Entrepreneurship in Jordan: the eco-system of the Social Entrepreneurship Support Organizations (SESOs)

Abstract

This study aims at assessing the Social Entrepreneurship Support Organizations (SESOs) in Jordan with an updated eco-system reflecting the better resourced Social Entrepreneurship eco-system characterized with comprehensive information; covering the stakeholders’ identification data, ongoing projects and initiatives, work scope, and their targeted groups, accurate data based on a well-developed survey and analysis of the survey data by the authors’ experience in this filed. This study also aims at assessing the SESOs capacity by coincide their desired needs and their actual needs and limit the social innovation concept variation among the different institutions in the ecosystem. This study also provides a survey analysis for the Social Entrepreneurship Support Organizations (SESOs); as an attempt to identify their characteristics and roles in Jordan by adopting the methodology of qualitative and quantitative analysis approach. Results show that (57.89%) of the SESO’s in Jordan have dedicated programs that focus on women's inclusion, and that (68.42%) are hiring more than 50% in their staff. Besides that, results also show that (59.65%) of the SESO’s in Jordan did not dedicate programs for people with disabilities (PWD); which is a high portion in neglecting this segment of people. Besides that (54.39%) do not have designed facilities friendly using for people with disabilities. Moreover, results show that (73.68%) had dedicated programs for youth with different age groups, and (77.19%) of the SESO’s in Jordan had attempted to identify, understand, and actively removing barriers that exist for certain groups of young people in society. Moreover, (70.18%) of the SESO’s in Jordan had organized specific outreach mechanisms to identify, meet, engage, and/or serve different population groups. Finally, results show that (38.60%) of the SESO’s in Jordan had dedicated programs for refugees.

Introduction

Social entrepreneurship is the solution for raising the challenges of sustainable development, and that require improving living conditions for all individuals without an increase in the use of natural resources; as the civilization of a nations are measured by the level of per capita income, far from developing its characteristics, advantages, and human contributions.

The value and effectiveness of social capital are focused on social relations, cooperation, and trust for achieving economic goals, and it consists of social networks; networks of civic participation, and common customs that have an impact on the productivity of the society, and have a value that affects the productivity of an individual or group. The social sector is considered a key factor for the success of democracy and political participation (Wolf, 2009).

An entrepreneurship ecosystem is defined as the social and economic environment that affects local or regional entrepreneurship. In addition, this system refers to the elements, individuals, organizations, or institutions that support entrepreneurs and their success before and after they launch their projects (Stam & Spigel, 2016).

The entrepreneurship ecosystem may include a large number of elements called entrepreneurship stakeholders, and this term may include government, schools, universities, the private sector, family businesses, investors, banks, businessmen, social leaders, research centers, worker representatives, students, lawyers, multinational companies, private institutions, and international aid agencies (Mason & Brown, 2014).

To understand more about the characteristics of the entrepreneurship ecosystem, we need to go back to 2010 when the article entitled “How to foment an Entrepreneurial Revolution,” written by Daniel Eisenberg, Professor at Babson College, and published in the Harvard Business Review. Eisenberg established some of the rules and collected characteristics that describe these systems in which entrepreneurship tends to thrive. He also suggested, based on examples from around the world, which entrepreneurs are more successful if they have access to the human, financial and professional resources they need, in an environment, where government policies encourage and protect entrepreneurs. In general, the ecosystem for entrepreneurship includes several areas: politics, finance, culture, institutional support, people, and markets (Isenberg, 2011).

The Jordanian National Strategy for Entrepreneurship and Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises 2016–2020 diagnosed Jordan's position in entrepreneurship and considered that the entrepreneurial culture in the Kingdom is weak, and that the weakness of the entrepreneurial culture is one of the most prominent obstacles to Jordan development in businesses and emerging entrepreneurs who use technical advice in developing their projects, which are provided by government institutions, civil society institutions, and business associations. Jordan in 2017 was ranked 49 out of 137 countries according to the global leadership indicators approved by the Global Entrepreneurship and Development Foundation (GEDI), while its global ranking declined in terms of (Starting a Business) from 83rd place in 2015 to 103rd place in 2017. The country according to World Bank indicators, which is required to encouraging entrepreneurship among young people coming to the labor market, especially in light of the difficulty of finding a job in the public and private sectors and due to the increase in the number of graduates at a level that greatly exceeds what can be absorbed by these two sectors (The Higher Population Council Report, 2018).

