Entrepreneurship for a better world: unpacking the social impact of entrepreneurial activities

What the paper says

Over the past decade, there has been growing recognition of the profound social implications of entrepreneurial activities (Cortes and Lee, 2021; McMullen and Warnick, 2016; Miller et al., 2012; Peredo and McLean, 2006; Tack et al., 2017). Entrepreneurship is no longer viewed solely as a driver of economic growth or innovation; it is also understood as a force capable of addressing pressing societal challenges and generating social value (Shepherd, 2015; Tobias et al., 2013). Entrepreneurs launch ventures that straddle the line between economic and social goals (Meyskens et al., 2010), tackling complex social challenges such as climate change, inequality, underserved communities and global development (Datta and Gailey, 2012; Jia et al., 2025; Sun and Im, 2015; Sun and Zhou, 2025). This dual focus—often referred to as the hybrid logic of entrepreneurship—has attracted attention from a wide range of stakeholders, including researchers, policymakers, investors and community leaders (Bacq and Janssen, 2011; Dacin et al., 2011; Javadian et al., 2023; Pittz et al., 2017; Snyder, 2008; Sun and Liang, 2021). In doing so, entrepreneurship is not only reshaping markets but also reimagining the relationship between business and society (Sun and Liang, 2021; Vega and Kidwell, 2007).This special issue of the New England Journal of Entrepreneurship responds to this shifting landscape by exploring the intersection of entrepreneurship and society. The featured articles seek to deepen our understanding of how entrepreneurial activities contribute to social innovation, how entrepreneurial ventures manage the tension between social and economic missions, and how individuals, institutions and broader ecosystems influence and contribute to socially impactful entrepreneurship. By bringing together diverse perspectives and methodologies, we aim to advance theoretical and empirical research on the mechanisms through which entrepreneurship engages with, transforms and is shaped by societal structures. Ultimately, our goal with this special issue is to spotlight the role of entrepreneurship as a catalyst for societal change—particularly in situations involving marginalized populations, institutional barriers and resource constraints (Ault, 2016; Dorado and Ventresca, 2013; Tobias et al., 2013). In doing so, we hope to inspire further inquiry and action on the social dimension of entrepreneurial work.We start our overview of accepted articles with Dhanda and Malik (2025), who break new ground by examining how social entrepreneurship intersects with the rapidly expanding voluntary carbon market (VCM), a sector that remains largely unregulated and difficult to navigate. By evaluating 73 carbon offset providers across six performance criteria (project quality, additionality, certification, single ownership, price transparency and social entrepreneurship), the authors develop a robust framework to distinguish top performers and reveal overlooked dimensions of equity and impact. Through ANOVA, effect size analysis and probit regression, the study finds that while project quality, additionality and price transparency are the most significant predictors of top-tier providers, social entrepreneurship scores the lowest and is largely uncorrelated with other quality indicators. Surprisingly, while most providers support sustainable initiatives, very few are led by women or minorities, highlighting a major gap in representation. One particularly compelling insight is that although social entrepreneurship does not currently drive provider rankings, it emerges as a statistically significant variable in the regression model, suggesting untapped potential if given greater emphasis. As the first empirical study to link social entrepreneurship to carbon offsets, this work not only contributes a novel perspective to both literature studies but also urges policymakers, entrepreneurs and investors to consider social impact and ownership structures as critical components of a more inclusive and credible carbon market.Guo et al. (2025), in turn, conducted an exploratory and qualitative study that offers a compelling look into how nonprofit organizations (NPOs) in the northeastern United States embraced innovation in response to the COVID-19 pandemic's unprecedented disruptions. Drawing on in-depth interviews with ten nonprofit executives, the authors identified the dual pressures of increased client needs and diminished resources that forced NPOs to rethink operations, service delivery and staff roles so that their services can be sustained. Through inductive thematic analysis, the study uncovers key innovation enablers—including broad-based collaborative ecosystems, flexible strategic planning and inclusive organizational cultures—that helped organizations implement digital transformations, hybrid service models, new programs for emerging needs (such as mental health and domestic violence recovery for the youth population) and creative staffing approaches such as hiring former clients and expanding volunteer roles. Notably, the study contributes a novel conceptual framework illustrating how external shocks can catalyze innovation in mission-driven contexts, revealing that innovation is no longer optional for NPOs but rather a core capability for resilience and sustained impact. By contrasting these findings with for-profit innovation models, the paper underscores how NPO innovation is uniquely driven by social mission and board-based collaboration rather than market-driven competition. It calls for more tailored theoretical development and policy support to foster collaborative, adaptive and inclusive innovation in the nonprofit sector.In the third paper, Güngördü-Arıoğlu and Tuncalp (2025) dive into the complex yet crucial task of how social ventures assess their impact, especially in emerging economies where one-size-fits-all global frameworks often fall short. Set in Turkey, the research brings to life the stories of two ventures: Girls' Team, a nonprofit organization empowering young girls through sports, and Funding, a for-profit platform easing financial barriers to education. Through the in-depth case studies, the findings