Abstract
Globally, entrepreneurship is expected to play a central role in achieving ‘inclusive growth’. This special issue draws on various developments related to the role of business incubators, academia and social enterprises towards achieving inclusive entrepreneurship, innovation and sustainable growth. A ‘successful entrepreneurship ecosystem’, which includes business incubation is fundamental for promoting economic growth. Over the years, business incubators are increasingly viewed as the facilitators of social inclusion and inclusive growth. Likewise, there has been an increasing focus on how society at large can gain benefit from the research activities of the academia and also how it can promote social and student entrepreneurship. Because of the positive contributions of the social enterprise sector in terms of gross domestic product (GDP), employment and positive social and environmental impacts, social entrepreneurship has gained recognition as a mainstream activity across the world. Consequently, many Asian countries have initiated a range of policies to support social entrepreneurship because of their perceived contributions towards inclusive growth.
Introduction
Although there is no single definition of ‘inclusive growth’, it is clear that there is broad agreement that it implies equal opportunity for all segments of the society to participate and share the benefits in the growth process. That is, the main instrument for sustainable and inclusive growth is productive employment in firms using sets of skills or self-employment through entrepreneurship, which can increase income and living standards. Achieving inclusive growth demands an integrated approach, involving policy instruments, active involvement of various stakeholders such as government, companies, NGOs, targeted social groups and a critical mass of human capital. Also, increasingly, entrepreneurship is expected to play a central role in achieving ‘inclusive growth’.
The importance of the small businesses for a national economy in terms of employment, export, contribution to gross domestic product (GDP), turnover, innovation and sustaining local communities has been well recognised. A ‘successful entrepreneurship ecosystem’, which also includes business incubators, is recognised globally as fundamental for promoting indigenous technology and innovation for driving economic growth. ‘Business incubation’ is perceived as one of the instruments to support innovators/entrepreneurs during the early stages of their development and help them to contribute positively to the local community as well as the national economy. Over the years, there has been a gradual shift in the perception of the role of business incubators and, now, they are increasingly viewed as the facilitators of social inclusion and contributors towards inclusive growth. In fostering entrepreneurship development, technology development and innovation, the business incubators as intermediaries within the innovation system play an important role. Because of this, business incubators are being promoted across the world and particularly in many emerging economies.
Social inclusion is based on the belief that we all fare better when no one is left to fall far behind, and the economy works for everyone. Social inclusion simultaneously incorporates multiple dimensions of well-being. It is achieved when all have the opportunity and resources necessary to participate fully in economic, social and cultural activities, which are considered the societal norm (Boushey, Fremstad, Gragg, & Waller, 2007). ‘Business incubation for social inclusion’ means a business incubation, which includes new groups of entrepreneurs such as immigrants and ethnic groups, women, people under the threat of unemployment, students about to graduate, and new industries and sectors such as creative industries, alternative energy, rural livelihood, healthcare and social services.
In the context of entrepreneurship and inclusive growth, the issue of how society at large can gain benefit out of the research activities of the academia has also become a major policy focus. Hence, it is important to analyse in a broader context on how academia has been trying to address important global and national challenges faced today, particularly those related to health, education, climate change and inequality. Academia in Asia explores the idea of how its knowledge production and problem-solving would facilitate and help to overcome some of these challenges through fostering entrepreneurship. Nowadays, academia is also transforming itself beyond commercialisation and is moving towards promoting social and student entrepreneurship. Indeed, universities have been actively engaged in encouraging researchers and students to act as social entrepreneurs. These interesting new developments, at least in Asia, appear to help to address the widening gaps in social imbalances.
Across the world, increasingly, social entrepreneurship has been gaining recognition as a mainstream activity. For example, it was given greater attention at the World Economic Forum in Davos (2016), Switzerland, where the most influential people from corporate, political and academic worlds met to discuss the future trends. This is because of the increasing contributions made by the social enterprise sectors in different national economies in terms of their contributions to GDP, employment and positive social and environmental impacts. Most Asian countries have also initiated a range of policies to support social entrepreneurship because of its perceived contributions towards inclusive growth.
