- Open Access
RETRACTED ARTICLE: Social entrepreneurship and social enterprise phenomenon: toward a collective approach to social innovation in Tunisia
Journal of Innovation and Entrepreneurship volume 10, Article number: 14 (2021)
This article aims to understand the extent to which social entrepreneurship (SE) contributes to the construction of a collective dimension linked to social innovation (SI). We aim to propose new ideas that can deliver insights into the SE phenomenon. This research is also distinct from entrepreneurial ecosystems as its development already requires some successful entrepreneurial action and to do it, the structuring and consolidation of an entrepreneurial ecosystem constitutes a real challenge for the development of SI.
This work has been based on a participant observation of eight major events dedicated to social entrepreneurship or the shared economy. In-depth interviews with Tunisian social entrepreneurs were also conducted in order to enrich our corpus. The results show the necessary cooperation of social entrepreneurs for a sustainable and responsible social innovation. Indeed, the analysis emphasizes that the viability and sustainability of a social innovation rests essentially on a collective construction, beyond common social values.
Societies around the world face important social problems for which they have implemented few effective and lasting solutions (Dees & Anderson, 2006). Faced with these difficulties, it seems necessary for them to encourage new forms of organization that are more innovative and supported by specific local management. In this sense, social entrepreneurship1 constitutes a form of social innovation by its entrepreneurial nature in search of solving complex social problems (Dees & Anderson, 2006; Perrini & Vurro, 2006). However, it is a relatively recent scientific concept (Levillain et al., 2016) but having grown considerably in the last 10 years (Cherrier et al., 2017; Chou, 2018). As for social enterprise, it must be able to create social value while innovating socially in order to meet needs that have not yet been met (Defalvard, 2013) knowing that this new form of organization, described as hybrid (Bacq & Janssen, 2011), is called upon to combine its social dimension as well as its economic and participative dimension (Dubruc & Vialette, 2016).
Despite the many definitions around SE, the literature does not offer a consensual and unifying approach (Dacin et al., 2010). Bacq and Janssen (2011) point out, in this regard, that SE can mean different things depending on the profiles of actors. Its multidisciplinary character makes it difficult to theorize. However, significant avenues of research have thus been raised through important reviews of the literature. Thus, Dacin, (2010) suggest studying the tools for measuring social impact and determining the keys to the success of a social enterprise. They also invite researchers to explore the institutional and cultural context surrounding SE. As for Saebi et al. (2018), they point out that the majority of definitions converge on the primacy of created social value, but do not pay sufficient attention to the process of creating economic value. Many studies also exclude elements relating to market research and the innovation process.
This work aims to understand the different mechanisms that can link SE to social innovationFootnote 1. The research question for this article is as follows: How does SE contribute to the collective dimension of SI?
To explain this question, we present in a theoretical framework SE as an alternative model for solving social and societal problems, then the intrinsic characteristics of SI. Then, in a second step, we explore this question through a survey whose methodology adopted is qualitative. It is based on a longitudinal participant observation from national and international events dedicated to SE or the social and solidarity economy. In this regard, the democratic transition process in Tunisia began on January 14, 2011, after a wave of popular uprisings thus raising serious socio-economic problems such as regional inequalities or the high rate of unemployment, especially among young people and women in rural areas. Since then, the movement for SE, which existed before 2011 under informal and unstructured actions, has grown more and more in the light of various public and private initiatives. It now represents a future path for the development of SI.
In order to enrich our analysis, a study on three Tunisian social entrepreneurs also made it possible to complete our research. The results highlight the need for cooperation between actors for the construction of sustainable SI. In other words, the solidity and sustainability of a social and responsible innovation rest essentially on a collective construction, thus making it possible to strengthen the legitimacy of this new economy and to develop better inclusive growth.
The study begins with a theoretical foundation of the research followed by the research methodology section. After the data analysis, the findings are presented followed by the discussion section. Finally, it proceeds toward the limitations, future research, and conclusion.
Literature review, hypotheses, and research framework
Social entrepreneurship: a response to social and societal issues
SE is a relatively recent scientific concept (Levillain et al., 2016) that has grown considerably in recent years (Cherrier et al., 2017; Chou, 2018). However, the definition of SE remains polymorphic, as evidenced by the various reviews of the literature that have allowed to approach the contours of this economic and social phenomenon (Bacq & Janssen, 2011; Dacin, 2010; Doherty et al., 2014; Saebi et al., 2018). It is arousing growing interest both for researchers, practitioners, and public authorities. In this regard, the Commission Europeenne (2003) encourages such initiatives to the point of establishing, in certain countries, a legal framework regulating the sector Marzena & Agnieszka, 2018). As for the Organization for Economic Cooperation and DevelopmentFootnote 2, it defines SE as “any private activity of general interest, organized on the basis of an entrepreneurial approach and not having as main reason profit maximization but the satisfaction of certain economic and social objectives, as well as the capacity to put in place, in the production of goods and services, innovative solutions to the problems of exclusion and unemployment.” Beyond institutional organizations, NGOs and foundations are also investing in the field like Ashoka, Avina, and Skoll, in order to educate the citizens of the world about a new way of doing business. They work, in particular, to promote social entrepreneurs by supporting their activities and their projects.
The myriad definitions of SE raise specifics relating to the context or the research discipline. The various central articles dealing with previous and future research on SE point out, in this regard, a lack of consensus (Dacin, 2010; Janssen et al., 2012; Saebi et al., 2018). In this work, we have articulated our reflection around four determining criteria related to our problem: the pragmatic character, the collective dimension, the innovative character of SE, and the role of the entrepreneur. In addition, we focused our attention on the social entrepreneur in order to understand his role in the development of SI.
The pragmatic character
Like SI, SE has an important pragmatic character (Harrisson et al., 2008; Janssen et al., 2012; Mair & Marti, 2006) in the sense that it aims, among other things, local management and service. The advantage of the existence of geographic proximity and support lies in the efficiency of resource and conflict management through permanent adjustments directly linked to the field.
The collective character
In order to overcome the lack of resources, but also in order to respond more quickly and effectively to social emergencies, companies are often required to collaborate with other organizations. They can be civil society actors, as well as public bodies or even companies in the private sector. Montgomery et al. (2012) highlight, in this regard, a collective SE. The latter consists of deploying resources to multiple actors engaged in different activities and strategies. This makes it possible to integrate sympathizers for the developed social cause and to share different points of view by collaborating and effectively driving lasting social change. In addition, Harrisson et al. (2008) emphasize that SI depends on the social ties resulting from taking initiative and the effectiveness of the collaboration mechanism created by different actors working for the creation of social value.
