Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-4rdpn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-11T02:51:35.878Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Decoding the Process of Social Value Creation by Chinese and Indian Social Entrepreneurs: Contributory Factors and Contextual Embeddedness

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  03 July 2019

Deepak Sardana ,
Vassiliki Bamiatzi Open the ORCID record for Vassiliki Bamiatzi [Opens in a new window]  and
Ying Zhu
Deepak Sardana
Affiliation:
University of South Australia, Australia
Vassiliki Bamiatzi*
Affiliation:
University of Liverpool, UK
Ying Zhu
Affiliation:
University of South Australia, Australia
*
Corresponding author: Vassiliki Bamiatzi (bamiatzi@liverpool.ac.uk)
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Nowadays social entrepreneurship is recognized as a two-way process, addressing both social and economic concerns that can bring social inclusion, equity, and development to disadvantaged groups in society. This aspect is particularly important and desirable within emerging economies. In these markets, which are constantly faced with profound economic and social challenges, we see the growing importance of social entrepreneurs as they take upon themselves the provision of welfare services and progressive activities. However, our understanding of the mechanisms underlying the creation of social and economic values in social enterprises, and the factors contributing to the establishment of these value creation objectives, is still rather fragmented. Our article contributes to this gap in the literature by decoding the process via which for-profit social entrepreneurs from China and India create social and economic value. In addition, by combining a deductive and an inductive approach of analysis, we offer novel insights into the context-dependent processual patterns deciphered within the two countries. A new entrepreneurial process framework that reflects the contextualized social value creation process by social entrepreneurs is thus provided.

摘要

社会创业当前被认为是一个双重过程，解决社会和经济问题，为社会中的弱势群体带来社会包容、公平和发展。这在新兴经济体中尤为重要和必要。在不断面临严峻经济和社会挑战的市场中，我们看到社会企业家在提供福利服务和进步活动中日益重要。然而，我们对社会企业创造社会和经济价值的机制以及有助于建立这些价值创造目标的因素的理解，仍然相当分散。我们的论文通过解读中国和印度的营利性社会企业家创造社会和经济价值的过程，弥补了文献中的这一空白。此外，结合演绎和归纳的分析方法，我们为两国依赖于社会背景的发展过程模式提供了新的见解。本文提供了一种新的创业过程框架，反映了社会企业家在具体情境下创造社会价值的过程。

Аннотация

В настоящее время, социальное предпринимательство признано двусторонним процессом, который направлен на решение как социальных, так и экономических проблем, и, следовательно, может привести к социальной интеграции, справедливости и развитию в неблагополучных группах общества. Этот аспект особенно важен и необходим в странах с развивающейся экономикой. В этих странах, которые постоянно сталкиваются с серьезными экономическими и социальными проблемами, мы наблюдаем возрастающее значение социальных предпринимателей, которые берут на себя оказание социальных услуг и прогрессивную деятельность. Однако, мы все еще не имеем полного понимания механизмов, которые лежат в основе создания социальных и экономических ценностей в социальных предприятиях, а также факторов, которые способствуют созданию социальных и материальных благ. Наша статья восполняет этот пробел в литературе, поскольку расшифровывает процесс, посредством которого социальные предприниматели из Китая и Индии, которые работают с целью извлечения прибыли, создают социальные и экономические блага. Более того, комбинируя дедуктивный и индуктивный метод анализа, мы предлагаем новое понимание контекстуальных процессов и тенденций в двух странах. Таким образом, мы предлагаем новую концепцию предпринимательского процесса, которая показывает, каким образом социальные предприниматели создают социальные ценности в определенном контексте.

Resumen

En la actualidad, el emprendimiento social es reconocido como un proceso de dos vías, que aborda las preocupaciones sociales y económicas que pueden llevar la inclusión social, la equidad y el desarrollo de grupos desfavorecidos de la sociedad. Este aspecto es particularmente importante y deseable en las economías emergentes. En estos mercados, que se enfrentan constantemente a profundos desafíos económicos y sociales, vemos la creciente importancia de los emprendedores sociales, ya que asumen la prestación de servicios de bienestar y actividades progresivas. Sin embargo, nuestra comprensión de los mecanismos que subyacen a la creación de valores sociales y económicos en las empresas sociales, y los factores que contribuyen al establecimiento de estos objetivos de creación de valor, todavía está bastante fragmentada. Nuestro artículo contribuye a esta brecha en la literatura, al descodificar el proceso a través del cual los empresarios sociales con fines de lucro de China y la India, crean valor social y económico. Adicionalmente, combinando un enfoque de análisis deductivo y uno inductivo, ofrecemos una compresión novedosa sobre los patrones de proceso dependientes del contexto descodificados dentro de los dos países. Un nuevo marco de procesos empresariales que refleja el proceso de creación de valor social contextualizado por parte de los emprendedores sociales.