The new role of the academia and the social enterprises towards social inclusion and inclusive growth also helps to address the institutional failure within the innovation ecosystem—for example, commercial financial institutional failure, technological development support failure and others. Therefore, understanding these new developments in Asia, which are driven by different agents, namely business incubators, academia, NGOs and social enterprises, is vital to provide a more holistic assessment and lessons on national development agendas.
This special issue on ‘Inclusive Entrepreneurship, Innovation and Sustainable Growth: Role of Business Incubators, Academia and Social Enterprises in Asia’ mainly focuses on these developments. It aims to shed light on the dynamics at the micro-level, particularly using case studies in the Southeast Asian countries. It also aims to generate empirical evidences by applying grounded and recognised approaches to help formulate evidence-based policymaking. In the following sections, we provide an overview of various developments underpinning the current progress and challenges in each of the three major focus areas of this special issue: (a) business incubators, (b) academia entrepreneurship and (c) social enterprises.
Changing Perception of Business Incubators
Micro- and small-sized enterprises (MSEs) and start-ups are often seen as entrepreneurial and flexible organisations, which are able to adapt to the evolution of the environment, but which suffer from lack of resources, in terms of funding and skills, and from dependence in terms of key personnel, clients and assets, which might induce fragilities. These specifications are further accentuated in the business creation phase. Not only must the entrepreneur build the organisation, it is also necessary for him or her to understand the environment. Personal factors that are critical to starting and maintaining a venture include entrepreneurial self-efficacy, entrepreneurial motives, values, beliefs, emotional intelligence, perception of risk and socio-demographic characteristics, for example, age, gender and socio-economic status (Brandstatter, 1997; Noble, Jung, & Ehrlich, 1999; Rauch & Frese, 2000). External factors which determine levels of entrepreneurship include family contact, entrepreneurial environment, cultural and social norms (Minniti & Bygrave, 2003). Apart from that, various personal and social factors such as gender, education, ethnicity and social background can be barriers to fostering entrepreneurship. In recognising this, many countries have taken initiatives to support social inclusion through institutional business incubation.
The objectives behind ‘Business Incubation’ include ‘commercialising ideas and research, generating employment, empowering the poor, regenerating and revitalising communities, encouraging and supporting innovation, creating export revenues, encouraging young graduates to create their own businesses, developing new industry sectors [such as creative industries, alternative energy, rural livelihood, healthcare and social services] and increasing competitiveness of an existing sector’ (Global Business Incubation Network [GBIN], n.d.).
It is noteworthy that business incubation not only aims to develop enterprises in high technology or new science/tech sectors and export-oriented sectors, it also aims to achieve inclusive growth through developing enterprises related to agriculture, alternative energy and socially backward and rural communities. By fostering entrepreneurship development among socially disadvantaged groups, minority groups, women, rural sections and other socially disadvantaged sections, business incubation can help to generate employment in traditionally/historically high unemployment areas, and regenerate and revitalise local communities and help to achieve balanced growth across regions. In other words, business incubation for social inclusion aims to achieve or contribute to a broader inclusive growth by helping disadvantaged segments of the society to develop entrepreneurship skills and establish sustainable businesses. The GBIN (n.d.), one of the leading professional representative organisations, highlights this as:
Sometimes aimed at technologically, socially and/or economically vulnerable individuals and their ideas, true business incubation adds real and measurable value to citizens, communities, regional and national economies by increasing the survival rate of new and fledgling enterprises, accelerating their growth, enhancing their competitiveness, creating wealth and sustainable high-value jobs and increasing the tax base.
Early incubator studies are primarily descriptive, generally tracing different understandings of business incubator concepts and functions (e.g., Allen, 1985; Allen & Levine, 1986; Smilor & Gill, 1986). Since the 1990s, researchers have begun to further develop the concept by describing the role and services of business incubators, that is, incubators hatch new ideas by providing new ventures with physical and intangible resources and help establishment of new ventures and increase their chances of success. They help entrepreneurs develop business and marketing plans, build management teams, obtain venture capital and provide access to professional and administrative services (Von Zedtwitz & Grimaldi, 2006). Counselling interactions with incubator management help ventures to gain business assistance, whereas networking interactions with incubator management help ventures to gain technical assistance (Scillitoe & Chakrabarti, 2010). In sum, perceptions and concepts of business incubators have evolved over the years from the initial focus on physical space with basic facilities to value-added services and systematic incubation process.