The innovative character
The concept of innovation in the field of SE can be analyzed both in terms of the social value created and the organizational form specific to this type of business (Liu et al., 2018). Social enterprises are therefore considered to be hybrid organizations (Janssen et al., 2012) seeking to combine economic performance with a social mission (Chou, 2018; Verstraete et al., 2012). In other words, they constitute a new orientation valuing the creation of shared value in visionary societies (Gramescu, 2015). Mair and Marti (2006) define SE as a process of innovative use and the combination of resources to exploit opportunities that aim to catalyze social change by providing basic human needs in a sustainable manner. In addition, Zahra et al. (2009) consider SE as “activities and processes undertaken to discover, define and exploit opportunities to increase social wealth through the creation of new businesses or the management of existing organizations in innovative ways.” Finally, Dees and Anderson (2006) or Dacin (2010) recognize SE itself as a form of SI, notably because of its innovative dimension in the face of social and societal issues.
The role of social entrepreneurship
At the individual level, SE highlights a social project initiator and an agent of change (Dees, 1998; Zollo et al., 2018). According to the Ashoka organization, the latter is presented as an individual offering innovative solutions to the most pressing social problems in society. Social entrepreneurs are ambitious and enduring, and tackle major social problems by proposing new ideas for large-scale change. The proximity to the field is a central advantage in the entrepreneurial process. Thus, the social entrepreneur must constantly be on information watch in order to detect investment opportunities (Shane, 2002) but also in order to have a good knowledge of the society in which he is inserted. Also, the social entrepreneur is presented as a visionary individual and a leader. He is an innovative actor described in the literature as “a Schumpeterian entrepreneur in the sense that he realizes new combinations of production factors whether it is the creation of a new product or service, or else yet another form of organization”(Boutillier, 2009, p. 116). This definition highlights an entrepreneur who is distinguished in particular by specific skills (Cuenoud et al., 2013). Among other things, the latter is called upon to mobilize a large number of internal stakeholders (volunteers, permanent staff, collaborators, etc.) and external stakeholders (clients, donors, public actors, local communities, etc.) who will contribute to the success of the social project. . Thereafter, the social entrepreneur must be able to manage the relations between the environment and his social enterprise. The role of communication is, in this sense, a major skill. Finally, he very often shows solidarity with his colleagues. Mutual aid and solidarity are a major characteristic of this type of entrepreneurship (Boughzala et al., 2019).
Social innovation as an engine of collective dynamic momentum
Coleman (1970) and Freeman (1991) originally introduced the concept of SI into the field of research. Dandurand (2005) then refined the analysis by retracing the history of the concept of SI. She stresses that “even if SI, in all its forms, has resolutely permeated history, its conceptualization does not yet have this historical depth” (Dandurand, 2005, p. 378) At the institutional level, the European CommissionFootnote 3 EC, Green Paper on Innovation recognizes the low interest of the Oslo Manual for the development of SI. The EC thus presents the latter as being, above all, a social phenomenon, beyond the economic mechanism or the technological process. This is, among other things, what distinguishes it from innovation in the more classic sense which has, for a long time, been the prerogative of the technique in which the company constitutes its soil.
In this work, we will retain the definition of the EC on SI presented by Dro et al. (2011, p. 33): “Social innovations are innovations in their goals and their means (…). More precisely, we define social innovations as new ideas (products, services and models) that respond simultaneously to social needs (more effectively than alternative models) and create new social relationships or collaborations.” This definition seems relevant to us for three different reasons. First, it characterizes innovation and value creation. Social value, according to the same authors, is less based on profit, but more on solutions relating to quality of life, solidarity, and well-being. Then, it supposes the creation of new forms of organizations capable of adapting to social challenges. Finally, it highlights the need for a plurality of committed actors from civil society, public administration, or private initiatives around the resolution of a social problem. Indeed, SI is characterized by the recruitment of heterogeneous and diversified stakeholders, as well as partnerships (Laville & Nyssens, 2001; Richez-Battesti et al., 2012). They constitute a sine qua non condition for the development of the process of SI, while the search for immediate particular interests can constitute a blockage. The EC report also specifies that solutions to social problems must be centered on the beneficiaries and be created in collaboration with the latter. To do this, collaborative networking is essential. In addition, Rao-Nicholson et al. (2017) emphasize that SI should follow a bottom-up learning process. At the same time, they point out that public-private partnerships are perfect vehicles for this type of innovation, particularly in the socio-economic context of emerging countries. In a way, these partnerships would promote learning and skills development and make up for the lack of resources.
In addition, it is important to emphasize that the SI often emerges from citizen initiatives, unlike technological innovation which finds its origin mainly at the level of research and industrial and experimental development, mainly in the private sector (Dandurand, 2005). SI is widespread in the public or tertiary sector, which leads the public authorities to play a key role in the recognition of social or societal needs.
Thus, the collective dimension as well as the models of associations and partnerships (Laville & Nyssens, 2001) between different actors appears to be a vector for growth of SI in current societies. Dees and Anderson (2006) highlights the concept of an open-solution society in which profiles from all backgrounds are encouraged to develop creativity and highlight their talents in order to find innovative solutions and increase their social impact. Democratization SI (Hillenkamp & Bessis, 2012) depends on many factors, ranging from cultural changes to the progress of information and communication technologies. To do this, the structuring and consolidation of an entrepreneurial ecosystem constitutes a real challenge for the development of SI (Boughzala et al., 2016; Dees, 1998; Isenberg, 2011). From a macro-environmental point of view, different models relating to the entrepreneurial context have been developed. For Neck et al. (2014), an entrepreneurial ecosystem is made up of three dimensions: ecosystem players (formal and informal network), infrastructure, and the level of entrepreneurial culture. Isenberg (2011), on the other hand, offers a detailed model composed of six factors: the political factor (government, leadership), project financing (financial capital), culture (success stories, societal norms, aversion to risk), support organizations (non-governmental institutions, support professions), human capital (educational establishments), and markets (networks and first customers). Recent work has also highlighted the interest of public administration and local communities for the cooperation of local actors to produce social innovation (Gallois et al., 2016).