Almost all studies in Jordan concerning the eco-system of the Social Entrepreneurship Support Organizations (SESOs) were limited to the economic aspect, without analyzing the impact of this aspect on the social, political, and cultural aspects. Therefore, this study attempted at assessing the role of the (SESOs) in Jordan with an updated eco-system reflecting a better resourced Social Entrepreneurship eco-system characterized with comprehensive information; covering the stakeholders’ identification data, ongoing projects and initiatives, work scope, and their targeted groups, to assess the SESOs capacity by coinciding their desired needs and their actual needs, and to limit the social innovation concept variation among the different institutions in the ecosystem.

Problem statement

Jordan is witnessing a demographic change, the most notable manifestation of this change is in the age structure of the population in favor of the working-age population, and Jordan also suffers from high rates of unemployment among youth, especially among graduates from universities, technical colleges, and training institutes. This phenomenon varies according to gender and governorates, as the participation of women in the labor market decreases, and the desire of young people for self-employment and the implementation of their projects for them decreases. The national efforts exerted to enable young people to be entrepreneurs are still below ambitions and have not reached the level at which they can address this situation.

This study provides a survey analysis for the Social Entrepreneurship Support Organizations (SESOs), and an attempt to identify their characteristics and roles in Jordan by trying to answer the following questions:

• 1. What are the institutions sponsoring entrepreneurship at the national level in the governorates of the Kingdom?

• 2. What are the services they provide and the challenges they face in empowering young people with entrepreneurship, and their recommendations to overcome these challenges?

• 3. What is the level of coordination and complementarity of roles between these institutions?

• 4. What is the organizations’ two-liner mission?

Literature review

Since the term entrepreneurship appeared in Jordan in the sixties of the last century, and the serious attempts that took place in the development processes in all Jordanian governorates, it did not receive sufficient attention for several reasons, most of which are related to the coordination and legislative framework organizing the interrelations within the sector. This naturally necessitated heading to the sub-sectors that make up the entrepreneurship sector in general, since the urgent need was the main driver in showing these sub-sectors, the most important of which was the social entrepreneurship sector in Jordan, as the concept of social entrepreneurship is considered a method followed by start-up companies or entrepreneurs, including a set of measures aimed at developing, finding and implementing solutions to economic, social, cultural, or environmental issues or other issues that seek to create a safe environment for groups of the society that aim to create an environment to overcome marginalization through education, volunteer youth programs or organizing civil work with a social impact (Alrawadieh & Alrawadieh, 2018).

Social entrepreneurship encompasses a set of opportunities, the most important of which is creating a clear framework to support all segments of society, creating a prosperous and sustainable future and a strong economy capable of growth to reduce poverty and unemployment. In addition to responding to many of the needs of local communities, which are mainly related to the basic needs of societies, which are the sectors of education, health, and the infrastructure (Santos, 2012).

Despite all this, social entrepreneurship and the great opportunities it offers, however, face a set of challenges and obstacles that would significantly limit its growth and expansion, which will be reflected in the number of jobs that the sector will create, and the most prominent of these challenges lies in the absence of a legislative framework that organizes the relationship and fulfills the interests of all parties, which is the responsibility of the government to implement (Mehtap, 2014).

The Ambassador of the European Union to Jordan Andrea Fontana said: Social entrepreneurship has become an innovative practice model that helps bring about change and reflects positively on local communities, pointing the experience of the European Union with Jordan to improve its business environment, and in particular by linking business incubators with social entrepreneurs who are looking to make a positive change in their societies by finding sustainable solutions to existing problems (Jordan news agency, 2020).

Social entrepreneurship is the solution to raising the challenges of sustainable development, which requires improving living conditions for all individuals without an increase in the use of natural resources in effective sustainability capable of preserving resources for future generations, as the civilizations of nations have become measured by the individual's income level, far from developing his characteristics, advantages and human contributions (Azmat, 2013).

The most important effects of social entrepreneurship on the development of any society can be measured sustainably according to the following levels:

• Short-term level: tangible changes in the society's economy (creating jobs, generating outputs, or increasing savings).

  • Medium-term level: The value of social entrepreneurship is reflected in being a potential model that works on the well-being of society and improving its conditions, and then the success of social entrepreneurship is measured by its ability to increase productivity and development projects.

  • Long term level: The most significant contribution of social entrepreneurship occurs in the long run, and is measured by its ability to create and invest social capital.

To proceed with social entrepreneurship, there is the need to increase the number of social business incubators that yield material profit and do not contradict the public benefit, and their success is measured by the benefit achieved by the society in addition to material profit. Social entrepreneurs need wider networks to exchange ideas and spread best practices. Isolating those makes entrepreneurship less efficient, and the entrepreneur often tries to come up with his solutions to overcome this isolation, by collecting and disseminating best practices and provides a forum for discussion and creation of ideas, and entrepreneurs can exchange communications and linkages with companies, providing a job market of some kind, or conducting joint training (Dey & Lehner, 2017).

