building, improving society) of SE at the micro, meso, and macro level. Also, the importance of planning for contextual changes as a social entrepreneur is discussed. The article concludes with presenting three inspiring practices regarding SE in the field of disabilities organizations.

Résumé

Résumé

À l’heure actuelle, les organisations de handicapés sont de plus en plus confrontées à l’exigence d’un service personnalisé, aux attentes pour afficher les résultats personnels et à la nécessité de fonder leurs services sur des pratiques fondées sur des données probantes. L’entrepreneuriat social est présenté comme une approche novatrice pour faire face à ces défis. Cet article présente une approche systémique de l’entrepreneuriat social basée sur un modèle logique de programme. Ce modèle identifie les facteurs d’entrée de l’entrepreneuriat social (une vision sociale forte, la recherche de débouchés, l’optimisation des ressources), les stratégies de rendement (l’orientation entrepreneuriale, la pensée critique, la mise en réseau, le renforcement des capacités) et les éléments des résultats (l’amélioration des conditions de vie des populations, le renforcement de la communauté, l’amélioration de la société) aux niveaux macroéconomique, méso-économique et microéconomique. L’importance de la planification des changements contextuels en tant qu’entrepreneur social est également traitée. L’article se termine par la présentation de trois pratiques enrichissantes concernant l’entrepreneuriat social dans le domaine des organisations de handicapés.

Zusammenfassung

Zusammenfassung

Ein gegenwärtig wachsendes Problem für Behindertenorganisationen sind das Erfordernis für individualisierte Dienstleistungen, die Erwartungen, persönliche Resultate nachzuweisen und die Notwendigkeit, ihre Dienstleistungen auf bewährte Praktiken zu basieren. Das soziale Unternehmertum steht dabei als ein innovativer Ansatz zum Umgang mit diesen Herausforderungen im Vordergrund. Dieser Beitrag präsentiert einen Systemansatz zum sozialen Unternehmertum beruhend auf einem Programmlogik-Modell. Dieses Modell identifiziert die Inputfaktoren (eine starke soziale Vision, Chancennutzung, Ressourcenmaximierung), Durchsatzstrategien (unternehmerische Orientierung, kritisches Denken, Networking, Kapazitätsbildung) und Ergebniskomponenten (Verbesserung des Lebens einzelner Personen, Gemeinschaftsbildung, Verbesserung der Gesellschaft) des sozialen Unternehmertums auf der Mikro-, Meso- und Makroebene. Zudem wird die Bedeutung einer Planung für Kontextänderungen für soziale Unternehmer diskutiert. Abschließend präsentiert der Beitrag drei anregende Praktiken im Hinblick auf das soziale Unternehmertum im Bereich der Behindertenorganisationen.

Resumen

Resumen

Actualmente, las organizaciones de discapacitados cada vez se ven más cuestionadas por el requisito de un servicio individualizado, expectativas para mostrar resultados personales y la necesidad de basar sus servicios en prácticas basadas en la evidencia. El emprendimiento social (SE, por sus siglas en inglés) se presenta como un enfoque innovador para tratar estos desafíos. Este artículo presenta un enfoque de sistemas del emprendimiento social basado en un modelo lógico de programas. Este modelo identifica los factores de entrada (una potente visión social, explotación de oportunidades, maximización de recursos), las estrategias de rendimiento (orientación empresarial, habilidades de pensamiento crítico, trabajo en red, creación de capacidad) y los componentes del resultado (mejora de las vidas de las personas, construcción de la comunidad, mejora de la sociedad) del SE a nivel micro, medio y macro. Asimismo, se trata la importancia de la planificación de cambios contextuales como un emprendedor social. El artículo concluye presentando tres prácticas inspiradoras relativas al SE en el campo de las organizaciones de discapacitados.