Keywords

emerging marketsentrepreneurial processsocial enterprisessocial value创业过程社会价值社会企业新兴市场развивающиеся рынкипредпринимательский процесссоциальные предприятиясоциальные ценностиmercados emergentesprocesos empresarialesempresas socialesvalor social
Type
Special Issue Articles
Information
Management and Organization Review , Volume 15 , Special Issue 2: Doing Qualitative Research in Emerging Markets , June 2019 , pp. 269 - 306
Copyright
Copyright © The International Association for Chinese Management Research 2019 

Access options

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

Footnotes

Accepted by: Guest Editor Emmanuella Plakoyiannaki

References

REFERENCES

Ahlstrom, D., & Ding, Z. 2014. Entrepreneurship in China: An overview. International Small Business Journal, 32(6): 610–618.Google Scholar
Armendáriz, B., & Morduch, J. 2010. The economics of microfinance. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Aronson, J. 1995. A pragmatic view of thematic analysis. The Qualitative Report, 2(1): 1–3.Google Scholar
Austin, J., Stevenson, H., & Wei-Skillern, J. 2006. Social and commercial entrepreneurship: Same, different, or both?. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 30(1): 1–22.Google Scholar
Bacq, S., & Janssen, F. 2011. The multiple faces of social entrepreneurship: A review of definitional issues based on geographical and thematic criteria. Entrepreneurship & Regional Development, 23(5–6): 373–403.10.1080/08985626.2011.577242Google Scholar
Baker, T., Gedajlovic, E., & Lubatkin, M. 2005. A framework for comparing entrepreneurship processes across nations. Journal of International Business Studies, 36(5): 492–504.Google Scholar
Bartlett, L., & Vavrus, F. 2017. Rethinking case study research: A comparative approach. New York: Routldge.Google Scholar
Bekaert, G., & Harvey, C. R. 2003. Emerging markets finance. Journal of Empirical Finance, 10(1–2): 3–55.Google Scholar
Bhave, M. P. 1994. A process model of entrepreneurial venture creation. Journal of Business Venturing, 9(3): 223–242.Google Scholar
Blackburn, R. A., & Curran, J. 1993. In search of spatial differences: Evidence from a study of small service sector enterprises. In Curran, J. & Storey, D. (Eds.), Small firms in urban and rural locations: 164–193. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Blazejewski, S. 2011. When truth is the daughter of time: Longitudinal case studies in international business research. In Piekkari, R. & Welch, C. (Eds.), Rethinking the case study in international business and management research: 251–276. Northampton, MA: Edward Elgar.Google Scholar
Bruton, G. D., & Ahlstrom, D. 2003. An institutional view of China's venture capital industry: Explaining the differences between China and the West. Journal of Business Venturing, 18(2): 233–259.Google Scholar
Bruton, G. D., Ahlstrom, D., & Si, S. 2015. Entrepreneurship, poverty, and Asia: Moving beyond subsistence entrepreneurship. Asia Pacific Journal of Management, 32(1): 1–22.Google Scholar
Buchholz, R. A. 2009. Rethinking capitalism: Community and responsibility in business. New York: Routledge Publication.Google Scholar
Burgess, S. M., & Steenkamp, J. B. E. 2006. Marketing renaissance: How research in emerging markets advances marketing science and practice. International Journal of Research in Marketing, 23(4): 337–356.Google Scholar
Burt, R. S., & Burzynska, K. 2017. Chinese entrepreneurs, social networks, and guanxi. Management and Organization Review, 13(2): 221–260.Google Scholar
Carsrud, A., & Brännback, M. 2011. Entrepreneurial motivations: What do we still need to know?. Journal of Small Business Management, 49(1): 9–26.10.1111/j.1540-627X.2010.00312.xGoogle Scholar
Chell, E. 2007. Social enterprise and entrepreneurship: Towards a convergent theory of the entrepreneurial process. International Small Business Journal, 25(5): 5–23.Google Scholar
Cheung, C. K., & Chan, A. C. 2005. Philosophical foundations of eminent Hong Kong Chinese CEOs’ leadership. Journal of Business Ethics, 60(1): 47–62.10.1007/s10551-005-2366-7Google Scholar
Cohen, L., & Ravishankar, M. N. 2012. Doing qualitative business and management research in international and intercultural contexts. In Symon, G. & Cassell, C. (Eds.), The practice of qualitative organizational research: Core methods and current challenges: 168–184. London: Sage Publications.10.4135/9781526435620.n10Google Scholar