Study objectives

The study aims at assessing the Social Entrepreneurship Support Organizations (SESOs) in Jordan with an updated eco-system reflecting the following objectives:

• 1. Better resourced Social Entrepreneurship eco-system characterized with:

  • Comprehensive information; covering the stakeholders’ identification data, ongoing projects and initiatives, work scope, and their targeted groups.

  • Accurate data based on a well-developed survey.

  • Analysis of the survey data by the researcher.

• 2. Assessing the SESOs capacity by coincide their desired needs and their actual needs.

• 3. Limit the social innovation concept variation among the different institutions in the ecosystem.

Study methodology

Whatever the focus is, qualitative and quantitative analysis approaches should be concerned with the interpretation of the subjective meaning and description of social context. In addition, the adopted methodology in this study clarifies how people in certain contexts come to appreciate, justify, carry out and administer their routine circumstances, and seek to deliver data within the society. Qualitative content analysis can be referred to as a research method for subjective interpretation of the content of text data through the systematic classification process of coding and identifying themes or patterns.

Results and discussion

Facts about Jordan related to the (SESOs) eco-system analysis in Jordan

Fact one: population and area distribution by governorate in Jordan

Data in Table 1 show that Amman, the capital of Jordan had the highest population rate (42.0%), followed by the governorate of Irbid, with a population the percentage of (18.5%), and followed by the governorate of Zarka, with a population the percentage of (14.3%). These three governorates acquired the percentage of (74.8%) of the Jordan's population, and other nine governorates acquired the percentage of (25.2%) of the Jordan's population.

Table 1 Population and area distribution by governorate in Jordan

Fact two: percentages related to Amman

Amman is the third governorate by area in Jordan: with a population percentage of (42.0%) of the total population in Jordan, and with a Population Density of (571 per km²). The first two governorates are Ma'an governorate with a population percentage of (1.70%) of the total population in Jordan, and with the Population Density of (5.2 per km²), and Mafraq governorate with a population percentage of (5.80%) of the total population in Jordan, and with the Population Density of (22.4 per km²). Irbid governorate, which is the eighth governorate in the area; has the highest Population Density of (1216.2 per km²). Followed by Jarash governorate with a Population Density of (624.7 per km²). Moreover, Fig. 1 shows these distributions.

Fig. 1

Highest and lowest population density of the Jordanian governorates

Descriptive analytical statistics

Demographic statistics

Organizations are active

SESOs in Jordan are active locally, regionally and globally. (100%) are active locally, (39.2%) are active locally and regionally, (28.9%) are active locally and globally, while (13.4%) are active locally, regionally and globally. Moreover, Fig. 2 shows these distributions.

Fig. 2

Local, regional and global operation activity of the SESOs in Jordan

Fig. 3

Distributions of the SESOs employment of the Internet

Employing the Internet and social media

Data shows that (86.6%) of the SESOs own a website, while (13.40%) do not. Moreover, Fig. 3 shows these distributions.

Related to these facts, (15.50%) do own a website and are not using social media, (5.51%) do not own a website but using social media, (7.21%) do not own a website and are not using social media. Moreover, Fig. 4 shows these distributions.

Fig. 4

Distributions of the SESOs employment of the Internet and social media

Related to these facts, as (15.50%) do own a website and are not using social media, (5.51%) do not own a website but using social media and (7.21%) do not own a website and are not using social media; and because everyone is using social media these days, and some are doing it better than others.

Social entrepreneurs, in particular, should take advantage of the audience, reach, and potential virility of the vast array of mediums to spread their news for better results, and longer lasting initiatives. A powerful tool, social media, at its core, is a conversation medium that enables people, brands, and companies to interact with their target audiences in a meaningful, personalized, and helpful way. Today, no business can survive without a powerful online presence, and social entrepreneurs should know this to be true. They should be urged to use social media for a variety of purposes such as raising awareness or empowering their audience to change and participate in their efforts to make a difference. The distributions of the use of social media show that (78.35%) are using Facebook, (47.42%) are using Twitter and (36.10%) are using LinkedIn. Moreover, Fig. 5 shows these distributions.

Fig. 5

Distributions of the use of social media

Qualitative analysis

For meeting the study goals, and for providing comprehensive information; covering the stakeholders’ identification data, ongoing projects and initiatives, work scope, and their targeted groups; the accurate data based on a well-developed survey were analyzed qualitatively.

Organization’s two-liner mission

Whatever the focus is, the qualitative analysis approach should be concerned with the interpretation of the subjective meaning and description of social context. In addition, this clarifies how people in certain contexts come to appreciate, justify, carry out and administer their routine circumstances, and seek to deliver data within the society.