Finally, Gianfaldoni (2012) specifies that social economy organizations represent major players in producing SI. His works have focused on the dynamics of the SI and the importance of its spreading at the territorial level. However, the literature on SE does not tell us enough to understand the mechanisms that link social and solidarity economyFootnote 4 organizations to SI. In the same vein, Boutillier (2009) points out that a new field of research has developed combining (SE) with the work of Schumpeter (1974) on innovation. For example, the work of Schieb-Bienfait et al., (2009) analyzed the characteristics of entrepreneurial emergence in the process of SI.
In this article, we try to understand the role played by (SE) in the development of SI. The emphasis is not only on innovation as a result, but on the process that links the two fields. We propose a conceptual framework (Fig. 1) adapted from the model developed by Saebi et al. (2018). They carried out a major literature review on SE based on 395 articles from scientific journals. The objective of this work was to better understand this field, the definitions of which are still heterogeneous and non-consensual. Thus, in order to synthesize our remarks, a conceptual framework was developed by highlighting three levels of analysis: individual, organizational, and institutional. Thus, we took up the analysis logic following a bottom-up process. From a particular social and institutional context (macro level), we will try to understand how social enterprise (meso level) in relation to its environment has developed, in particular through the engagement of social entrepreneurs (micro level) in order to find innovative solutions to social and societal emergencies through the emergence of SI and the creation of social value.
Choice of qualitative approach
The research design (Royer et al., 2014) follows a qualitative approach based on two approaches: (1) participant observation and (2) semi-structured interviews. This methodological choice is justified in particular by the fact that SE is based on a fragmented literature, with no real theoretical framework (Saebi et al., 2018). Indeed, the multidisciplinarity encompassing this field of research (entrepreneurship, economics, sociology, anthropology,...) makes it difficult to approach the concept with precision. In addition, Hlady-Rispal and Jouison-Laffitte (2014) argue that the qualitative approach is best suited to understand the different rich and varied aspects inherent in entrepreneurship. Finally, to our knowledge, little work has made it possible to study the link between the concepts of SE and social SI. This is why participating observation, a process initially introduced in the thirties (Platt, 1983), allows a total immersion of the researcher at field level (De Sardan, 2001). It also has the advantage of “capturing a certain number of social processes in their natural context” (Soule, 2007, p. 129). Exploratory semi-structured interviews with social entrepreneurs have enriched the analysis and validated certain points of the research.
The research context: the case of Tunisia
The aim of this study is to explore (SI) in Tunisia, where the analysis context is interesting for various reasons. First of all, Tunisians have been going through a democratic transition process since January 2011, which has made it possible to alert to social and economic emergencies, which are particularly important in the central regions of the country. The awareness following the Jasmine Revolution has also led to reconsider the responsibility of all citizens, and not only that of public authorities. The explosion of civil society is proof of this. According to the National Register of Associations in Tunisia, the number of associations increased from 10,000 in 2010 to 20,698 in 2017.
Then, the process of development of the SI is centered on the human factor above all. This therefore presages relatively similar socio-economic solutions from one country to another. However, the SI development architecture involves different financial, managerial, institutional, and cultural technological means, supposing a different contextualization depending on the country.
The data collection
A longitudinal study based on a participant observation was carried out over a period from 2013 to 2019. In total, we attended eight major events dedicated to SE and/or the SSE. These are mainly national and international forums and workshops dealing with the development of SE and SI in Tunisia. The choice of events was made, first spontaneously according to the international dimension and unprecedented as for a new more social approach to the economy (EV1), then we targeted the events according to the recognition of the event by international networks linked to the SSE and/or social entrepreneurship (EV1, EV2, EV3, EV7). We also attended seminars where many actors were present, from both the public and private sectors. The researcher was also invited to meetings organized by the movement for Tunisian social entrepreneurs bringing together entrepreneurs, incubators, accelerators, and academics (EV6). Finally, tripartite research seminars (academics, professionals, and project leaders) made it possible to meet eyes for a better approach to social innovation (EV4, EV5).
The main events in which we participated in structuring the participant observation are described in Table 1.
Regardless of the event or seminar in which the researcher participated, the observation grid was identical. We sought to understand the following different points: the initiating and present actors at the event, social needs, and aspects related to SE, development and impact on SI, resources and skills to mobilize, the economic models to be developed and the main obstacles to be overcome. Table 2 summarizes the observation grid applied to the study.
This work is also based on a qualitative approach based on semi-structured interviews with three Tunisian social entrepreneurs. Government data were also used to supplement the analysis with official macroeconomic information.
Semi-structured interviews have been mainly conducted during the past 3 years. The duration of the interview varies between 1 h and 2 h. They were recorded and then transcribed. Given the exploratory nature of the study, the interview guide mainly addressed the following themes: (i) the interviewee’s vision of SE in Tunisia, (ii) the motivations for creating a social enterprise, (iii) management of the enterprise in order to develop SI. Table 3 summarizes the profile of entrepreneurs and the characteristics of their social enterprises.
The choice of social entrepreneurs interviewed is not accidental. First of all, their respective social enterprises are unanimously considered by ecosystem players as success stories. To this end, the latter are regularly invited to testify of their experience in various national and international conferences. ES1 and ES3 are part of the same movement for social entrepreneurs in Tunisia as the researcher. ES2 was encountered at an awards ceremony for a (SE) competition in 2018. Finally, each of them was chosen for the analysis for a specific reason. In addition to his role as manager of a social enterprise, ES1 is a Fellow Ashoka and a municipal councilor. She is considered a recognized and respected spokesperson in various regions of Tunisia. ES2 is regularly invited to conferences abroad, while ES3 has seen its business grow internationally.
The data processing was carried out using the Sphinx software at the level of exploratory semi-structured interviews as well as the reports of the various events. A thematic analysis allowed codification of the verbatim on the basis of the observation grid in order to identify units of meaning. Subsequently, the interpretation of the results “created meaning in the discourse” and highlighted the inferences (Wanlin, 2007).
Analysis of the results
The analysis of the participant observation during the various demonstrations and events dedicated to SE as well as interviews with social entrepreneurs lead us to a set of results synthesized in the form of challenges to be met. First, we will describe the context of SE in Tunisia since 2011, then we will present three main challenges that seem to be imposed in order to structure it and to stimulate a dynamic of collective SI.