Similarly, the perception of business incubators as a means of inclusive growth has evolved over the years. For a long time, business incubators acted as facilitators of technology-driven and/or research-based small ventures. Therefore, studies on business incubation are mainly from the perspectives of industrial cluster, technology development, regional development, general entrepreneurship development and start-up companies (e.g., Hannon, 2005; Tamásy, 2007). However, over the past 10 years, this narrow focus has given way to a broader concept of ‘business incubation for social inclusion’ with emphasis on including new groups of entrepreneurs such as immigrants and ethnic groups, women, people under the threat of unemployment, students about to graduate and new industries and sectors such as creative industries, alternative energy, rural livelihood, healthcare and social services. Nevertheless, this phenomenon/trend has not been researched adequately (e.g., Etzkowitz, de Mello, & Almeida, 2005), although in a number of developed and developing countries it is recognised that business incubation could be used to foster entrepreneurship among specific social groups such as women, ethnic minorities, inner city and poor and rural sections. For example, Jeffery Dunn, founder and director of The Incubator Inc./The Business One Stop Service (BOSS), New Jersey, USA argued that ‘incubators are needed in areas that are least likely to get the investment. Incubators are needed in the inner city as well as in the rural areas. Incubators are needed where there is high unemployment’ (Drake, 2010).
Given the above, there have been a number of initiatives in setting up business incubators for social inclusion in many countries. For example:
In the USA, The East Baltimore Development Inc.’s Economic Opportunity Initiative for women, minorities and local entrepreneurs; Colombia-based ParqueSoft (S&T parks) acts as incubators for young entrepreneurs from marginalised communities of Colombia; Beaverton’s Collaborative Business Incubator and Training Centre (Orlando) for empowerment and inclusion. In the UK, Edinburgh-wide Incubator Project (EWIP) involves three business incubator projects in the regeneration areas of Edinburgh; the Laughing Buddha Bubble Incubator—an innovative and inclusive concept enables people who have experienced mental distress to be introduced to the concept of enterprise; the Craigmillar Business Incubator Project (CBIP), a community development project aims to increase local economic activity and address the large-scale unemployment and related social exclusion; The Creation Factory, Brick Lane, London, a business community and incubator for local community; Amazon Initiatives, an incubation/enterprise support for women; MusicBias—business incubation with a particular focus on enterprises in the music industry in Merseyside and on people from groups or communities under-represented in business—women and minority ethnic groups, and poor communities. In India, the Rural Technology and Business Incubator (RTBI) under IIT Madras aims to develop scalable technology-enabled ventures for rural India, with applications in agriculture, healthcare, education and energy, through financial inclusion and Gujarat Grassroots Innovations Augmentation Network (GIAN) offers support to the rural innovators and links them to the formal systems of technical, financial and marketing services. In Finland, business incubators were first established in science parks, and their focus was on technology-driven and/or research-based small ventures. During the past 10 years, however, this narrow focus has given way to a broader concept of business incubation, including new groups of entrepreneurs (e.g., immigrants and ethnic groups, women, people under the threat of unemployment, students about to graduate) and new industries and sectors (creative industries, alternative energy, rural livelihood, healthcare and social services).
Also, there are multinational efforts to foster business incubation environment towards achieving socially inclusive growth. Take, for example, the incubation programme run by the Information for Development Programme (infoDev), a global partnership programme within the World Bank Group to create opportunities for inclusive growth, job creation and poverty reduction through innovation, technology and entrepreneurship. It runs more than 300 incubators around the world for development and social inclusion and aims to give anyone who applies the opportunity to participate in innovative activities.
Academic Entrepreneurship: Progress and Challenges
In the realm of technology-based economic development, academic entrepreneurship is referred to as efforts in commercialisation of innovations developed by academic scientists, particularly in universities, via patenting, licensing, start-up creations and other forms of university–industry partnership (Grimaldi, Kenney, Siegel, & Wright, 2011). This phenomenon is attributed to the emerging concern that universities, besides research and teaching, should execute a third role as regional engines of economic growth through research commercialisation (Laukkanen, 2003). Such transformations in the university’s setting are captured by the triple-helix model that emphasises on the interconnections between university–industry–government (Etzkowitz & Leydesdorff, 2000) and universities increasingly taking part in the business function and incubation of technology ventures (Hsu, Shen, Yuan, & Chou, 2015). Indeed, academic entrepreneurship has its theoretical roots in the public goods nature of university research where research and development (R&D) investments are supposed to increase economic growth, productivity and wealth creation (Sandström, Wennberg, Wallin, & Zherlygina, 2016).