摘要

摘要

当前,残疾人组织越来越受到个性化服务的需要、希望展现个人成就以及将它们的服务建立在行之有效的实践的基础上的需要的挑战。 为了应对这些挑战,提出了公益创业这个新的思路,本文在项目逻辑模型的基础上从体系的角度提出了一个公益创业途径,这个模型发现了输入因素(社会远见、利用机会、资源最大化)、有效产出战略(创业方向、批判性思考的能力、网络、能力建设)以及公益创业成果在宏观层次、微观层次和细观层次上的构成(提高人们的生活、社会建设、社会提高),本文也讨论了作为社会企业家要针对环境的变化进行规划的重要性。 在结论中,文章提出了三个有关在残疾人领域中进行公益创业的鼓舞人心的做法。

要約

要約

現在、障害者団体では個別サービスの要求、個人的な成果への期待、エビデンスに基づく実践を基にしたサービスの必要性がますます求められている。社会起業家 (SE) は、これらの課題に対処するための革新的なアプローチとして前方配置されている。本文献は、プログラムのロジック・モデルに基づくSEシステム・アプローチを示している。このモデルは、入力要因 (強い社会的ビジョン、機会の有効性、リソースの最大化)、スループット戦略 (起業志向、批判的思考スキル、ネットワーキング・キャパシティの構築)、マイクロ、メゾ、マクロのレベルでのSEの結果コンポーネント(生活の向上コミュニティの構築、社会の改善)を識別する。また、社会起業家としてコンテキスト変更計画の重要性を議論する。本論文では、障害者団体の分野におけるSEに関する3件の感動的な実践を提示して締めくくる。

ملخص

ملخص

اليا”، يتزايد تحدى منظمات المعوقين عن طريق إشتراط خدمة فردية، التوقعات لإظهار النتائج الشخصية والحاجة إلى إستناد خدماتهم على الممارسات القائمة على الأدلة. يجري وضع المشاريع الإجتماعية (SE) في المقدمة بإعتبارها نهج مبتكرللتعامل مع هذه التحديات. تقدم هذه المقالة نهج النظم للمشاريع الإجتماعية (SE)على أساس نموذج منطق البرنامج. يحدد هذا النموذج عوامل المساهمة (رؤية اجتماعية قوية، إستغلال الفرص، زيادة الموارد)، إستراتيجيات الإنتاجية (إتجاه المبادرة، مهارات التفكير النقدي، التواصل، بناء القدرات) ومكونات النتيجة (تحسين حياة الأشخاص، بناء المجتمع، تحسين المجتمع) المشاريع الإجتماعية (SE) في المستوى الجزئي والمتوسط و الكلي. أيضا”، يناقش أهمية التخطيط للتغييرات السياقية كأحد الرواد الإجتماعيين. يختتم المقال مع تقديم ثلاث ممارسات ملهمة فيما يتعلق بالمشاريع الإجتماعية (SE) في مجال منظمات الإعاقة.

Keywords

Social entrepreneurshipDisabilities organizationsProgram logic model

Information

Type
Original Paper
Information
Voluntas: International Journal of Voluntary and Nonprofit Organizations , Volume 28 , Issue 6 , December 2017, pp. 2530 - 2545
Copyright
Copyright © International Society for Third-Sector Research and The Johns Hopkins University 2016