Dacin, P. A., Dacin, M. T., & Matear, M. 2010. Social entrepreneurship: Why we don't need a new theory and how we move forward from here. Academy of Management Perspectives, 24(3): 37–57.Google Scholar
Dees, J. G. 1998. Enterprising non-profits. Harvard Business Review, 76: 54–67.Google Scholar
Denis, J.-L., Lamothe, L., & Langley, A. 2001. The dynamics of collective leadership and strategic change in pluralistic organizations. Academy of Management Journal, 44(4): 809–837.Google Scholar
Dohetry, B., Haugh, H., & Lyon, F. 2014. Social enterprises as hybrid organizations: A review and research agenda. International Journal of Management Reviews, 16(4): 417–436.Google Scholar
Downing, S. 2005. The social construction of entrepreneurship: Narrative and dramatic processes in the coproduction of organizations and identities. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 29(2): 185–204.Google Scholar
Easton, G. 2010. Critical realism in case study research. Industrial Marketing Management, 39(1): 118–128.Google Scholar
Eisenhardt, K. M. 1989. Building theories from case study research. Academy of Management Review, 14(4): 532–550.Google Scholar
Eisenhardt, K. M., & Graebner, M. E. 2007. Theory building from cases: Opportunities and challenges. Academy of Management Journal, 50(1): 25–32.Google Scholar
Etchart, N., & Comolli, L. 2013. Social enterprise in emerging market countries: No free ride. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
Fan, G., Wang, X., & Zhu, H. 2007. NERI Index of Marketization of China's Provinces 2006. Report Beijing: Economic Science Press.Google Scholar
Fletcher, M., Zhao, Y., Plakoyiannaki, E., & Buck, T. 2018. Three pathways to case selection in international business: A twenty–year review, analysis and synthesis. International Business Review, 27(4): 755–766.Google Scholar
Forbes, D. P. 1999. Cognitive approaches to new venture creation. International Journal of Management Reviews, 1(4): 415–439.Google Scholar
Fox, F. A., & Kotler, P. 1980. The marketing of social causes: The first 10 years. Journal of Marketing, 44(4): 24–33.Google Scholar
FYSE. 2012. China Social Enterprise Report 2012. Hong Kong: FYSE Organization.Google Scholar
Germak, A. J., & Robinson, J. A. 2014. Exploring the motivation of nascent social entrepreneurs. Journal of Social Entrepreneurship, 5(1): 5–21.Google Scholar
Hartigan, P. 2006. It's about people, not profits. Business Strategy Review, 17(4): 42–45.Google Scholar
Haugh, H. 2005. A research agenda for social entrepreneurship. Social Enterprise Journal, 1(1): 1–12.Google Scholar
Holmquist, C. 2003. Is the medium really the message? Moving perspective from the entrepreneurial actor to the entrepreneurial action. In Steyaert, C. & Hjorth, D. (Eds.), New movements in entrepreneurship: 286–303. Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar.Google Scholar
Jack, S. L., & Anderson, A. R. 2002. The effect of embeddedness on the entrepreneurial process. Journal of Business Venturing, 17(5): 467–487.Google Scholar
Kazanjian, R. K. 1988. Relation of dominant problems to stages of growth in technology–based new ventures. The Academy of Management Journal, 31(2): 257–279.Google Scholar
King, N. 2004. Essential guide to qualitative methods in organizational research. In Cassell, C. & Symon, G. (Eds.), Essential guide to qualitative methods in organizational research: 256–270. London: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
Korsgaard, S., & Anderson, A. R. 2011. Enacting entrepreneurship as social value creation. International Small Business Journal, 29(2): 135–151.10.1177/0266242610391936Google Scholar
Lan, H., Zhu, Y., Ness, D., Xing, K., & Schneider, K. 2014. The role and characteristics of social entrepreneurs in contemporary rural cooperative development in China. Asia Pacific Business Review, 20(3): 379–400.Google Scholar
Li, J., Young, M. N., & Tang, G. 2012. The development of entrepreneurship in Chinese communities: An organizational symbiosis perspective. Asia Pacific Journal of Management, 29(2): 367–385.Google Scholar
Maclean, M., Harvey, C., & Gordon, J. 2013. Social innovation, social entrepreneurship and the practice of contemporary entrepreneurial philanthropy. International Small Business Journal, 31(7): 747–763.Google Scholar