Qualitative content analysis can be referred to as a “research method for subjective interpretation of the content of text data through the systematic classification process of coding and identifying themes or patterns”. Thus, and after examining the three most prominent grounded theory methodologies; the data concerning the asked question (Organization’s two-liner mission is?) will be analyzed upon Strauss and Corbin (1990, 1998) grounded theory (Walker & Myrick, 2006), as it would be the most suitable in this analysis using NVivo 11. This will apply the four-stage data analyzing strategy summarized in Table 2.

Table 2 Four-stage data analyzing strategy

Then after analyzing the preliminary codes obtained from the responses with each code representing a significant topic of discussion related to the organization’s two-liner missions. The concluded saturated codes that were necessary to understand the phenomenon had emerged, as shown in Table 3.

Table 3 Initial categories and codes in phase one

Table 4 Antecedents’ main themes describing the organizations’ two-liner mission according to their answers

In addition, Table 5 illustrates the themes for the positive sides of the phenomenon according to their answers.

Table 5 Phenomenon positive sides’ main themes describing the organizations’ two-liner mission according to their answers

Moreover, Table 6 illustrates the themes for the negative sides of the phenomenon according to their answers.

Table 6 Phenomenon negative sides’ main themes describing the organizations’ two-liner mission according to their answers

The analysis of the codes went through four main phases, according to the following model. The model illustrated in Fig. 6 (the paradigm model) is generated entirely by utilizing NVivo 11 as a result of codes and themes established and being linked together in the second and the third phases (axial and selective). These relationships of concepts are rigorously established based on the validation process in phase four; the selective data analysis.

Fig. 6

Paradigm model

Data analyzed concluded that it became a credible hypothesis to be validated noting that the grounded theory put forward the approach that will assess the SESOs capacity by coincide their desired needs and their actual needs and limit the social innovation concept variation among the different institutions in the ecosystem; did commence with a hypothesis to be confirmed or refuted. However, it is an area to be extravagantly investigated by the ongoing in-depth analysis until assimilation of the issue had been completed and the procedure sustained. However, it was the phrase “Economic and social empowerment” as a probable key category that led to the validation of the perceived hypothesis. Therefore, and in the emerging categories, the key category that surfaced was that informants engaged in their attempt to answer the asked question (Organization’s two-liner mission is?); “Economic and social empowerment” have established the concept of the generated behaviors that caused positive and negative impacts toward the (Social Entrepreneurship Support Organizations (SESOs)) activates and missions, which could be regarded as the phenomena in the current analysis.

Quantitative analysis: SESOs verification

Data in Fig. 7 show the distributions for providing or not providing support services for startups, entrepreneurs, or nascent entrepreneurs, as the percentage for those who provide such services is (80.41%) and for those who don’t provide these services is (19.59%).

Fig. 7

Distributions of the organizations providing or not providing support services for startups, entrepreneurs or nascent entrepreneurs

Moreover, for those who are providing support services for startups, entrepreneurs or nascent entrepreneurs; data show that (53.56%) are supporting less than 50 entrepreneurship beneficiaries so far. While (32.30%) are supporting from 51 to 100 entrepreneurship beneficiaries so far, and (3.06%) are supporting from 101 to 500 entrepreneurship beneficiaries so far. In addition, (11.08%) are supporting more than (1000) entrepreneurship beneficiaries so far. Moreover, Fig. 8 shows these distributions.

Fig. 8

Percentages of supporting entrepreneurship beneficiaries so far

Fig. 9

Distributions of the exclusive or opened support services

Concerning if the (SESOs) provide exclusive support services for social enterprises or social entrepreneurs or nascent entrepreneurs, data also show that, (41.24%) are providing an exclusive and direct support for social entrepreneurs, enterprises and nascent social entrepreneurs in running a social business incubator, which only enrolls social business models, while (58.76%) are opening their support for all types of entrepreneurs. Moreover, Fig. 9 shows these distributions.

For those who provide exclusive support services for social enterprises or social entrepreneurs or nascent entrepreneurs; their support actions had covered:

• Nascent social entrepreneurs, those in the formation stage: (Those who are still at the pre-ideation phase, however, have the high-level intention to social entrepreneurship).

• Social entrepreneurs in the validation stage: (Those who identified their endeavor’s main service/ product and validated it).

• Social entrepreneurs in the growth stage: (Working on their business model / market fit and scaling up their work / internationalization).

• Social enterprises in failure / closure phase SE’s (helping closing-down SE’s to restructure, close or recycle their activities supporting to carry on the consequences).