Technology transfer office (TTO) and the larger university incubation ecosystem play a crucial role in nurturing and strengthening competencies among the university research communities and students. These include, among others, project-based classes on technology commercialisation, mentoring and accelerator programmes, business plan development and entrepreneurship education for faculty and students (Boh, De-Haan, & Strom, 2016). Scientists often encounter difficulties in appropriating the returns from their research outputs due to the lack of market intelligence and resources. Hence, the setting up of TTOs with incubation facilities to facilitate academic commercialisation by creating awareness among scientists on the commercial value of knowledge as well as learning the available resources that may help in the commercialisation of new knowledge and technology developed by scientists (O’Gorman, Byrne, & Pandya, 2008). In addition, legislative changes such as the Bayh-Dole Act contributed to noteworthy changes in how universities commercialise and diffuse technologies developed in their research laboratories (Grimaldi et al., 2011; Guerrero, Urbano, Cunningham, & Organ, 2014; Rothaermel, Agung, & Jiang, 2007). Nonetheless, as pointed out by Rothaermel et al. (2007), academic literature on academic entrepreneurship remains fragmented despite the field having attracted scholars’ attention.
As academic entrepreneurship is the link between the academic world that is knowledge-oriented and the commercial world of society that is innovation-oriented (Barth & Schlegelmilch, 2013), it is important to consider the coevolvement between business ecosystem and academic commercialisation initiatives. Nonetheless, this remains a great challenge as the innovation ecosystem may differ across sectors and technology (Malerba, 2002), as well as the possibility of intense competition in the preexisting marketplaces. In the same vein, the spatial dimensions of context related to location and mobility—with social capital as a key enabler—is crucial to academic entrepreneurship. As such, both theoretical and empirical studies on the heterogeneity and milieu of academic entrepreneurship are the foci of innovation studies. However, the availability of literature on this stream is somehow limited (Wright, 2014).
Academic Involvement in Student Entrepreneurship
Academic entrepreneurship does not solely belong to the university faculty and staff. Foss, Oftedal and Iakovleva (2013) explore the division of labor between scientists and students or the role of co-entrepreneurs. Students may play their roles as entrepreneurial change agents as they are not yet deeply embedded within any specific institutional setting. In the context of a doctoral education, students seem to undergo a socialisation process (e.g., mobility and external collaborations) that provides support to academic entrepreneurship and network-building activities (Bienkowska & Klofsten, 2012). In fact, as a consequence of the capitalisation of academic knowledge, the university has shifted away from undergraduate teaching to graduate education and entrepreneurial movement. Students are motivated to advance their individual entrepreneurial agendas with legitimate support via university affiliation (Mars, Slaughter, & Rhoades, 2008).
From the perspective of university management, student entrepreneurship, especially in the form of spin-off companies, provides direct tangible evidence that reflects students having acquired viable entrepreneurial skills via a university education. It offers concrete proof that the university is relevant, updated and competitive in university research commercialisation (Bailetti, 2011). Indeed, peer influence from the faculty and staff are crucial to form students’ decisions to hold start-up businesses (Åstebro, Bazzazian, & Braguinsky, 2012). On the whole, Bailetti (2011) believes that the number of student spin-offs is driven by the following factors:
total stock of knowledge available at the university and the portion of knowledge that the university allows students to commercialise; disparity between profits generated from entrepreneurship and the expected wages from employment within or outside the university; core individual entrepreneurship capabilities in identifying and refining opportunities, acquiring resources and heading a venture; institutional support at both university (e.g., social acceptance of student entrepreneurs, perception of academic and commercial outputs, people with competent business and commercial skills and TTOs) and regional levels (e.g., regulatory, legal, administrative, employment, financial, and partnership burdens).