Mair, J., & Marti, I. 2004. Social entrepreneurship: What are we talking about? A framework for future research. IESE Business School Working Paper No. 521, Barcelona.Google Scholar
Mair, J., & Marti, I. 2006. Social entrepreneurship research: A source of explanation, prediction, and delight. Journal of World Business, 41(1): 36–44.Google Scholar
Mair, J., & Schoen, O. 2007. Successful social entrepreneurial business models in the context of developing economies: An explorative study. International Journal of Emerging Markets, 2(1): 54–68.Google Scholar
Markman, G. D., Baron, R. A., & Balkin, D. B. 2005. Are perseverance and self-efficacy costless? Assessing entrepreneurs’ regretful thinking. Journal of Organizational Behaviour, 26(1): 1–19.10.1002/job.305Google Scholar
McMullen, J. S., & Dimov, D. 2013. Time and the entrepreneurial journey: The problems and promise of studying entrepreneurship as a process. Journal of Management Studies, 50(8): 1481–1512.Google Scholar
Mehrotra, S., & Verma, S. 2015. An assessment approach for enhancing the organizational performance of social enterprses in India. Journal of Entrepreneurship in Emerging Economies, 7(1): 35–54.Google Scholar
Meyer, K. E. 2006. Asian management research needs more self-confidence. Asia-Pacific Journal of Management, 23(2): 119–137.Google Scholar
Meyskins, M., Robb-Post, C., Stamp, J., Carsrud, A., & Reynolds, P. 2010. Social ventures from a resource-based perspective: An exploratory study assessing global Ashoka Fellows. Entrepreneurship Theory & Practice, 34(4): 661–680.Google Scholar
Miles, M. B., & Huberman, A. M. 1994. An expanded sourcebook: Qualitative data analysis. 2nd ed. London and New Delhi: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
Miller, T., Grimes, M., McMullen, J., & Vogus, T. 2012. Venturing for others with heart and head: How compassion encourages social entrepreneurship? Academy of Management Review, 37(4): 616–640.Google Scholar
Mitchell, R. K. 1997. Oral history and expert scripts: Demystifying the entrepreneurial experience. Journal of Management, 3(2): 122–139.Google Scholar
Moroz, P. W., & Hindle, K. 2012. Entrepreneurship as a process: Toward harmonizing multiple perspectives. Entrepreneurship Theory & Practice, 36(4): 781–818.Google Scholar
Morris, M. H., Kuratko, D. F., & Schindehutte, M. 2001. Towards integration: Understanding entrepreneurship through frameworks. Entrepreneurship and Innovation, 2(1): 35–49.Google Scholar
Murmann, J. P., & Sardana, D. 2012. Successful entrepreneurs minimize risk. Australian Journal of Management, 38(1): 191–215.Google Scholar
Naudé, W. 2010. Entrepreneurship, developing countries, and development economics: New approaches and insights. Small Business Economics, 34(1): 1–12.Google Scholar
Nee, V., & Cao, Y. 2005. Market transition and the firm: Institutional change and income inequality in urban China. Management and Organization Review, 1(1): 23–56.Google Scholar
Nicholls, A. 2010. The legitimacy of social entrepreneurship: Reflexive isomorphism in pre-paradigmatic field. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 34(4): 611–633.Google Scholar
Pajunen, K. 2006. Stakeholder influences in organizational survival. Journal of Management Studies, 43(6): 1261–1288.Google Scholar
Patomäki, H., & Wight, C. 2000. After postpositivism? The promises of critical realism. International Studies Quarterly, 44(2): 213–237.Google Scholar
Patton, M. Q. 2015. Qualitative research & evaluation methods: Integrating theory and practice. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
Peng, M. W. 1997. Firm growth in transitional economies: Three longitudinal cases from China, 1989–96. Organization Studies, 18(3): 385–413.Google Scholar
Peredo, A. M., & Chrismann, J. J. 2006. Toward a theory of community-based enterprise. Academy of Management Review, 31(2): 309–328.Google Scholar
Perrini, F., Vurro, C., & Costanzo, L. A. 2010. A process-based view of social entrepreneurship: From opportunity identification to scaling-up social change in the case of San Patrignano. Entrepreneurship & Regional Development, 22(6): 515–534.Google Scholar