Social and institutional context around social entrepreneurship
The longitudinal participant observation allowed us to identify three main periods of structuring of SE in Tunisia (Fig. 2). Before 2011, informal actions were undertaken, in particular by semi-state banks and a microfinance structure, ENDA, which is still active today. It was after the Jasmine Spring of 2011 that structures specifically dedicated to SE multiplied, as international donors marked their presence in the country. Until 2015, the field of SE saw a proliferation of awareness-raising actions, especially with the strong presence of civil society, which has established itself as a fundamental player. Since 2016, a law on the SSE has been under preparation. It still struggles to be promulgated because of the many conflicts between the actors and the adequacy of the legal specifics to the reality on the ground.
Be that as it may, we note a slight change in the number of social entrepreneurs despite numerous public and private initiatives. As one EV5 expert points out: “Perhaps the mistake is that we started with international funding before the local initiative.” The issue of support remains, indeed, crucial in the field of SE. Microfinance has always been a regulated and organized field. The latter has many national and international players such as Enda, Microcred, CFE, Zitouna Tamkeen, and Tayssir (Laroussi, 2009). A crowdfunding or crowdfunding bill was validated in 2020, thereby offering new funding opportunities for those with social projects.
Furthermore, the low measure of social impact weakens the consolidation of the ecosystem of SE in Tunisia. However, the National Institute of Statistics has officially started measuring work since 2019. The legitimacy of this new economy is still trying to make its way despite the expected spinoffs. A speaker from EV7 said “The entrepreneurial ecosystem experiences different fashion effects. After 2011, SE was very widespread, in 2018, there is much more talk of (SSE).” In EV6, a speaker said “We need measurement tools, indicators, but we also need a lot of human resources. You need to learn entrepreneurial management. Funding is good, but we need support afterwards in using this funding.” The Ministry of Investment highlighted in its 2017 report that the weight of the SSE represents 1% of GDP and 0.6% of the workforce. Ninety percent of these efforts are concentrated in the agriculture sector.
A recent study by the Thomson Reuters Foundation and the Deutsche Bank on the best environment conducive to the development of social enterprise highlighted three fundamental factors: access to investment simplified and easy to access (loans and equity), ability for social entrepreneurs to make a living from their work, and the popularity of SE. This is precisely what the British expert in SE put forward during EV6: “We have to rethink the company to reduce social costs for society (…). Take the example of an English social enterprise specializing in fruit jams thrown by supermarkets for non-compliance (…) with its company, it educates consumers and tries to change their consumption habits. The consumer and the citizen in general must be alerted and concerned by these issues.”
Before specifying the challenges relating to the creation and development of SI through the prism of SE, we summarize the context of SE through the figure below which distinguishes three different periods: before 2011 (year marking the start of the democratic process in Tunisia), from 2011 to 2015 and from 2015 to today.
Social enterprise in Tunisia and its adaptation to the evolution of the local context
Challenge 1: Valuing the company and defining SI
Due to the confusion of fields and the lack of culture in SE, social entrepreneurs often present their business as an association and not as businesses that could potentially generate profits. Indeed, the social domain very often remains associated with charity, which causes a great number of confusions and misunderstandings when it comes to associating the pecuniary aspect with a social response. In order to gain legitimacy and recognition, social enterprise should come back to specific criteria that characterize it. However, the polymorphous nature of SE makes this task difficult. The British expert present at EV6 underlines that “If you insist on defining very precise criteria, half of the people present here will leave the room.” An SSE law could facilitate this characterization work and recognize the particularities of these companies. However, many points of view converge on the idea that the Tunisian social enterprise should preserve its specificities and not duplicate foreign models. As one EV4 participant said “The Tunisian social enterprise must be able to create its own growth and development tools, find its own model, and not apply models from non-Tunisian contexts.” The production and dissemination of SI by this type of organization also constitutes a guarantee as to its legitimacy and its development.
Challenge 2: Develop partnerships between social actors and organizations
The viability and sustainability of social enterprises is a major challenge. The latter cannot survive by means of donations or prizes dedicated to the promotion of this type of organization. Consequently, the development of partnerships between national and international actors remains a path with many advantages: rapid response to social emergencies, pooling of resources, and a consensual strategic vision. However, inter-organizational relationships presuppose a strengthening of the skills of social enterprises and an upgrade in terms of social management practices. One of the possible outcomes in the consolidation of SE and its concretization by the development of innovation lies in the cooperation between the different actors that constitute the ecosystem. As the president of MAIF underlines during EV4: “Decisions must be quick and shared, a simple surface consensus leads to nothing, there must be a very strong relationship and co-construction, of co-administration.” An EV7 expert adds “Well-being is not the sum of collective well-being, but strong common values” or the advice of a member of the RIPESS Europe network during the EV8: “the collaboration is worked with a lot of confidence, it is a work fundamentally centered on the human.”
In the absence of concrete solutions, the participants in the various events propose different, even sometimes contradictory solutions. A Belgian expert underlines during EV4: “We must not expect too much from the public, we must rather go to the private sector.” However, an actor in the ecosystem is often at the heart of debates centered on the SSE: the state. Beyond the SSE law, which is struggling to see the light of day, the role of the state and public authorities remains a sensitive issue. As one academic pointed out during EV2: “For the state to be present in the field, a prior framework of trust and transparency is necessary.” Since 2016, the authorities have been promoting the SSE as the third possible route for economic development, especially for the interior regions which have been severely affected by unemployment and the economic slowdown. As explained by a social entrepreneur in EV6: “We must develop lobbying with political leaders.” In this regard, two recognized social entrepreneurs in the field got involved in political life by running for municipal elections in 2018. Their new functions as elected officials led them to abandon their social enterprises in favor of a role of municipal councilor, to help raise awareness among citizens, as well as more effective outreach.
Focus on social entrepreneurs
Challenge 3: Encourage the entrepreneurial spirit and strengthen the skills of support workers and social entrepreneurs
Does the legend of the “hero” exist in Tunisia? “Not necessarily” according to the Director of a Tunisian incubator. The profiles of project leaders are diverse and heterogeneous. On the other hand, beyond a common passion and a feeling of visceral patriotism, the lack of entrepreneurial skills is lacking and consequently weakens the realization and development of social projects. As the manager of a therapeutic farm with a strong social mission in the Tunis region points out, “We have been doing well for a few years, but today we have a project that is running out of steam. We do not know how to create or generate growth, when social needs are increasing every day.” The need for capacity building does not only concern project leaders but also trainers. Aware of this gap, the Director of the French Development Agency in Tunisia (EV7) argues that “Financing is a tool; you still have to know how to use it. We need support for entrepreneurs, but also the ecosystem and the state.” A speaker from EV5 added, “There is a need to have a new generation of guides. The training of guides is also very important (…). Regarding the actors, there is a complete need with various skills.” This need is crucial at all stages of social enterprise. As an expert present at EV6 underlines, “There is little follow-up and a lack of post-creation support for social and solidarity enterprises.”