From Academia and Student Entrepreneurship to Social Innovation
Social innovation is generally referred to as any new idea and development with the potential and aim to improve public good—either the macro-quality of life or the quantity of life (Phills, Deiglmeier, & Miller, 2008; Pol & Ville, 2009). Nowadays, due to the perceived importance of knowledge economy and society, literature on the systemic view of innovation that focuses on the coexistence and coevolution of three entities, that is, university–industry–government has expanded its horizon to reach the fourth entity—civil society or Quadruple Helix (Carayannis & Campbell, 2009). In this regard, while recognising academic commercialisation from the point of view of patent (as well as the benefits related to the Bayh–Dole Act), there is consensus that a re-evaluation of the role of the university in society needs to be justified. This is particularly valid since a university-generated knowledge is disseminated in society and the university has a multifaceted role in transferring knowledge (Grimaldi et al., 2011). For this reason, the societal benefits of universities and academic entrepreneurship are the subject of much continuing policy debate (Wright, 2014).
An in-depth understanding of the social impact of university researches remains limited. In relation to energetic reforms to improve the universities’ technology transfer that has been initiated more than two decades ago, attempts to achieve equivalent results in the social field (such as social innovation, social transfer or the setting up of social science parks) are still at the early stage (Mulgan, Tucker, Ali, & Sanders, 2007). The current literature is mainly on the commercialisation mechanisms such as licensing and spin-offs that are meant for privatisation of knowledge rather than free supply of knowledge. These commercialisation models are inadequate to address the dissemination of knowledge to social enterprises (Cetindamar, 2016). Although there have been case studies of social innovation in different fields as well as endeavours to understand social innovation in some universities (such as Stanford, Duke and Harvard), such attempts have mainly focused on individual case studies rather than examining common patterns or aggregating learning (Mulgan, 2006).
Moreover, social innovation is perceived as a collective action and coordination in providing resilience to societal change process in response to great challenges. However, universities have been modernised through individual process, including marketisation and privatisation over the past three decades, leaving universities increasingly competitive rather than collaborative (Benneworth & Cunha, 2015). The debate over intellectual property remains deeply contentious (Mulgan et al., 2007).
Social Entrepreneurship: Global Trends
Social entrepreneurship is a concept of applying business techniques and private sector practices to solve social, cultural or environmental problems in a sustainable manner. A social enterprise has a purpose that goes beyond making profit and must have a social mission, and its performance is measured by the scale of the potentially positive impact it can make on society (socially or environmentally) as a result of its activities.
Increasingly, social entrepreneurship has gained global recognition as a mainstream activity because of the increasing contributions made by the social enterprise sector in different national economies in terms of their contributions to GDP, employment, social and environmental impacts. For example, in Australia, there were around 20,000 social enterprises (34 per cent in operation from 2 to 5 years) which constituted 2–3 per cent of GDP (2010); in the European Union, one out of four new enterprises set up every year is a social enterprise; in the UK, most social enterprises were run by women and those from the minority ethnic groups (2014), and 50 per cent reported a profit; in Senegal, 18.1 per cent of the population were pursuing social entrepreneurial activities (2015); and in Vietnam, 68 per cent were working towards poverty reduction and 48 per cent had environmental objectives (Boolkin, 2016).
Indeed, universities have been actively involved in encouraging researchers and students to act as social entrepreneurs. Nowadays, academia is also transforming itself by going beyond commercialisation and moving towards promoting social and student entrepreneurship. This interesting new development, at least in Asia, has helped to address the widening gaps in social imbalance. Along the way, two main channels are used. On the one hand, the demand for academia to engage in positioning STI for social inclusiveness has been driving it to engage in promoting social enterprises. On the other hand, NGOs have been actively promoting entrepreneurship (e.g., fostering microenterprises run by women through microfinance), and they are undergoing transformation as social enterprises themselves by becoming sustainable.
Furthermore, since the declaration of the UN’s Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) in 2016, an increasing number of social enterprises and impact investors have started adopting the SDGs as the basis for their missions.