In addition, the distributions in Fig. 10 show the currently ongoing projects for those who are providing exclusive support services for social enterprises or social entrepreneurs or nascent entrepreneurs.

Fig. 10

Frequency of the currently running exclusive social entrepreneurship projects

Testing the study hypotheses

Based on the literature and the previous studies; and based on the qualitative data analysis; the following hypotheses are made:

H01: There are no statistically significant influences at the level of significance (α ≤ 0.05) for assessing the SESOs capacity to coincide their desired needs and their actual needs in Jordan.

H02: There are no statistically significant influences at the level of significance (α ≤ 0.05) of the Social Entrepreneurship Support Organizations (SESOs) eco-system on the economic empowerment in Jordan.

H03: There are no statistically significant influences at the level of significance (α ≤ 0.05) of the Social Entrepreneurship Support Organizations (SESOs) eco-system on the social empowerment in Jordan.

And for testing the study hypotheses; the coefficients’ of the multiple regressions of the three hypotheses are shown in Table 7.

Table 7 Multiple regression analysis of the three hypotheses

Data in Table 7 show that, the regression coefficients for all the study hypotheses are positive and significant at the level of significance (α ≤ 0.05). Therefore, all the null hypotheses will be rejected and the alternative hypotheses will be adopted as follows:

H01: There are no statistically significant influences at the level of significance (α ≤ 0.05) for assessing the SESOs capacity to coincide their desired needs and their actual needs in Jordan	Rejected
Alternative: There are statistically significant influences at the level of significance (α ≤ 0.05) for assessing the SESOs capacity to coincide their desired needs and their actual needs in Jordan	Accepted
H02: There are no statistically significant influences at the level of significance (α ≤ 0.05) of the Social Entrepreneurship Support Organizations (SESOs) eco-system on the economic empowerment in Jordan	Rejected
Alternative: There are statistically significant influences at the level of significance (α ≤ 0.05) of the Social Entrepreneurship Support Organizations (SESOs) eco-system on the economic empowerment in Jordan	Accepted
H03: There are no statistically significant influences at the level of significance (α ≤ 0.05) of the Social Entrepreneurship Support Organizations (SESOs) eco-system on the social empowerment in Jordan	Rejected
Alternative: There are statistically significant influences at the level of significance (α ≤ 0.05) of the Social Entrepreneurship Support Organizations (SESOs) eco-system on the social empowerment in Jordan	Accepted

Quantitative and qualitative analysis for the SESOs calcifications

For classifying SESOs in Jordan upon the services provided, the analysis is divided into two categories: organizations providing one single service, and organizations providing multiple services. Moreover, Fig. 11 shows that, the percentages of these two categories are: organizations providing one single service with a rate of (13.40%), and organizations providing multiple services with a rate of (86.60%).

Fig. 11

Percentages of the two categories: organizations providing one single service, and organizations providing multiple services

Category one: Organizations providing one single service.

The percentage of the organizations providing one single service is (13.40%), out of these (54.55%) are providing training services, (24.79%) are providing funding services, (18.18%) are providing education services, and (2.48%) are providing incubation services. Moreover, Fig. 12 is showing these distributions.

Fig. 12

Percentages of the services provided by the organizations providing one single service

Organizations providing multiple services

Data in Fig. 13 show the distributions of the services’ percentages provided by the organizations providing multiple services. Moreover, the percentages below are calculated over the whole surveyed sample. In addition, the (Other services) are:

• Monitoring and Evaluation Services

• Access to finance, Access to markets

• International and national Cultural exchanges as well as collaborations with EU NGOs

• Connect entrepreneurs in the field of product making to new markets

• Studies and policies

• Technical support

• Marketing and communications

• E-commerce platform that provides e-stores

• Sales and providing raw materials

• CSR and mentoring

Fig. 13

Distributions of the services’ percentages provided by the organizations providing multiple services

Data in Fig. 13 show the distributions of the Social Entrepreneurship Support Organizations (SESOs) services. These services are delivered directly to social enterprises, social entrepreneurs, or nascent entrepreneurs. For mapping these services, they should be categorized in the following order:

• Category (1): representing training, coaching and education services, the average percentage of these services is equal to (41.93%).

• Category (2): representing incubation and fellowship services, and the average percentage of these services is equal to (13.97%).

• Category (3): representing advocacy, consultancy, mentorship and legal services, and the average percentage of these services is equal to (20.92%).

• Category (4): representing awareness campaigns related to the social ecosystem, ecosystem mapping, acceleration and linkage to opportunities services, and the average percentage of these services is equal to (20.53%).

• Category (5): representing media exposure and Networking / Exchange services, and the average percentage of these services is equal to (35.05%).