Beyond skills, the ecosystem would benefit from developing an entrepreneurial culture and a culture specific to SSE. As the president of an association underlines during EV6: “It is absolutely essential to integrate an (SSE) culture.” Like collectivist societies, Tunisian society promotes mutual aid and solidarity (as evidenced by the example of the low presence of retirement homes or the small population of homeless people compared to Western countries). However, risk aversion represents a major obstacle to entrepreneurship, especially SE where the obstacles are more numerous, while profit generation is less ambitious than traditional business. All stakeholders agree that the entrepreneurial culture must be educated from an early age, as a participant in EV2 emphasizes: “the role of associations in universities is essential, like Enactus. We must instill a culture from an early age.”
Furthermore, participating observation in multiple places of reflection where the researcher had the opportunity to meet many project leaders made it possible to distinguish three main categories of Tunisian social entrepreneurs: (1) Social entrepreneurs in search meaning: many mediatized social entrepreneurs have illustrated themselves with innovative projects in solving social and/or societal problems. Beyond their passion and a keen sense of patriotism, this category of entrepreneurs has long lived abroad and has often evolved in fields far from the SSE. It is in a context of democratic transition allowing the hope of a new change, which they decide to settle in Tunisia in order to concretize their projects. As ES1 states (today Fellow Ashoka and director of a guest house in the heart of the Medina of Tunis: “I have long been a production engineer in a multinational firm in the United States, but it was a rhythm of life that no longer suited me. Today, my work has a meaning in bringing to life all the craftsmen and trades that are lost in the Medina.” (2) Young entrepreneurs committed to a new way of this category of entrepreneurs is represented by the new generation of young Tunisians animated by a new way of entrepreneurship, more responsible and more linked to an inclusive growth of the country.
The large number of students participating in dedicated competitions solving social and societal problems (Hult Prize, Spark days of the BIAT foundation, the Enactus competition with 1500 students during the 2017-2018 season) testify to this surge of patriotism fueled by freedom of speech, long-suppressed created by the old regime. (3) Entrepreneurs by necessity: They are project leaders whose ambition is to enhance local products from their different home regions. They are present at all events organized around the SSE or SE. The promotion of local products allows them, at the same time, to find a job where the State and large companies, long coveted for job security, have failed to meet their economic and social needs. Among the success of this stories category, the social enterprise of ES3 which has made known the know-how in craft embroidery of its city, Mahdia. During an interview, he underlined “My dream is to see the embroidery of Mahdia and Tunisia in general, shine around the world. This is where I would have fulfilled my duty as a citizen and as a Tunisian craftsman.” Today, all Hermès stores in France are decorated with the famous murals woven within his company.
Finally, in order to synthesize our remarks, Fig. 2 summarizes our results and the points of discussion by taking up the conceptual research framework adapted from Saebi et al. (2018). At the macro level, the social context remains fragile despite the initiatives. However, many social projects are dedicated to women in rural areas, heavily affected by unemployment. The ecosystem around SE and SSE would benefit from quantifying its social impact based on statistics relating to the sector. Institutionally, the SSE law has yet to be enacted. It is up to social enterprises (meso level) to gain ground and show the effectiveness of this organizational form by generating social value. For this, collaboration between actors is sometimes necessary to pool resources, strengthen the skills of social enterprises and have better bargaining and deterrent power. SI is collective and multidisciplinary. This community leads to a learning process specific to emerging countries and to creativity. Beyond responding to social emergencies, social entrepreneurs are also turning to economic models that would reduce social costs and be part of a circular economy. In addition, the role of the social entrepreneur is major. Social leadership is necessary to communicate with internal and external stakeholders and defend your project. Finally, a known and recognized SI would strengthen the legitimacy of this new economy in Tunisia. The ecosystem is still in the emergence phase but would benefit from being developed. As the president of the Plate’s network in Tunisia points out, “SI is the skeleton of the ecosystem. Without innovation, SE would not exist” (Fig. 3).
Discussion of the results
The aim of this research work was to understand to what extent SE could play a role in the development of the collective dimension of SI. In the Tunisian context, three challenges were developed following a participant observation period of 7 years at the heart of events dedicated to SE and the SSE: (1) the development of an entrepreneurial culture around the SI, (2) the promotion of social enterprise, and (3) the creation of partnerships between actors in the ecosystem. The three challenges presuppose, beforehand, the necessary development of a collective innovation impacting both the entrepreneurial ecosystem, the SSE culture, and social enterprise. This is why we wish to emphasize the importance of its role around the following different points.
First, in line with the work of Dees and Anderson (2006), Fremeaux (2014), or Laville (2008), (SE) in Tunisia is presented during the various events observed as a new alternative where the State and the market have failed to find solutions to social, societal, or environmental problems. The explosion in the number of associations enabling a solid civil society against a backdrop of a feeling of post-revolutionary patriotism strengthens SE. These associations allow better visibility of the terrain and social reality as well as a bottom-up vision which can sometimes be lacking for technocrats. Even if the state must regain confidence following the many dark decades under the old regime, its role as facilitator is not disputed, however. In addition, the current SSE law could give more legitimacy and a specific legal status to SSE organizations.
The need to collaborate
The various actors observed and interviewed agree on the need for collective, participative, and persuasive innovation not only to overcome the lack of resources but also to respond effectively and quickly to social emergencies. Our results have shown that SI is mainly perceived as an innovation of collaborations and interactions. In other words, SI must be built collectively by and with the beneficiaries. The results thus corroborate the work of Rao-Nicholson et al. (2017) stating that SI is a bottom-up phenomenon. The creation of social values carried out sporadically by a few well-known and recognized social entrepreneurs is not enough to create real social change. The main challenge today is to establish new forms of cooperation and collaboration and to work on viable and sustainable activities. The audacity of trust is fundamental. The actors must provide a permanent work of balance as well as common sense. In view of the work of the European Commission report, public-private partnerships can constitute an important path to the development of SI, thus reinforcing inclusive growth (Dro et al., 2011). Like theorists, the NGO Ashoka also highlights the possibility of multiplying the links between social start-ups and large groups in order to develop SI. In exchange for innovative and creative ideas, and agility fed back into their models, large companies can take advantage of this win-win situation in which all the players find their account.
