Although scholars of the nonprofit sector have looked at the theoretical implications of social enterprises (SEs), more details and clarification are desirable. In particular, most previous theoretical work refers to the nonprofit sector generically and fails to account for the particularities of organizations within a more general definition of SE. This article surveys previous theories and proposes a framework based on the theory of reciprocity and the concept of unconditional reciprocity to interpret a particular kind of SE: the Italian social cooperative.

The last few years witnessed theoretical and practical contributions to the field of social innovation and social enterprise. However, analysis of the interplay between these two different realms is still limited. This article aims to fill some gaps in this respect. We deal with historical reconstruction of the concept of Social Enterprise and Social Innovation, and their conceptual premises. We consider the process of creation of social innovation in social enterprises. As members’ motivations, ownership rights and governance rules in social enterprises create a new relational context and new routines, which are germane to the production of social knowledge and deliberation, social innovation can be considered one of the main outcomes of this setting. Social motivations, collective action of a cooperative kind, multi‐stakeholder governance and socialization of resources, and their interplay are singled out as main drivers of innovation. Social innovation is seen as akin to novelty in social interaction, a non‐standardized and non‐standardizable outcome of the operation of this organizational form.

No abstract

Purpose The purpose of this paper is to explore how bonding (i.e. tightly knit, emotionally close social relationships) and bridging social capital (i.e. outward looking open social relationships) affect opportunity recognition and innovation implementation in a cultural network of firms, investigating the main benefits of and drawbacks to both bonding and bridging social capital. Design/methodology/approach The paper is based on a case study of a cultural network of firms which share the same norms, principles and values. The method adopted is content analysis of qualitative data. Findings The authors find that in cultural network bridging social capital facilitates experimentation and combination of ideas from distant sources, while bonding social capital, which underpins the need for more conformity, is more effective for supporting innovation implementation. Innovation results from the interplay between the two dimensions of social capital, and each dimension contributes to the final outcome in a distinct and unique way. Research limitations/implications There are some limitations which arise from the case study methodology; the limited set of industries analysed affects the generalizability of the findings. Practical implications The research has some practical implications for firms that belong to cultural networks. It offers suggestions about how to manage social relationships in different stages of the innovation process. Originality/value The authors examine the effects of bonding and bridging social capital on innovation in a cultural network of firms. The authors show that in a cultural network, different moments in the innovation process require different efforts related to the firm’s network relationships.

Over the last two decades, social enterprise (SE) has received increasing attention from policymakers, practitioners and scholars, who have explored this phenomenon from various angles. The comparative analysis of SEs across countries represents one of the newest avenues of research (Kerlin, 2010;2013). While essential steps forwards have been made over the last years, it seems that this avenue of research still needs, more than any other, to be further investigated: "there has been relatively little work done on examining the contextual nuances and comparative institutions of social entrepreneurship/social enterprise within and across countries" (Nicholls, 2017: xix).Among the foremost pioneers in the comparative regional analysis of SEs, there is undoubtedly Janelle Kerlin, associate professor at the Georgia State University (USA), who back in 2009 edited a book entitled Social Enterprise: A Global Comparison. The book presented the Macro-Institutional Social Enterprise (MISE) framework, a framework showing that institutions play an essential role in shaping national SE models. To put it simply, as governments, civil society organisations and economic systems are interrelated amongst each other and differ from country to country, SE models inevitably change across countries.