• Category (6): representing funding and awarding and recognition services, and the average percentage of these services is equal to (17.86%).

In light of working in the entrepreneurship ecosystem (either as a social entrepreneur, enterprise or support organization), Moreover, Table 8 shows the distributions of the ranking of the challenges based on severity.

Table 8 Ranking of the challenges based on severity

Data in Table 7 show that (46.25%) of the SESOs in Jordan consider that challenge (3: Lack of funding and financing) is the most severe challenge, and challenge (9: Poor related education; which will lead to poor quality of social ideas, concepts and projects received by beneficiaries) is the second most severe challenge with the percentage of (44.12%). Moreover, challenge (8: Lack of knowledge related to social business models (revenue generation) came in the third place of severity with the percentage of (32.23%). In addition, in the fourth place came challenge (5: Lack of communication networks among the social entrepreneurship ecosystem) with the percentage of (27.15%). Therefore, the four most severe challenges facing the SESOs in Jordan (see Fig. 17) are:

• 1. Lack of funding and financing

• 2. Poor related education

• 3. Lack of knowledge related to social business models

• 4. Lack of communication networks among the social entrepreneurship ecosystem

Furthermore, data in Fig. 14 also reflect these facts:

Fig. 14

Distributions of the four most severe challenges facing the SESOs in Jordan

Fact one: For the highest ranking challenge, (46.25%) of the SESOs in Jordan finds that the lack of funding and financing is the first most severe challenge, while (3.15%) find that the lack of funding and financing is a least severe challenge. Moreover, Fig. 15 reflects this fact.

Fig. 15

Severity correlation of the highest ranking challenge

Related to the severity correlation of the highest ranking challenge, and in the scale (1–10), (1) is the most severe challenge and (10) is least severe challenge), and for analyzing the highest ranking challenge (lack of funding and financing); Fig. 16 reflects the distributions of the severity of the highest ranking challenge.

Fig. 16

Distributions of the severity of the highest ranking challenge

Data in Fig. 16 show that the majority of the SESOs in Jordan finds that the lack of funding and financing is the first most severe challenge (reflecting an unstable financial situation) and the minority of the SESOs in Jordan finds that the lack of funding and financing is a least severe challenge (reflecting a stable financial situation).

Fact two: For the second highest ranking challenge, (44.12%) of the SESOs in Jordan finds that the poor related education is the second most severe challenge, while (12.42%) find that the poor related education is a least severe challenge. Moreover, Fig. 17 reflects this fact.

Fig. 17

Severity correlation of the second highest ranking challenge

Data in Fig. 17 show that the majority of the SESOs in Jordan find that poor related education is the second most severe challenge (reflecting the poor quality of social ideas, concepts, and projects received by beneficiaries). In addition, the minority of the SESOs in Jordan find that poor related education is the least severe challenge (reflecting the good quality of social ideas, concepts, and projects received by beneficiaries).

Fact three: For the third highest ranking challenge, (32.23%) of the SESOs in Jordan finds that the lack of knowledge related to social business models is the third most severe challenge, while (11.25%) find that the lack of knowledge related to social business models is a least severe challenge. Moreover, Fig. 18 reflects this fact.

Fig. 18

Severity correlation of the third highest ranking challenge

Data in Fig. 18 show that the majority of the SESOs in Jordan find that the lack of knowledge related to social business models is the third most severe challenge (reflecting a poor revenue generation). In addition, the minority of the SESOs in Jordan find that the lack of knowledge related to social business models is the least severe challenge (reflecting a good revenue generation).

Fact Four: For the fourth highest ranking challenge, (27.15%) of the SESOs in Jordan finds that the lack of communication networks among the social entrepreneurship ecosystem is the fourth most severe challenge, while (10.19%) find that the lack of communication networks among the social entrepreneurship ecosystem is a least severe challenge. Moreover, Fig. 19 reflects this fact.

Fig. 19

Severity correlation of the fourth highest ranking challenge

Data in Fig. 19 show that the majority of the SESOs in Jordan find that the lack of communication networks among the social entrepreneurship ecosystem is the fourth most severe challenge (reflecting the ineffective linking of social entrepreneurs, enterprises, and support organizations together). In addition, the minority of the SESOs in Jordan find that the lack of communication networks among the social entrepreneurship ecosystem is the least severe challenge (reflecting the effective linking of social entrepreneurs, enterprises, and support organizations together).

Furthermore, Fig. 20a, b, c and d shows the reflections of the first four most severe challenges facing the SESOs in Jordan.