Prerequisites for collaboration
Our results showed that social enterprises would benefit from strengthening the skills of their employees. This mainly concerns the category of entrepreneurs out of necessity and associations that wish to grow and develop economic activities in order to strengthen their social impact. Thus, the first prerequisite concerns social enterprise in itself. The latter should establish solid social management and management practices in order to be able to collaborate with other organizations, sometimes very well equipped (NGOs or foundations, national, and international public bodies). This research work highlighted SI not only as an output in terms of products or services but also as internal management practices (Dandurand, 2005; Szostak et al., 2018). To this end, Martinet (2012, p. 321) recalls that “the SSE must deal with management with greater intellectual and ethical security, adopt wisely and carefully certain management tools, create specific ones, give themselves benchmarks for hybrid strategies.” To do this, the social entrepreneur must appropriate or reinvent management tools, while preserving their social mission Bollinger Raedersdorf (2018). It must also combine a dual characteristic of manager-activist (Rousseau, 2006). The social entrepreneur is an opinion leader and an agent of change. It is able to initiate processes of awareness of SI and a real call for civic engagement. On the other hand, the challenges relating to the commitment of resources, to social management for the sustainability of businesses and the maintenance of its activity through strategic social alliances must be taken into consideration. Social innovation therefore requires full support for social entrepreneurs and trainers. Our results corroborate the work of Rao-Nicholson et al. (2017) according to which the learning and skills-building process could be done through the partnership of the different actors of the ecosystem (microfinance, incubators, coworking spaces, Universities, etc.) as well as the development of third places conducive to common reflection and creativity.
During the events observed, the actors stressed the importance of developing the entrepreneurial spirit and culture with project leaders and young Tunisians in general. These results are in line with the open-society solution developed by Dees and Anderson (2006) according to which profiles from all backgrounds are encouraged to use their creativity and talents to find innovative solutions to social problems. Entrepreneurial education must take place from a very young age until the University where the new Tunisian generation is thirsty to do otherwise. Our results have shown the major role of social entrepreneurs, who, beyond their role as social managers, are spokespersons for SI by testifying to the success of their business. In addition, we have also seen real solidarity between social entrepreneurs and project leaders. They help train them and often meet in communities or networks to promote SI. Thus, belonging to a network, a community of entrepreneurs, or movements for entrepreneurs plays a major role in the development of the SI. This not only raises awareness of SI but also provides a means of strengthening the skills of social enterprises. As for the implementation of the social, societal, or environmental project, collaboration between committed actors is also imperative. In order to strengthen the links between the actors, our results highlight the major interest of bringing the actors together through networks, communities, or movements dedicated to social and solidarity organizations. These communities thus allow creativity to emerge and strengthen the culture of social innovation (Sarazin et al., 2017). Thus, the latter needs an interactive, open, and multidisciplinary ecosystem (Laperche et al., 2019).
Figure 4 summarizes what we have to say about the role of communities, networks, and movements. Three phases of the SI process have been identified. First of all, we put forward a phase of awareness of SI. This phase is mainly ensured by conferences and places of sharing between social actors. A second phase of incubation and development of innovation takes place within social enterprises. Finally, our results enabled us to identify a third phase linked to the promotion of SI carried by social entrepreneurs who highlight their success stories and carry out support work with project leaders. This last phase is decisive insofar as it creates, in a way, a dynamic of innovation through swarming and dissemination of SI in an open space for sharing and co-construction (Besancon, 2015).
The relevance of social entrepreneurship and its implications
One element is, however, too little mentioned: populations in difficulty also have creative ideas, sources of potential innovations. The latter are not reduced only to the invention of new products or new production techniques, they can also be translated into new entrepreneurial structures contributing to social change.
This is how social entrepreneurship (SE) has developed globally, which refers to the practice that combines innovation, dynamism, and the possibility of meeting important social and environmental challenges. The social entrepreneur creates a business, which may or may not be lucrative, but which always seeks to respond to social problems (poverty, marginalization, deterioration of the environment), often implementing innovative ideas. Thus, these social “change makers” are present in sectors linked not only to agriculture, education and training, social and professional integration, but also to housing, crafts, and the savings and financial sector. credit.
There is no shortage of examples of social entrepreneurs. One example is Yomken in Egypt, which is building open innovation platforms for industrial, environmental, and social challenges, as well as online marketplaces to attract the finance industry. Let us also mention the entrepreneurs of the “Femmes du monde” project of the NGO Quartiers du Monde, who create educational tools to integrate the gender perspective in urban and peri-urban areas in Africa. Other examples, the Moroccan Clean City project, which aims to change mentalities on waste management by launching an application for sorting at source, or the Lebanese initiative BeyondRD which works with public structures and decision-makers in Lebanon, Africa, and the Middle East to promote the culture of active citizenship.
Social entrepreneurship could play an important role in Tunisia. It can, if supported by an appropriate public policy, help improve the economic security of vulnerable populations. The British State of Social Enterprise Report 2015 shows that social enterprises are economically efficient while strengthening equity, diversity, equality, territorial development, and respect for the environment.
For all these reasons, social enterprises arouse enthusiasm among young people, whatever their level of training. More and more universities devote dedicated modules to them—including the most prestigious (Harvard, Yale, HEC, Insead). In the South of the Mediterranean, ES is the subject of initiatives organized by student networks (Aiesec, ETIC, Rotaract Club Alger Est, Makesense). In Algeria and Morocco, centers for innovation and social entrepreneurship were founded by students and young graduates.
This article has analyzed the mechanisms of development of SI through the lens of SE. Following a longitudinal study, we found that Tunisian SE has still not reached a stage of maturity allowing it to quantify its impact and give legitimacy to this new economy, despite the hopes that are founded on it. Participant observation of eight events dedicated to SE and/or SSE in Tunisia nonetheless enabled us to identify three major challenges which social actors must take up for better inclusive growth: (1) the development of entrepreneurial skills both for social entrepreneurs and for their guides, (2) the promotion of social enterprise and the recognition of a social need, and (3) the development of partnerships and the networking of the various actors working for the development of SE in Tunisia. The results lead us to rethink the company by establishing social management both in terms of mastering tools and team management and its openness to the market. The SE should go beyond the myth of “the legend of the hero” and first develop his role as social manager. Indeed, this social management should be able to resolve, among other things, the problems of succession and the future of social enterprises. In addition, it seems interesting to explore the relationship between social enterprise and responsible consumers in order to put in place a long-term strategy linked to its market. Our results also made it possible to highlight, from a theoretical point of view, the main phases of the process linked to SI: awareness, development, and dissemination of the SI, in connection with the collective dimension of SE, namely, mutual aid between entrepreneurs, the development of third places, and communities of practice.
