Returning the ‘social’ to social entrepreneurship: Future possibilities of critically exploring sport for development and peace and social entrepreneurship

Abstract

Social entrepreneurship is a nascent concept within academia that is increasing in scholarly attention and practice, especially within the study of sport. A recent article has reviewed the concept of social entrepreneurship (SE) and sport and offered suggestions for future studies. Building on this article, I suggest that there is a need for critical, sociological explorations of sport and SE, most especially for scholars within the field of sport for development and peace (SDP). In this article, a review of SE and sport is briefly provided, as well as a presentation of recent critical perspectives on SE. Drawing attention to the connections between SDP and critical studies of SE, I suggest that there is an opportunity for sociologists of SDP to further understand the complex relations and neoliberal power structures involved in SDP social change, sustainability, innovation, and donor-recipient relations that would contribute significant insights for the future of the field.

Keywords

international development neoliberalism social entrepreneurship sport for development and peace

Introduction

Within the context of sport, various traits of neoliberalism have been identified, including in a variety of sport industries such as mega-events accentuated by capitalist ideologies (Gruneau and Horne, 2015), political ideologies framed by individualism and market-oriented approaches reflected in sport (Coakley, 2011; Silk and Andrews, 2012), and, most importantly for the purposes of this paper, neoliberal undertones in the field of sport-for-development and peace (SDP) (Darnell and Hayhurst, 2012; Wilson and Hayhurst, 2009), defined here broadly as ‘a social movement that seeks to improve lives through the use of sport and physical activity, and to advance sport and broader social development in disadvantaged communities’ (Kidd, 2008: 370). As neoliberalism continues to permeate sport, questions for sociologists of sport and practitioners interested in SDP remain about the ways in which sport organisations and initiatives seek to respond to contemporary social issues within an increasingly donor-driven and growing field (Levermore, 2008; Nicholls, 2009).

Critiques of how SDP is driven by donors, especially corporate funders from the global North operating at far proximity from implementation of SDP projects in the global South, have been linked with neoliberal ideals and traits of colonialism (Banda and Gultresa, 2015; Darnell, 2012). Many of these corporations (whether sport-based or not) located in the global North commonly attach themselves to sport initiatives and ‘development’ programmes by engaging in corporate social responsibility (CSR), evident when companies show accountability for their effects on social, ethical, legal, and environmental issues (McWilliams and Siegel, 2000) and engage in philanthropic activity beyond their primary ‘profit-motive’ (Carroll, 1999). Recently, sociologists of sport have become increasingly interested in understanding the nuances and neoliberal traits underlying CSR and sport initiatives (Giulianotti, 2015; Hayhurst and Szto, 2016; McSweeney et al., 2018), and how CSR is a product of and works within the confines of neoliberal ideologies and discourses.

It is interesting then that although CSR and SDP have received increased scholarly attention by sociologists of sport, especially in relation to neoliberalism, the concept of social entrepreneurship (SE)¹ has received relatively limited study. Although the concept remains contested and there is no singular, universal understanding of SE, it is generally defined as an individual or organisational enterprise aimed at achieving social change using business-like practices while reinvesting some or all profits back into the organisation (Weerawardena and Mort, 2006). It is a nascent concept that is growing in scholarly attention across disciplines such as organisational and management studies (Certo and Miller, 2008; Peredo and Chrisman, 2006), political science (Short et al., 2009), and, most importantly for this article, sport studies (Bjärsholm, 2017). In broader society, various organisations, such as Ashoka and the Skoll Foundation, have defined and are said to represent social enterprise activities and social entrepreneurs globally. Ashoka founder, Bill Drayton, has claimed that ‘social entrepreneurs are the essential collective force. They are system-changing entrepreneurs. And from deep within they, and therefore their work, are committed to the good of all’ (Ashoka, 2018).