Phan, P., Zhou, J., & Abrahamson, E. 2010. Creativity, innovation, and entrepreneurship in China. Management and Organization Review, 6(2): 175–194.Google Scholar
Poulis, K., & Poulis, E. 2012. Polyethnic market orientation and performance: A fast-moving consumer goods perspective. Journal of Marketing Management, 28(5–6): 609–628.10.1080/0267257X.2011.558380Google Scholar
Poulis, K., Poulis, E., & Plakoyiannaki, E. 2013. The role of context in case study selection: An international business perspective. International Business Review, 22(1): 304–314.Google Scholar
Prabhu, J., & Sanjay, J. 2015. Innovation and entrepreneurship in India: Understanding jugaad. Asia Pacific Journal of Management, 32(4): 843–868.Google Scholar
Prahalad, C. K. 2000. The fortune at the bottom of the pyramid: Eradicating poverty through profits. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.Google Scholar
Ratten, V. 2014. Encouraging collaborative entrepreneurship in developing countries: The current challenges and a research agenda. Journal of Entrepreneurship in Emerging Economies, 6(3): 298–308.Google Scholar
Ratten, V., & Welpe, I. M. 2011. Guest editorial special issue: Community-based, social and societal entrepreneurship. Entrepreneurship & Regional Development, 23(5–6): 283–286.Google Scholar
Reuber, R. 1997. Management experience and management expertise. Decision Support Systems, 21(2): 51–60.Google Scholar
Roberts, O. F. 2014. China's social enterprise movement set to blast off. Global Envision 5th March 2014. [Cited August 2017]. Retrieved from URL: http://www.globalenvision.org/2014/03/05/chinas-social-enterprise-movement-set-blastGoogle Scholar
Sardana, D., & Scott-Kemmis, D. 2010. Who learns what? – A study based on entrepreneurs from biotechnology new ventures. Journal of Small Business Management, 48(3): 441–468.Google Scholar
Sardana, D., & Zhu, Y. 2015. Cross-country business engagement between China and India: A study of Chinese and Indian MNCs operating in each other's country. Journal of General Management, 41(2): 3–34.Google Scholar
Sardana, D., & Zhu, Y. 2017. Conducting business in China and India: A comparative and contextual analysis. London: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
Scarbrough, H., Swan, J., Amaeshi, K., & Briggs, T. 2013. Exploring the role of trust in the deal-making process for early-stage technology ventures. Entrepreneurship Theory & Practice, 37(5):1203–1228.10.1111/etap.12031Google Scholar
Schneider, S. C. 1989. Strategy formulation: The impact of national culture. Organization Studies, 10(2): 149–168.Google Scholar
Sepulveda, L. 2015. Social enterprise – A new phenomenon in the field of economic and social welfare? Social Policy & Administration, 49(7): 842–861.Google Scholar
Shaw, E., & Carter, S. 2007. Social entrepreneurship: Theoretical antecedents and empirical analysis of entrepreneurial processes and outcomes. Journal of Small Business and Enterprise Development, 14(3): 418–434.10.1108/14626000710773529Google Scholar
Shaw, E., & de Bruin, A. 2013. Reconsidering capitalism: The promise of social innovation and social entrepreneurship? International Small Business Journal, 31(7): 737–746.Google Scholar
Shook, C. L., Priem, R. L., & McGee, J. E. 2003. Venture creation and the enterprising individual: A review and synthesis. Journal of Management, 29(3): 379–399.10.1016/S0149-2063(03)00016-3Google Scholar
Si, S., Yu, X., Wu, A., Chen, S., Chen, S., & Su, Y. 2015. Entrepreneurship and poverty reduction: A case study of Yiwu, China. Asia Pacific Journal of Management, 32(1): 119–143.Google Scholar
Singh, J. P. 1990. Managerial culture and work-related values in India. Organization Studies, 11(1): 75–101.Google Scholar
Sinkovics, N., Sinkovics, R. R., & Yamin, M. 2014. The role of social value creation in business model formulation at the bottom of the pyramid – Implications for MNEs? International Business Review, 23(4): 692–707.Google Scholar
Slevin, D. P., & Covin, J. G. 1997. Strategy formation patterns, performance, and the significance of context. Journal of Management, 23(2): 189–209.Google Scholar
Smallbone, D., Welter, F., & Ateljevic, J. 2014. Entrepreneurship in emerging market economics: Contemporary issues and perspectives. International Small Business Journal, 32(2): 113–116.Google Scholar