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

Adler, P. S., & Kwan, S. W. (2002). Social capital: Prospects for a new concept. Academy of Management Review, 27, 17–40.10.2307/4134367CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bronfenbrenner, U. (1992). Ecological systems theory. London: Jessica Kingsley Publishers.Google Scholar
Brown, I., Hatton, C., & Emerson, E. (2013). Quality of life indicators for individuals and families with intellectual disabilities: Extending current practice. Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities, 51, 316–332. doi: 10.1352/1934-9556-51.5.316.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Burchardt, T. (2008). Monitoring inequality: Putting the capacities approach to work. In Craig, G., Burchardt, T., & Gordon, D. (Eds.), Social justice and public policy (pp. 205–229). Bristol: Policy Press. doi: 10.2307/j.ctt9qgvs3.16.Google Scholar
Chiu, C., Kyzar, K., Zuna, N., Turnbull, A., Summers, J. A., & Gomez, V. A. (2013). Family quality of life. In Wehmeyer, M. (Ed.), The Oxford handbook of positive psychology and disability (pp. 365–392). New York: Oxford University Press.10.1093/oxfordhb/9780195398786.013.013.0023CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Claes, C., van Hove, G., Vandevelde, S., van Loon, J., & Schalock, R. L. (2012). The influence of support strategies, environmental factors, and client characteristics on quality of life-related outcomes. Research in Developmental Disabilities, 33, 96–103.10.1016/j.ridd.2011.08.024CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Claes, C., van Hove, G., van Loon, J., Vandevelde, S., & Schalock, R. L. (2010). Quality of life measurement in the field of intellectual disability: Eight principles for assessing quality of life-related outcomes. Social Indicators Research, 98, 61–75.10.1007/s11205-009-9517-7CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dees, J. G. (1998). The meaning of “social entrepreneurship”. Draft Report for the Kauffman Center for Entrepreneurial Leadership. California: Stanford University.Google Scholar
Desa, G. (2011). Resource mobilization in international social entrepreneurship: Bricolage as a mechanism of institutional transformation. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 36(4), 727–751. doi: 10.1111/j.1540-6520.2010.00430.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Di Domenico, M. L., Haugh, H., & Tracey, P. (2010). Social bricolage: Theorizing social value creation in social enterprises. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 34(4), 681–703. doi: 10.1111/j.1540-6520.2010.00370.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Eisinger, P. (2002). Organizational capacity and organizational effectiveness among street-level food assistance programs. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 31(1), 115–130. doi: 10.1177/0899764002311005.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Emerson, E., Graham, H., & Hatton, C. (2006). The measurement of poverty and socio-economic position in research involving people with intellectual disability. In Glidden, L. M. (Ed.), International review of research in mental retardation (pp. 77–108). New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Felce, D., & Perry, J. (1995). Quality of life: Its definition and measurement. Research in Developmental Disabilities, 16, 51–74. doi: 10.1016/0891-4222(94)00028-8.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Funnell, S. C., & Rogers, P. J. (2011). Purposeful program theory: Effective use of theories of change and logic models. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.Google Scholar
Glenn, J. C. (2014). Our global situation and prospects for the future. The Futurist, 48, 15–25.Google Scholar
Gray, M., Healy, K., & Crofts, P. (2003). Social enterprise: Is it the business of social work?. Australian Social Work, 56(2), 141–152. doi: 10.1046/j.0312-407X.2003.00060.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
International Research Consortium on Evidence-Based Practices. (2013). The organization effectiveness and efficiency scale. Retrieved from www.oeesonline.com.Google Scholar
Isaacs, B., Clark, C., Correia, S., & Flannery, J. (2009). Utility of logic models to plan quality of life outcome evaluations. Journal of Policy and Practice in Intellectual Disabilities, 6(1), 52–61. doi: 10.1111/j.1741-1130.2008.00197.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Johnson, S. (2000). Literature review on social entrepreneurship. Toronto: Canadian Centre for Social Entrepreneurship.Google Scholar
Kapucu, N., Healy, B. F., & Arshan, T. (2011). Survival of the fittest: Capacity building for small nonprofit organizations. Evaluation and Program Planning, 34, 236–245. doi: 10.1016/j.evalprogplan.2011.03.005.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kidd, S. A., & McKenzie, K. J. (2013). Moving the mental health equity dialogue forward: The promise of a social entrepreneur framework. Administration Policy in Mental Health, 40, 55–57. doi: 10.1007/s10488-011-0379-3.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kumar, S., & Gupta, K. (2013). Social entrepreneurship: A conceptual framework. International Journal of Management and Social Sciences Research, 2(8), 2319.Google Scholar
Lewin, K. (1951). Problems in research in social psychology. In Cartwright, D. (Ed.), Field theory in social science (pp. 125–142). New York: Harper & Brothers.Google Scholar
Light, P. C. (2005). Searching for social entrepreneurs: Who they might be, where they might be found, what they do. In Draft presented at the Conference of the Association for Research on Nonprofit and Voluntary Organizations, November (pp. 17–19).Google Scholar
Linnell, D. (2003). Evaluation of capacity building: Lessons from the field. Washington, DC: Alliance for Nonprofit Management.Google Scholar