Javits (2016) traced five major trends in social enterprise globally:
The evidence base for the contributions made by social enterprise and their contribution to national economies are growing as social enterprises are adopting the measurement and results orientation that is more routine in the business sector (setting clear business and social objectives, measuring and using data to drive change and improvement and cost-benefit analysis of social enterprise). The social enterprise sector is evolving as a new generation of social entrepreneurs with ‘private sector skills and social sector passion to solve pressing issues like endemic unemployment’, by employing people who traditionally have even been viewed as unemployable. Social enterprises are developing stronger referral networks to mainstream employers, and, increasingly, employees who have gained skills and experience through social enterprise employment are able to get and retain long-term employment with mainstream employers. There has been increasing recognition that an ecosystem approach is critical to a long-term success of the social enterprise sector, that is, building a mutually supportive and well-connected system that integrates a social enterprise with partners such as private and public sector employers, government agencies and human services agencies, which will help them to maximise their performance. Governments in many developed countries such as the USA, UK and EU member states are strongly promoting the social business model. For example, Pay for Success (PFS) and pay for performance—two of the largest PFS deals in the USA have social enterprises at their centre. Similarly, in the developing countries, there has been growing government support for social entrepreneurship (e.g., India, Thailand and Indonesia).
Transformation from Non-governmental Organisation to Social Enterprise
The main difference between social enterprise and NGO is the revenue model. While NGOs predominantly depend on outside funding such as charitable donations and foundation grants to support their operations, social enterprises create a business model, which generates their own revenues to sustain themselves. A social enterprise is a business that aims to create a ‘steady stream of income, and just like any other company, it takes loans, invites capital investments, forms partnerships etc. in order to expand its business activities’. Because of this difference, if outside funding dries up, NGOs may find it very difficult to survive. An NGO aims to create social value, without emphasising on business sustainability, while the social enterprise aims to achieve sustainability in terms of financial, social and environmental aspects (Goyal, 2013). Transformation into social entrepreneurship can help NGOs to become sustainable by employing business management practices, such as competitive strategy, broader missions, human resource management, investor relations and customer relationship management (Rhoden, 2014).
According to Chris Meyer zu Natrup, Director of MzN International, a development consulting firm, the international NGO sector is undergoing major changes, and many are considering moving their business model from that of a donor-funded organisation towards a sustainable social enterprise. He identified three reasons for this shift in their thinking: (a) avoiding high dependency on only a few large donors, which makes NGOs financially vulnerable as well as being less of a charity and more bureaucratic; (b) declining foreign aid and development funds and facing increased competition from non-NGOs on shrinking government funds, which create uncertain financial sustainability; and (c) increasing awareness that ‘the old grand model of investing tax money from the “global north” into programmes in the “global south” via NGOs is simply not working’ (zu Natrup, 2014). For example, in the UK, the charities largely depend on the central and local government funding, which was severely affected by the economic recession of 2008–2009, and as a result, over 2,000 charities were forced to close down their services and reduce staff. The UK government started offering charity help to move away from public funding. Some international NGOs such as Amnesty International, Greenpeace and Oxfam have already changed to be more entrepreneurial in their operations (Rhoden, 2014). Furthermore, Lowther (2016) argues that adopting social enterprise business model helps NGOs to innovate and attain maximum social impact. However, to become a sustainable social business model, NGOs need new skills to deliver their vision and employ the tools of business to fashion novel approaches to social change. Many traditional NGOs are generally less innovative and less responsive to their customers (Rhoden, 2014).
Special Issue Contributions
The contributions in this special issue examine the role of business incubators, academia and social enterprises towards fostering inclusive entrepreneurship, innovation and sustainable growth in Southeast Asia.
First, using the case of ‘Innovation Works’, which is one of the pioneers of the value chain model incubators in China, the ‘Reshaping the Business Incubator Model: The Case of the Value Chain Model of Innovation Works in China’ article by Mingfeng Tang, Cuiwen Li, Angathevar Baskaran, Yu Chen and VGR Chandran traces how the business incubator model in China has evolved since the late 1980s and discovered an emerging value chain model (value position, value creation, value transfer and value capture), which efficiently combines the profits of an incubator with the success of its incubating tenant ventures. The authors found that the incubator business model in China has been reshaping towards more complex value propositions and more efficient value chain models. More importantly, the study highlights that specialisation, flat organisational structure and a professional management team are the critical elements that contribute to the success or efficient performance of the value chain business incubator model.