Spencer, L., Ritchie, J., & O'Connor, W. 2003. Analysis: Practices, principles, and processes. In Ritchie, J. & Lewis, J. (Eds.), Qualitative research practice: A guide for social science students and researchers: 199–218. London: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
Steyaert, C. 2007. ‘Entrepreneuring’ as a conceptual attractor? A review of process theories in 20 years of entrepreneurship studies. Entrepreneurship & Regional Development, 19(6): 453–477.Google Scholar
Suddaby, R., Bruton, G. D., & Si, S. X. 2015. Entrepreneurship through a qualitative lens: Insights on the construction and/or discovery of entrepreneurial opportunity. Journal of Business Venturing, 30(1): 1–10.Google Scholar
Svejenova, S. 2005. ‘The path with the heart’: Creating the authentic career. Journal of Management Studies, 42(5): 947–974.Google Scholar
Symon, G., & Cassell, C. 2012. Qualitative organizational research: Core methods and current challenges. London: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
Tapsell, P., & Woods, C. 2010. Social entrepreneurship and innovation: Self-organization in an indigenous context. Entrepreneurship & Regional Development, 22(6): 553–556.Google Scholar
Tewari, R. 2015. Why poverty in rural India is still a concern. The Indian Express , 7 October. [Accessed on 20th August 2018] https://indianexpress.com/article/explained/simply-put-why-poverty-in-rural-india-is-still-a-concern/.Google Scholar
Tiezzi, S. 2018. Is this the year China gets serious about ending rural poverty? The Diplomat , 13th February. [Cited 20 August 2018]. Retrieved from URL: https://thediplomat.com/2018/02/is-this-the-year-china-gets-serious-about-ending-rural-poverty/Google Scholar
Tjosvold, D., Peng, A. C., Chen, Y. F., & Su, F. 2008. Business and government interdependence in China: Cooperative goals to develop industries and the marketplace. Asia Pacific Journal of Management, 25(2): 225–249.Google Scholar
Tracey, P., Phillips, N., & Jarvis, O. 2011. Bridging institutional entrepreneurship and the creation of new organizational forms: A multilevel model. Organization Science, 22(1): 60–80.Google Scholar
Tsui, A. S. 2004. Contributing to global management knowledge: A case for high quality indigenous research. Asia Pacific Journal of Management, 21: 491–513.10.1023/B:APJM.0000048715.35108.a7Google Scholar
Venkataraman, S., Van de ven, A. H., Buckeye, J., & Hudson, R. 1990. Starting up in a turbulent environment: A process model of failure among firms with high customer dependence. Journal of Business Venturing, 5(5): 277–295.Google Scholar
Waddock, S. A., & Post, J. E. 1991. Social entrepreneurs and catalytic change. Public Administration Review, 51(5): 393–401.Google Scholar
Weerawardena, J., & Mort, G. S. 2006. Investigating social entrepreneurship: A multidimensional model. Journal of World Business, 41(1): 21–35.Google Scholar
Welch, C., Piekkari, R., Plakoyiannaki, E., & Paavilainen-Mäntymäki, E. 2011. Theorising from case studies: Towards a pluralist future for international business research. Journal of International Business Studies, 42(5): 740–762.Google Scholar
Welch, C., Plakoyiannaki, E., Piekkari, R., & Paavilainen-Mäntymäki, E. 2013. Legitimizing diverse uses for qualitative research: A rhetorical analysis of two management journals. International Journal of Management Reviews, 15(2): 245–264.Google Scholar
Welter, F. 2011. Contextualizing entrepreneurship: Conceptual challenges and ways forward. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 35(1): 165–184.Google Scholar
World Bank. 2017. Rural population (% of total population). [Accessed on 7 September 2017] https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/SP.RUR.TOTL.ZSGoogle Scholar
Zahra, S. A. 2007. Contextualizing theory building in entrepreneurship research. Journal of Business Venturing, 22(3): 443–452.Google Scholar
Zahra, S. A., Gedajlovic, E., 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.Google Scholar
Zhang, Y. 2015. The contingent value of social resources: Entrepreneurs' use of debt-financing sources in Western China. Journal of Business Venturing, 30(3): 390–406.Google Scholar
Zhou, S. J., & Zhou, A. J. 2017. Research potential on innovation in India and China. Management and Organization Review, 13(2): 447–449.10.1017/mor.2017.15Google Scholar