However, this work has research limitations, particularly in terms of the number of social entrepreneurs interviewed. A more in-depth study would have enriched our results by investigating the way in which their company captures, develops, and disseminates SI. However, future avenues of research emerge from the analysis and deserve to be deepened. It would be interesting to question the characteristics of social enterprise and the type of innovation it develops in an emerging country while emphasizing the cultural dimension.
Hope for real promised economic and social change is still pending despite the efforts of private and public actors. A fourth phase will surely change the economic and social situation following the adoption of the SSE law in Tunisia. But by then, the state must regain the trust of its citizens and of civil society. This work lead us to reflect more on the role of public authorities in the process of developing SI. What will be the consequences of a new SSE law on SE?
Availability of data and materials
The datasets generated during and/or analyzed during the current study are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.
For the purpose of this paper, acronym SI is used for social innovation.
For the purpose of this paper, acronym OECD is used for Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development.
For the purpose of this paper, acronym EC is used for European Commission.
For the purpose of this paper, acronym SSE is used for Social and Solidarity Economy.
Social and solidarity economy
Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development
Bacq, S., & Janssen, F. (2011). The multiple faces of social entrepreneurship: a review of definitional issues based on geographical and thematic criteria. Entrepreneurship and Regional Development, 23(5-6), 373–403.
Besancon, E. (2015). La diffusion de l’innovation sociale, un processus de changement multiforme. Presses de Sciences Po, Sociologie pratique, 2(31), 31–40.
Bollinger Raedersdorf, S. (2018). La construction d’un outil de contrôle de gestion innovant dans l’économie sociale et solidaire: le cas de la fondation Apprentis d’Auteuil. Innovations, 57(3), 109–136.
Boughzala, Y., Defalvard, H., & Bousnina, Z. (2016). La difficile émergence de l’entrepreneuriat social dans le processus démocratique de la Tunisie: une solution du côté des territoires? Revue Intervention Économique, 54. https://doi.org/10.4000/interventionseconomiques.2681.
Boughzala, Y., Rhodesly, D., & Chouki, M. (2019). Du porteur de projet à l’entreprise sociale: un parcours entrepreneurial atypique? Revue Internationale P.M.E, 32(2), 57–83.
Boutillier, S. (2009). Au origines de l’entrepreneuriat social, les affaires selon Jean-Batiste. Andre Godin, Innovations. 30(1), 115–134.
Cherrier, H., Goswami, P., & Ray, S. (2017). Social entrepreneurship, creating value in the context of international complexity. Journal of Business Research, 86, 245–258.
Chou, D. C. (2018). Applying design thinking method to social entrepreneurship project. Computer Standards & Interfaces, 55, 73–79.
Coleman, J. S. (1970). Social invention. Social Forces, 42(1), 163–173.
Commission Europeenne. (2003). La situation sociale dans l'Union Europeenne. Luxembourg: Office des Publications Officielles des Communautes Europeennes.
Cuenoud, T., Moreau, C., & Mertens, S. (2013). Les spécificités managériales dans les entreprises sociales: une démarche européenne par la gestion des compétences. RECMA, 329, 80–91.
Dacin, P. A. (2010). Social entrepreneurship: Why we don’t need a new theory and how we move forward from here. Academy of management perspectives, 24(3), 37–58.
Dandurand, L. (2005). Reflexion autour du concept d’innovation sociale, approche historique et comparative. Revue Francaise d’administration publique, 115(3), 377–382.
De Sardan, J. P. O. (2001). L’enquête de terrain socio-anthropologique. Enquête, 8, 63–81.
Dees, J. G. (1998). The meaning of social entrepreneurship. Kansas City and Palo Alto: Kauffman Fondation & Standford University.
Dees, J. G., & Anderson, B. B. (2006). Framing a theory of social entrepreneurship: building on two schools of practice and thought. In R. Mosher-Williams (Ed.), Research on Social Entrepreneurship: Understanding and Contributing to an Emerging Field. ARNOVA Occasional Paper Series, Volume 1, Number 3 (pp. 39–66). Indianapolis: ARNOVA.
Defalvard, H. (2013). L’ESS comme idéal-type d’économie. Cahier de recherche, 1, Chaire d’économie sociale et solidaire. Erudite: Université Paris Est.
Doherty, B., Haugh, H., & Lyon, F. (2014). Social enterprise as hybrid organizations: a review and research agenda. International Journal of Management Reviews, 16(4), 417–436.
Dro, I., Therace, A., & Hubert, A. (2011). Empowering People, Driving Change: Social Innovation in the European Union. Brussels: European Commission. https://doi.org/10.2796/13155.
Dubruc, N., & Vialette, L. (2016). Les entrepreneurs de l’ESS qui font le choix d’une formation. Revue de l’Entrepreneuriat, 15(3), 143–162.
Freeman, C. (1991). Innovation change of techno-economic paradigm. Revue economique, 2, 211–231.
Fremeaux, P. (2014). La nouvelle alternative? Enquête sur l’économie sociale et solidaire. Paris: Les petits matins/Alternatives économiques.
Gallois, F., Lecat, C., & Nieddu, M. (2016). Mobilisation territoriale et mise en réseau des acteurs dédiés à la production d’innovation sociale: Une étude de cas. Géographie, Économie, Société, 2(18), 359–385.
Gianfaldoni, P. (2012). Les attributs de l’innovation sociale dans l’insertion par l’activité économique. Innovations, 38(2), 129–150.
Gramescu, L. (2015). Scaling social innovation in Europe: an overview of social enterprise readiness, procedia. Social and Behavioral Sciences, 221, 218–225.
Harrisson, D., Vincent, V., & Rollin, J. (2008). Innovation sociale et arrangements efficaces. Hermes, la revue, 50(1), 55–60.
Hillenkamp, I., & Bessis, F. (2012). L’innovation sociale par l’économie solidaire en Bolivie: une démocratisation des conventions de production et de genre. Innovations, 38(2), 85–105.