Second, a study by Tohru Kobayashi Yoshioka analyses the institutional factors behind academic entrepreneurship in publicly owned universities. It examines how Tokyo University in Japan has gone through a transition from a conservative anti-industry university collaboration culture to a leading entrepreneurial university in the mid-2000s. The study found that despite the regulatory constraints, the University of Tokyo has established an incubator and early-stage investment resource, benefiting from prior experimental experiences in a single research centre. It also set up a special non-degree entrepreneurship education programme for students and postdoctoral researchers. They show the importance of an organisational initiative even in a state-controlled context. The study also suggests that the academic and commercial bicultural system introduced by the University of Tokyo successfully balanced the fulfilment of traditional academic roles with the need for innovation.
Third, in the article ‘Academic Entrepreneurship for Social Innovation in Taiwan: The Cases of the OurCityLove Platform and the Forest App’, Chan-Yuan Wong, Mei-Chih Hu, Ching-Yan Wu and Ying-Che Hsieh, attempted to extend the definition of social innovation within the context of academic entrepreneurship. It examines how academic entrepreneurs can undertake commercial activities and how these activities contribute towards social innovation. It presents two cases that are derived from two premier universities in Taiwan in terms of research and academic entrepreneurship: OurCityLove from National Chiao Tung University (NCTU) and the Forest app from National Tsing Hua University (NTHU). They show how social enterprises achieved the financial ability to expand their businesses and create the desired social values. The cases illustrate how the two universities capitalised on their technological competencies and academic programmes to support graduates and researchers in venturing into social entrepreneurship.
Fourth, Boon-Kwee Ng, VGR Chandran, Shih-Hsin Chen and Chan-Yuan Wong analyse the university incubation system for research commercialisation in Taiwan and Malaysia. They specifically focus on the role of incubation intermediaries. Through case study and patent analysis, they draw lessons from Taiwan and further discuss the mechanisms in place for the successful commercialisation of university research. Lessons from the case study offer insights to Malaysia on how university incubation intermediaries can be reorganised to promote better commercialisation outcomes. The Taiwanese experience illustrates that in the right institutional settings—and particularly with the presence of innovative science and technology parks—university incubators tend to promote favourable commercialisation outcomes. They also identify other key successful factors, including establishing an adequate intellectual property management system and having adequate human resources equipped with intellectual property knowledge.
Fifth, the research on ‘Social Entrepreneurship and Inclusive Growth: Attributes, Perceptions and Roles of Business Incubators and Intermediaries in Malaysia’ by Angathevar Baskaran, Mingfeng Tang, K. Thiruchelvam, Sharifah Muhairah Shahabudin and Theresa Chan Siew Yoong explores the ecosystem for social enterprises in Malaysia. They examine the attributes (features) of business incubators and intermediaries operating in the social enterprise sector in Malaysia; the perceptions of business incubators and intermediaries on various aspects of the social enterprise ecosystem; and the role of business incubators and other intermediaries in fostering social entrepreneurship in general, and meeting the inclusive growth objective of the country in particular. The study found that the current social enterprise ecosystem is weak and still emerging and has yet to take a concrete shape. The absence of legal status for social enterprise is the single most important obstacle in unlocking the potential growth of social enterprise. It is seriously constraining the private sector participation such as the coupling of corporate social responsibility (CSR)-related funding with the development of social businesses.
Lastly, ‘Building the Ecosystem for Social Entrepreneurship: University Social Enterprise Cases in Singapore’ by Sarah Cheah and Yuen-Ping Ho assesses the role of the start-up ecosystem in social entrepreneurship. It presents two cases of social enterprises originating from a Singapore university and examines how they engage with stakeholders to create social impact. They provide insights on the ecosystem for social ventures in Singapore. The finance domain is identified as a potential area of improvement, as there is uncertainty on the appropriate growth trajectory for funding. University incubation and mentor networks are found to be pivotal in extending the market domain. Finally, the study highlights the support domain in the form of university R&D facilities and accelerator programmes that have been instrumental in strengthening connections. Extending beyond the university context, it is found that infrastructural resources in the ecosystem are crucial.
Footnotes
Declaration of conflicting interests
The authors declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship and/or publication of this article.
Funding
We would like to acknowledge the financial support by the University of Malaya Research Grant under the Equitable Society Research Cluster (ESRC), University of Malaya—Grant No. RP022-15SBS —‘Business Incubators for Technological, Social Entrepreneurship and Socially Inclusive Growth’.