challenge the adequacy of popular frameworks like Social Return on Investment (SROI) and Impact Reporting and Investment Standards (IRIS), revealing how these models struggle to capture the full richness and nuance of social change in diverse, resource-constrained contexts. Instead, the study highlights the rise of hybrid and participatory assessment models, innovative approaches that blend quantitative data with qualitative narratives and place stakeholders at the heart of the evaluation process. In doing so, it paints a compelling picture of local ingenuity: social ventures that craft their own impact tools by merging digital technologies, contextual knowledge and inclusive strategies. These ventures not only measure what can be counted but also give voice to the intangible effects of their work, like shifts in self-esteem, community trust, or gender norms. Ultimately, the study offers both a theoretical and practical contribution to the field of social entrepreneurship by showing how context-sensitive, adaptable and stakeholder-driven methodologies can better capture the dual mission of social ventures: to be financially sustainable while driving lasting social transformation.Finally, Oh (2025) investigates how founding teams of early-stage social ventures select their inaugural CEO, a decision that leaves a lasting imprint on the venture's identity and trajectory. By integrating human capital theory with expectancy violation theory, the study explores how prior occupational experiences and gender influence who rises to leadership within dual-mission ventures that blend social impact with financial goals. Drawing from a unique dataset of 245 founding team members across 108 for-profit or hybrid ventures funded by Echoing Green, the author finds that prior experience in socially oriented organizations significantly increases a candidate's chances of becoming the first CEO. Interestingly, while commercial experience alone does not have a significant effect, it becomes a powerful advantage, especially for female candidates. Women with commercial backgrounds are more likely to be selected as CEOs than their male counterparts with similar experience, an outcome aligned with expectancy violation theory, which suggests that individuals who defy traditional role expectations can benefit from positive bias. Surprisingly, candidates with balanced experience in both sectors do not enjoy such a clear advantage, suggesting that founding teams prioritize signaling deep social legitimacy over hybrid expertise. These findings challenge conventional assumptions about meritocratic leadership selection, emphasizing instead the context-specific interplay of perceived credibility, mission alignment and gender dynamics. The study contributes to multiple streams of literature, including social entrepreneurship, gender and leadership, and human capital, while offering practical insights for social entrepreneurs and impact investors seeking to align leadership choices with both mission and market demands.As research on entrepreneurship and innovation across different types of organizations, whether for-profit, nonprofit, or hybrid, continues to evolve, we believe it is important to pay closer attention to how organizations shape and are shaped by the environments they operate in. The social and political landscapes organizations are facing today are more complex than ever. Drastically shifting policies, uneven resource distribution, declining public trust and competing stakeholder demands, among many others, are all shaping entrepreneurial behavior in significant ways (Shepherd and Patzelt, 2011; Tracey and Phillips, 2011). Organizations do not make decisions in a vacuum. They navigate constraints, negotiate trade-offs and make imperfect choices under pressure. Future research should focus more on this interaction between organizations and their environments. How do organizations of different types respond to external pressure and systemic uncertainty? When, and how, do they push back or influence the institutional conditions they face? And which types of organizations are better equipped to survive and potentially reshape the systems they are embedded in? These questions lie at the heart of the broader conversation about entrepreneurship and society.We also need to think more critically about what happens inside organizations. If the external environment determines whether an organization can survive, it is often the internal culture and management practices that determine whether it can innovate and align with social values. But we still do not know enough about what this looks like in practice. What kind of leadership encourages initiative in the face of resource constraints? How do teams maintain trust and creativity under persistent stress? And how do organizations translate social missions into everyday routines that people actually believe in? These questions persist daily across organizations of all sizes and all types. Research that pays closer attention to internal dynamics and everyday management practices can help us better understand how social values are not just imagined or promised but can actually be built through ongoing, intentional and collective work (Battilana and Dorado, 2010; Dacin et al., 2011).Among all types of organizations, nonprofit organizations offer a particularly good platform for exploring these questions. Often treated as peripheral in entrepreneurship research, nonprofits are in the front line tackling many of the most urgent social challenges of our time (Eikenberry and Kluver, 2004; Smith, 2014). They are often the first to act and the last to leave when communities face a crisis. This is especially true for smaller, community-based organizations that tend to operate with limited resources, little formal support and sometimes high expectations. How do they adapt and persist through disruptions? How do they maintain legitimacy with diverse stakeholders? And what does innovation look like when it is driven not by market incentives, but by survival needs and a deep commitment to mission? These questions call for more grounded research: fieldwork, interviews and collaborative research approaches that showcase the lived experience of nonprofit practitioners and other stakeholders.