Lumpkin, G. T., Moss, T. W., Gras, D. M., Kato, S., & Amezcua, A. S. (2013). Entrepreneurial processes in social contexts: How are they different, if at all?. Small Business Economics, 40, 761–786. doi: 10.1007/s11187-011-9399-3.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mair, J., & Marti, I. (2006). Social entrepreneurship research: A source of explanation, prediction, and delight. Journal of World Business, 41, 36–44. doi: 10.1016/j.jwb.2005.09.002.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Manchester, J., Gray-Miceli, D. L., Metcaff, J. A., Paolini, C. A., Napier, A. H., Coogle, C. L., & Owens, M. G. (2014). Facilitating Lewin’s change model with collaborative evaluation in promoting evidence-based practices in health professionals. Evaluation and Program Planning, 47, 82–90. doi: 10.1016/j.evalprogplan.2014.08.007.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Montgomery, A. W., Dacin, P. A., & Dacin, M. T. (2012). Collective social entrepreneurship: Collaboratively shaping social good. Journal of Business Ethics, 111, 375–388. doi: 10.1007/s10551-012-1501-5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Peredo, A. M., & Chrisman, J. J. (2006). Toward a theory of community-based enterprise. Academy of Management Review, 31(2), 309–328. doi: 10.5465/AMR.2006.20208683.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Peredo, A. M., & McLean, M. (2006). Social entrepreneurship: A critical review of the concept. Journal of World Business, 41, 56–65. doi: 10.1016/j.jwb.2005.10.007.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Petry, K., Maes, B., & Vlaskamp, C. (2005). Domains of quality of life of people with profound multiple disabilities: The perspective of parents and direct support staff. Journal of Applied Research in Intellectual Disabilities, 18, 35–46. doi: 10.1111/j.1468-3148.2004.00209.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Putnam, R. D., Feldstein, L., & Cohen, D. J. (2004). Better together: Restoring the American community. New York: Simon and Schuster.Google Scholar
Roberts, D., & Woods, C. (2005). Changing the world on a shoestring: The concept of social entrepreneurship. University of Auckland Business Review, 7(1), 45–51.Google Scholar
Schalock, R. L., Bonham, G. S., & Verdugo, M. A. (2008). The conceptualization and measurement of quality of life: Implications for program planning and evaluation in the field of intellectual disabilities. Evaluation and program planning, 31(2), 181–190.10.1016/j.evalprogplan.2008.02.001CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Schalock, R. L., Brown, I., Brown, R., Cummins, R. A., Felce, D., Matikka, L., & Parmenter, T. (2002). Conceptualization, measurement, and application of quality of life for persons with intellectual disabilities: Report of an international panel of experts. Mental Retardation, 40(6), 457–470.10.1352/0047-6765(2002)040<0457:CMAAOQ>2.0.CO;22.0.CO;2>CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Schalock, R. L., Gardner, J. F., & Bradley, V. J. (2007). Quality of life for persons with intellectual and other developmental disabilities: Applications across individuals, organizations, communities, and systems. Washington, DC: American Association on Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities.Google Scholar
Schalock, R. L., Lee, T., Verdugo, M. A., Swart, K., Claes, C., van Loon, J., & Lee, C-S. (2014). An evidence-based approach to organization evaluation and change in human service organizations evaluation and program planning. Evaluation and Program Planning, 45, 110–118.10.1016/j.evalprogplan.2014.03.012CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schalock, R. L., & Verdugo, M. A. (2012a). A conceptual and measurement framework to guide policy development and systems change. Journal of Policy and Practice in Intellectual Disabilities, 9(1), 70–79.10.1111/j.1741-1130.2012.00329.xCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schalock, R. L., & Verdugo, M. A. (2012b). A leadership guide for today’s disabilities organizations: Overcoming challenges and making change happen. Baltimore: Brookes.Google Scholar
Schalock, R. L., & Verdugo, M. A. (2013). The transformation of disabilities organizations. Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities, 51, 273–286.10.1352/1934-9556-51.4.273CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Snell, M. E., & Luckasson, R. (2009). Characteristics and needs of people with intellectual disability who have higher IQs. Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities, 47, 220–233. doi: 10.1352/1934-9556-47.3.220.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Sterk, E., Specht, M., & Valraven, G. (2013). Sociaal ondernemerschap in de participatiesamenleving: Van de brave naar de eigenwijze burger. Antwerpen: Garant.Google Scholar
Stone, W. (2003). Bonding, bridging, and linking with social capital. Stronger Families Living Exchange Bulletin, 4, 13–16. (Australia).Google Scholar
Thake, S., & Zadek, S. (1997). Practical people, noble causes. How to support community based social entrepreneurs. London: New Economics Foundation.Google Scholar
Van Loon, J., & Van Hove, G. (2001). Emancipation and self-determination of people with learning disabilities and down-sizing institutional care. Disability & Society, 16(2), 233–254.10.1080/09687590120035825CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Weil, M. O. (1996). Community building: Building community practice. Social Work, 41, 481–499.Google Scholar
Zuna, N., Summers, J. A., Turnbull, A. P., Hu, X., & Xu, S. (2010). Theorizing about family quality of life. In Kober, R. (Ed.), Enhancing the quality of life of people with intellectual disability: From theory to practice (pp. 241–278). Dordrecht: Springer. doi: 10.1007/978-90-481-9650-0_15.CrossRefGoogle Scholar