Fig. 20

a The reflections of the first most severe challenges; b the reflections of the second most severe challenges; c the reflections of the third most severe challenges; d the reflections of the fourth most severe challenges

For ranking the SESOs needs based on priority, Table 9 shows the high and low priority percentages for the SESOs needs that enable a better interact of the entrepreneurship ecosystem.

Table 9 High and low priority percentages for the SESOs needs in Jordan

Data in Table 9 show that the highest priority need is (Access to finance) with a percentage of (47.84%). Moreover, the second-ranked high priority need is (Direct consultation) with a percentage of (28.56%). In addition, the third-ranked high priority need is the (Joining a network to meet similar SESO’s) with a percentage of (23.40%). On the other hand, the lowest priority need is the (Recruitment support) with a percentage of (30.05%), followed by (Advocacy) as the second low priority needs with a percentage of (17.28%).

These results reflect that most of the SESO’s in Jordan are in need with a high priority for:

• 1. Financial support

• 2. Consultations

• 3. Joining networks to meet similar SESO’s

And also reflects that the SESO’s in Jordan are not in need with a high priority for:

• 1. Recruitment support

• 2. Advocacy

Furthermore, and for ranking the SESOs training needs based on priority, Table 10 shows the high and low priority percentages for the SESOs training needs that enable to better serve the entrepreneurship ecosystem.

Table 10 High and low priority percentages for the SESOs training needs in Jordan

Data in Table 10 show that, the highest priority training need is the (Fundamentals of Fundraising) with a percentage of (36.50%). Moreover, the second-ranked high priority training need is (Financial management) with a percentage of (31.25%). In addition, the third-ranked high priority training need is the (Fabrication and modern manufacturing methods) with a percentage of (30.25%). While the fourth highest priority training need is the (How to build an inclusive business model) with a percentage of (29.50%). On the other hand, the lowest priority training need is for those who claim that (I am not interested in attending any training need, and do not have any current specific needs) with a percentage of (35.10%). Followed by (Digital marketing and social media) as the second low-priority training need with a percentage of (22.35%). Also followed by (Utilizing technology in hiring and onboarding) as the third low priority training need with a percentage of (17.44%).

These results reflects what do most of the SESO’s in Jordan need with a high priority for these training needs:

• 1. Fundamentals of fundraising

• 2. Financial management

• 3. Fabrication and modern manufacturing methods

• 4. How to build an inclusive business model

Moreover, data reflect that the SESO’s in Jordan are not in need with a high priority for these training needs:

• 1. Any training need

• 2. Digital marketing and social media

• 3. Utilizing technology in hiring and onboarding

Quantitative and qualitative analysis for the SESOs sustainability

To determine the source or the sources of finance for the SESO’s in Jordan; Fig. 21 shows the percentages of these sources.

Fig. 21

Sources of finance for the SESO’s in Jordan

Data in Fig. 21 show that the highest source of finance for the SESO’s in Jordan is the (Donors) with the percentage of (33.75%), followed by the (Private sector funding CSR) source of finance with the percentage of (28.22%), and followed by the (Bank loans) source of finance with the percentage of (24.55%). On the other hand, the least source of finance for the SESO’s in Jordan is the (Revenue making) with the percentage of (16.58%), followed by the (Government funding) source of finance with the percentage of (18.34%). In addition, of course, SESO’s in Jordan rely on more than one funding source.

Financial characteristics of the SESO’s in Jordan

Financial sustainability

Data in Fig. 22 show that (52.63%) organization are financially sustainable, meaning it is able to keep its operations regardless of donors and external funding availability. While (47.37%) organization are financially unsustainable.

Fig. 22

Financial sustainability

Developing revenue generation arms

Data in Fig. 23 show that (70.10%) agree with that, social and non-for-profits projects that developed revenue generation arms; it harms their reputation, and (29.90%) disagree with that social and non-for-profits projects that developed revenue generation arms, it will harms their reputation.

Fig. 23

Agreeing and disagreeing with that, social and non-for-profits project developing revenue generation arms, it harms their reputation

Revenue generation activities

Data in Fig. 24 show that (63.16%) have revenue generation activities and (36.84%) do not have revenue generation activities.

Fig. 24

Revenue generation activities

Business model design

Data in Fig. 25 show that (63.16%) do have a business model design and (12.28%) do not have a business model design, while (24.56%) are not sure if they have a business model design.

Fig. 25

Business model design

Social mandate or social value

Data in Fig. 26 show that (87.72%) do have social mandate or social value provided to the community and (10.10%) do not have social mandate or social value provided to the community, while (2.18%) are not sure if they have social mandate or social value provided to the community.