Recently, a comprehensive literature review by Bjärsholm (2017) on SE and sport has been offered. This growth in attention is needed – especially as SE is a contemporary concept that has built optimism for organisational survival and sustainability in a neoliberal, capitalist society that sees increasingly blurred lines between for-profit, not-for-profit, and public sectors (Rivera-Santos et al., 2015). For sport organisations, blurring sector lines is not uncommon (Kenyon et al., 2018; Misener and Misener, 2017), yet still the concept of SE remains limited in scholarly attention within studies of sport – and even more so sociological studies of sport and SDP – despite calls for further research (Bjärsholm, 2017; Hayhurst, 2014; Ratten, 2011).

This is a significant oversight within the sociology of sport, most especially for scholars interested in the field of SDP. Numerous SDP organisations employ the concept of SE in their policies and practices. For example, DIVERTcity, an organisation with a focus on action sports such as surfing and streetboarding, has developed a programme focused on providing SE opportunities and workshops to youth, teaching about ‘idea creation, marketing, leadership’ and seeking to make a change via youth entrepreneurial ideas and SE models (DIVERTcity, 2018). Various SDP organisations listed on the International Platform on Sport and Development, such as Bikes For All, Social Initiative for Development, One World Play Project, Senda, Janji, Love Futbol, Alive and Kicking, and streetfootballworld, identify or are involved in SE programmes and projects in communities around the world. Larger SDP organisations and their leaders have been recognised as social entrepreneurs, for example Johann Koss, founder of Right to Play, and Jürgen Griesbeck, CEO of streetfootballworld, who was named Social Entrepreneur of the Year in 2011 by the World Economic Forum on Europe and Central Asia. Other organisations, such as Mathare Youth Sports Association, have partnerships and networks with global social enterprise nongovernmental organisations (NGOs) like Ashoka (Mathare Youth Sports Association, 2018). As seen by these organisations and programmes, SE currently holds importance within SDP practice.

SE has gained some traction in SDP research (Cohen and Peachey, 2015; Hayhurst, 2014), but, considering most organisations, individuals and scholars involved in SDP seek to contribute to or understand what constitutes social change in regards to ‘development’, the literature currently available on SDP and SE is surprising. Even more so, in the broader context of SE studies, critical and sociological analyses have only recently become popular, and is an area of study worthy of investigation, especially as ‘positive descriptions of social entrepreneurs as “change agents” deflects from their position within neoliberal governance regimes which sees responsibility for social problems shift from the state to “the power within”’ (Reid, 2017: 598). Thus, many investigations of SE have positively identified individuals, groups or organisations as addressing and responding to numerous social issues; however, deeper structural constraints, and how the practice of SE influences and is influenced by such systemic structures of neoliberalism, remain limited in scope.

For SDP researchers, studying in a field where the issue of power relations has been a rising concern and appears to be a reflection of the broader issue of sport and its historical underpinnings of colonisation (Darnell, 2012), SE may assist SDP researchers in furthering understandings of, and responding to: issues of partnerships between funding organisations in the global North and SFD programmes in the global South that potentially reproduce notions of neoliberalism and neocolonialism (Hayhurst, 2011, 2014); SDP programming that, although changing (Black, 2017), commonly uses top-down approaches (Levermore, 2011); and/or SDP practice and partnerships that exhibits traits of domination and whiteness (Darnell, 2007). Additionally, as arguments by scholars continue to place SDP within the broader literature on international development (Darnell and Dao, 2017), SE is one way of marrying SDP with its parent-discipline international development.

The purpose of this paper is two-fold: first, I briefly review the contemporary literature on SE and sport and present critical perspectives of SE. Based on this review, I suggest that there is a current lacuna in the body of research on SE and sport that it would be apt for sociologists of sport to turn to – most especially those studying in the field of SDP. It is important to insert a caveat here that, although my arguments are framed from a sociological lens, literature on SE and sport has been discussed much more in-depth in the related discipline of sport management, and therefore I turn to such studies and arguments from the management literature in order to contextualise and frame the need for sociological examinations of SE and SDP. Second, I discuss how critical studies of SE and sport offer prospective ways to mainstream SDP and international development, and furthermore, present an opportunity to contribute significant insights for scholars and practitioners in SDP about neoliberalism, innovation, sustainability, and donor-recipient relations. In the following section, I provide a brief review of literature to frame SE, with its hallmarks, debates and tensions.