Hlady-Rispal, M., & Jouison-Laffitte, E. (2014). Research methods and epistemological frameworks: a review of publication trends in entrepreneurship. Journal of Small Business Management, 52(4), 594–614.
Isenberg, D. (2011). The entrepreneurship ecosystem strategy as a new paradigm for economic policy: principles for cultivating entrepreneurship. Dublin: Institute of International European Affairs Babson Global.
Janssen, F., Bacq, S., & Brouard, F. (2012). L’entrepreneuriat social: Un thème pour la recherche passée, présente et future. Revue Internationale P.M.E, 253(4), 17–44.
Laperche, B., Lima, M., Seuillet, E., & Trousse, B. (2019). Les écosystèmes d’innovation. Paris: L’Harmattan.
Laroussi, H. (2009). Micro-crédit et lien social en Tunisie. La solidarité instituée. Paris: Karthala.
Laville, J.-L. (2008). L’économie solidaire: Une perspective international. Paris: Hachette Littératures.
Laville, J.-L., & Nyssens, M. (2001). The social enterprise: towards a theoretical socio-economic approach. In C. Borzaga, & J. Defourny (Eds.), The emergence of social enterprise (pp. 312-332). Routledge.
Levillain, K., Agogue, M., & Berthet, E. (2016). Innovation sociale et innovation radicale sont-elles contradictoires? L’enjeu de formuler une mission sociale commune et générative. Revue Française de Gestion, 255(2), 41–55.
Liu, H. C., Ip, C. Y., & Liang, C. (2018). A new runway for journalists: on the intentions of journalists to start social enterprises. Journal of Entrepreneurship, Management and Innovation, 14(2), 83–100.
Mair, J., & Marti, I. (2006). Social entrepreneurship: a source of explanation, prediction and delight. Journal of World Business, 41(1), 36–44.
Martinet, A. (2012). Perspectives. La recherche en management stratégique et l’ESS: renouveler les objets et les projets de connaissance. In Management des entreprises de l’économie sociale et solidaire: Identités plurielles et spécificités. Louvain-la-Neuve: De Boeck Supérieur.
Marzena, S., & Agnieszka, B. (2018). Social entrepreneurship and social enterprise phenomenon: antecedents, processes, impact across cultures and contexts. Journal of Entrepreneurship, Management and Innovation, 14(2), 03–18.
Montgomery, A. W., Dacin, P. A., & Dacin, M. T. (2012). Collective social entrepreneurship: collaboratively, shaping social good. Journal of Business Ethics, 111(3), 375–388.
Neck, H., Greene, P., & Brush, C. (2014). Teaching entrepreneurship. Cheltenham, Northampton: Edward Elgar.
Perrini, F., & Vurro, C. (2006). Social entrepreneurship: innovation and social change across theory and practice. In J. Mair, J. Robinson, & K. Hockerts (Eds.), Social Entrepreneurship (vol. 5, pp. 57–86). Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
Platt, J. (1983). The Development of the “Participant Observation” Method in Sociology: Origin Myth and History. Journal of the History of the Behavioral Sciences, 19, 379–393.
Rao-Nicholson, R., Vorley, T., & Khan, Z. (2017). Social innovation in emerging economies: a national systems of innovation based approach. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 121, 228–237.
Richez-Battesti, N., Petrella, F., & Vallade, D. (2012). L’innovation sociale, une notion aux usages pluriels: Quels enjeux et défis pour l’analyse? Innovations, 38(2), 15–36.
Rousseau, F. (2006). Le militant gestionnaire: genèse d’un entrepreneur social. Journée de Dandurand L. Recherche «Quel management pour les associations?» 12 janvier, IAE de Tours.
Royer, I., Zarlowski, P., Thietart, R.-A., et al. (2014). Méthodes de recherche en Management. Paris: Dunod.
Saebi, F., Foss, N., & Linder, S. (2018). Social entrepreneurship research: past achievements and future promises. Journal of Management, 45(15). https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206318793196.
Sarazin, B., Cohendet, P., & Simon, L. (2017). Les communautés d’innovation: De la liberté créatrice à l’innovation organisée. Caen: EMS Éditions.
Schieb-Bienfait, N., Charles-Pauvers, B., & Urbain, C. (2009). Emergence entrepreneuriale et innovation sociale dans l’économie sociale et solidaire: acteurs, projets et logiques d’action. Innovations, 30(2), 13–39.
Schumpeter, J. A. (1974). Capitalisme, socialisme et démocratie. Paris: Petite Bibliothèque Payot.
Shane, S. A. (2002). A general theory of Entrepreneurship: the individual-opportunity. Nexus: Edward Elgar Publishing.
Soule, S. (2007). Observation participante ou participation observante? Usages et justifications de la notion de participation observante en sciences sociales. Recherches Qualitatives, 27(1), 127–140.
Szostak, B. L., Boughzala, Y., Dine, S., & Yahiaoui, S. (2018). La dynamique d’appropriation des outils de gestion dans le champ de l’ESS: est-elle spécifique? Revue Management & Avenir, 100(2), 111–133.
Verstraete, T., Kremer, F., & Jouison-Lafitte, E. (2012). Le business model: une théorie pour des pratiques. Entreprendre et Innover, 13(1), 7–26.
Wanlin, P. (2007). L’analyse de contenu comme méthode d’analyse qualitative d’entretiens: une comparaison entre les traitements manuels et l’utilisation de logiciels. Recherches Qualitatives, Hors Série, 3, 243–272.
Zahra, S. A., Gedajlovic, Neubaum, D. O., & Shulman, J. M. (2009). A typology of social entrepreneurs: motives, search processes and ethical challenges. Journal of Business Venturing, 24(5), 519–532.
Zollo, L., Rialti, R., Ciappei, C., & Boccardi, A. (2018). Bricolage and social entrepreneurship to address emergent social needs: a “deconstructionist” perspective. Journal of Entrepreneurship, Management and Innovation, 14(2), 19–47.
This paper is a personal work.
This paper is a personal work.
The author has no competing interests.
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
About this article
Cite this article
Fridhi, B. RETRACTED ARTICLE: Social entrepreneurship and social enterprise phenomenon: toward a collective approach to social innovation in Tunisia. J Innov Entrep 10, 14 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1186/s13731-021-00148-6
- Collective dimension
- Entrepreneurial approach
- Social entrepreneurship
- Social innovation