Fig. 26

Social mandate or social value. Social mandate or social value means that work include social integration that may be at any point of work. Like unprivileged women are the main suppliers for your product /service, products are environment-friendly, activities respond to the SDG’s & spread awareness about a global issue and selling the final product/service at lower prices for people with less purchasing power

Quantitative and qualitative analysis for the SESOs inclusion and diversity

General inclusion

Presence of written diversity and inclusion policies

Data in Fig. 27 show that (50.88%) do have written diversity and inclusion policies and (26.32%) do not have written diversity and inclusion policies, while (22.80%) are not sure if they have written diversity and inclusion policies.

Fig. 27

Presence of written diversity and inclusion policies

Providing staff and volunteers with knowledge, skills, and confidence

Data in Fig. 28 show that (77.19%) do provide staff and volunteers with knowledge, skills, and confidence to deliver inclusive work, and (3.51%) do not provide staff and volunteers with knowledge, skills, and confidence to deliver inclusive work, while (19.30%) are not sure if they provide staff and volunteers with knowledge, skills, and confidence to deliver inclusive work.

Fig. 28

Providing staff and volunteers with knowledge, skills, and confidence to deliver inclusive work

Applying website and online accessibility functions

Data in Fig. 29 show that (35.10%) do apply website and online accessibility functions, and (36.84%) do not apply website and online accessibility functions, while (28.06%) are not sure if they apply website and online accessibility functions.

Fig. 29

Applying website and online accessibility functions

Activity engagement

Data in Fig. 30 show that (71.93%) do engage activities and (14.03%) do not engage activities, while (14.04%) are not sure if they engage activities.

Fig. 30

Activity engagement

Note: the activities are advocacy, communication and advertisement, public relations, networking or related initiatives with a public reach that openly promote, support or celebrate socioeconomic inclusion and/or equality of specific population groups.

Targeted audience

Data in Table 11 show the percentage distributions of the SESO’s activities in Jordan for:

• 1. Women

• 2. People with disability (BWD)

• 3. Youth

• 4. Refugees

Table 11 Percentage distributions of the SESO’s activities in Jordan for women, people with disability (BWD), youth and refugees

Results in Table 11 show that (57.89%) of the SESO’s in Jordan have dedicated programs that focus on women's inclusion, and that (68.42%) are hiring more than 50% in their staff. Results also show that (59.65%) of the SESO’s in Jordan did not dedicate programs for people with disabilities (PWD); which is a high portion in neglecting this segment of people. Besides that (54.39%) do not have designed facilities friendly using for people with disabilities.

In addition, results show that (73.68%) had dedicated programs for youth with different age groups (15–25, 15–30, 18–36, 6–14, 12–30, 18–35, 16–24, 13–24, 13–35 and 18–30). Besides that, (77.19%) of the SESO’s in Jordan had attempted to identify, understand, and actively removing barriers that exist for certain groups of young people in society. Moreover, (70.18%) of the SESO’s in Jordan had organized specific outreach mechanisms to identify, meet, engage, and/or serve different population groups. Finally, results show that (38.60%) of the SESO’s in Jordan had dedicated programs for refugees.

Conclusions

Results show that Balqa governorate had the lowest percentage of the SESOs operating in the Jordanian governorates, and Amman governorate had the highest percentage of the SESOs operating in the Jordanian governorates. And that the highest source of finance for the SESO’s in Jordan is the (Donors), followed by the (Private sector funding CSR), and followed by the (Bank loans). On the other hand, the least source of finance for the SESO’s in Jordan is (Revenue making), followed by (Government funding). And as one study goals, results also provided accurate data based on the analysis of the survey showing that (77.19%) do provide staff and volunteers with knowledge, skills, and confidence to deliver inclusive work, and (3.51%) do not provide staff and volunteers with knowledge, skills, and confidence to deliver inclusive work, while (19.30%) are not sure if they provide staff and volunteers with knowledge, skills, and confidence to deliver inclusive work. In addition; and as added value, results show that (57.89%) of the SESO’s in Jordan have dedicated programs that focus on women's inclusion, and that (68.42%) are hiring more than 50% in their staff. Besides that, results of the analysis of the survey also show that (59.65%) of the SESO’s in Jordan did not dedicate programs for people with disability (PWD); which is a high portion in neglecting this segment of people. Besides that (54.39%) do not have designed facilities friendly using for people with disabilities. Moreover, results show that (73.68%) had dedicated programs for youth with different age groups, and (77.19%) of the SESO’s in Jordan had attempted to identify, understand, and actively removing barriers that exist for certain groups of young people in society. Moreover, (70.18%) of the SESO’s in Jordan had organized specific outreach mechanisms to identify, meet, engage, and/or serve different population groups. Finally, results show that (38.60%) of the SESO’s in Jordan had dedicated programs for refugees.