Social entrepreneurship

Although SE is not a new phenomenon, as evidenced by the creation in the 1980s of Ashoka, the most well-known SE organisation, it was not until the 1990s that scholars began to explore and examine the concept. The concept has evolved from its parent term ‘commercial entrepreneurship’, which is focused on generating financial value, rather than social value as is the case for SE (Austin et al., 2006), and has been described as falling within a ‘third sector’ of society that aims to incorporate public and private characteristics in order to achieve its broad goal of contributing to social change while remaining sustainable financially (Choi and Majumdar, 2014).

SE is highly contested and subjective due to the numerous organisations involved in its conceptualisation, such as NGOs, governments, individuals, not-for profit (NFP) organisations and private businesses (Hossain et al., 2017). For example, in Bacq and Janssen’s (2011) review of the concept and definition of SE, they listed 46 different definitions provided by a variety of organisations and academic articles. Broadly speaking, most definitions signify that social entrepreneurs or enterprises must be concerned with the goal of performing ‘not only financially but also socially’ (Phillips et al., 2015: 430). The array of meanings attached to SE, including the dynamic and confluent understandings across different states, countries and even continents (Bacq and Janssen, 2011), have been influenced by different schools of thought. This is the case most notably within the school of social innovation, the social enterprise school of thought, and the emergence-of-social-enterprises-in-Europe school of thought (for a full review of the different schools of thought in regard to SE, see Bjärsholm, 2017 or Defourny and Nyssens, 2010). The school of social innovation sees the individual as the primary element of SE, and ‘views social entrepreneurship as the use of social innovations to solve social problems and to bring about social change, irrespective of whether commercial activities are involved or not’ (Choi and Majumdar, 2014: 365; Martin and Osberg, 2007). In contrast, the social enterprise school of thought sees governments and not-for-profit organisations being the main catalyst of SE, with the individual or individuals involved in the initiative’s social mission being ancillary to that of the organisation (Bacq and Janssen, 2011; Bjärsholm, 2017). Private businesses or for-profit organisations are not considered social enterprises. Finally, the emergence-of-social-enterprises-in-Europe school of thought, which was developed by European scholars, conceptualises SE as ‘stimulated by collective, autonomous and democratic actions, for example through cooperative enterprises’ (Bjärsholm, 2017: 8). The organisation is the most important facet of SE in this sense, and can be financed either through the organisation itself or through external funding, and must be focused on collective action to ensure and promote social development (Huybrechts and Nicholls, 2012).

There are two other elements of SE that scholars have highlighted in connection with the concept. First, SE as a process is expressed by a commitment to an organisation’s social mission and its relevant success, such as fulfilling one’s mission statement through social change, social transformation, social value creation, or social impact and the related activities and goals to achieve the mission (Austin et al., 2006; Mair and Marti, 2004). The activities of an organisation and an individual must relate to the social mission of the social enterprise or venture, and the individual or organisation must ensure the objective(s) of their venture is focused on their social mission, whatever mission that may be. What is clear here is that the social mission is an inherent part of SE as a process that, when examining social enterprises or entrepreneurs, must be examined in conjunction with the activities and goals of an individual or social entrepreneur.

Second, another element of SE that remains crucial to scholarly work and that has been relatively limited in empirical analysis is that of the environmental context. This includes the ‘role played by the surrounding social, economic, cultural, or institutional environment in conceptualising social entrepreneurship’ (Bacq and Janssen, 2011: 387). The difference in how SE is understood, defined, conceptualised and approached is contingent on the relevant environment and context in which it takes place – as seen by the above understandings of SE based on geographical location. Further research on the environment of SE and its connection to the social enterprise or entrepreneur is an area worthy of investigation, especially for those interested in the social and cultural relations that influence and are influenced by SE – a salient point, especially in the field of SDP, where environment and context play crucial roles.

The above presents a very brief overview of the contemporary literature on SE, displaying how SE is a contested and unstable concept that has yet to be fully developed within academia. This displays how SE is still in its infancy and will continue to proliferate, as seen by the increasing body of literature applying critical perspectives to SE, which is discussed in the following section.

Critical perspectives on SE: Drawing attention to the social

Questions about the functionalist and individualistic nature of SE (Tapsell and Woods, 2010), as well as questions of a social entrepreneur’s links to economic profit-motives closely resembling a traditional commercial entrepreneur (Mueller et al., 2011) have been posed. Austin et al. (2006), in a foundational piece comparing commercial entrepreneurship with SE, suggest that the primary aim of an SE organisation or individual is the social issue, such as gender rights, which should drive the organisation, programme or individual, and decision-making should be based on how best to accumulate and efficiently utilise resources to respond to that issue. Within their article, they demonstrate the similarities and differences between traditional entrepreneurship and SE, and how SE pulls on market practices while at the same time operating differently than entrepreneurial businesses that do not have a social mission. Overall, it is notable that Austin et al. (2006: 18–19) list a number of areas requiring further exploration in SE, such as ‘What are the effects of market forces on the formation and behavior of social enterprises?’ and ‘What are the motivational constructs of social entrepreneurs, and how do they compare with commercial entrepreneurs?’

Thus, it is important to bring attention to the evolution of SE as a result of broader societal and economic structures. Dey and Steyaert (2016) illuminate how social entrepreneurs and traditional business entrepreneurs cannot be easily detached. Focusing on how both social entrepreneurs and traditional commercial entrepreneurs frame macro-views of system change and emancipation, and based on interviews with social entrepreneurs, they state that (Dey and Steyaert, 2016: 638):

Our excursus on neoliberal governmentality helped us advance our understanding of the political aspect of the limit experience, notably by illuminating how social entrepreneurs in many advanced liberal societies are increasingly called on to become more “responsible”; by emulating the values and behaviours of entrepreneurs from the private sector…Our inquiry into SE policies and programs offered a case in point of how social problems are transformed into a matter of entrepreneurial self-care, and how this transformation in turn renders practitioners in social enterprises governable.

Social entrepreneurs claiming to fall within a ‘third-sector’ are intertwined within traditional structures that are influenced and directed by commercial entrepreneurs – most notably, neoliberalism and capitalism that propose ‘individual entrepreneurial freedoms’ (Harvey, 2007: 2) underlined by individualistic and economically focused notions of the self, a free-market approach in nation-states and, on a global level, encourages the international freedom to move goods and services transnationally. These questions and studies highlight the complexity of SE and how it is both similar to, and different from, traditional entrepreneurship and the roots of neoliberalism – can it do both? Does it provide an opportunity to escape the confines of neoliberalism, or is it always interlaced with traditional capitalist ideologies? This is a question that is discussed further in a following section.

Increasingly, adopting a critical lens to explore SE has been advocated for by various scholars in order to ‘question the assumption of equal opportunities available to all would-be-entrepreneurs, the predominant view of a masculine and heroic entrepreneur, the influence of the dominant language, and the criteria for defining success and failure’ (Mueller et al., 2011: 114; Ogbor, 2000). In particular, feminist scholars have emphasised and articulated the importance of bringing a critical eye to not only SE, but ‘entrepreneurship’ generally, which may upend the contemporary dominant view of social entrepreneurs as individuals, and look to understand how collectives and groups act as social entrepreneurs and operate social enterprises for the purposes of building community and creating social change (Calas et al., 2009).

One significant aspect of SE and entrepreneurs is a claim to produce social change and value creation. For critical researchers, questions of social change must be considered to examine the relational micro-, meso- and macro-complexities of societal structures and systems. Newey (2018) critically explores how two very different types of SE, compensatory² (i.e. merely utilising SE to work within the current systems of hegemonic capitalism and neoliberalism to better society) and transformatory (i.e. working towards disrupting and transforming the current systems of hegemonic capitalism), present an alternative to the global capital system. Newey notes that

SE can be seen as either a mere slideshow to the mainstream economic act of society and/or something radically transformative of that very system. These different viewpoints can range from asking how do we make existing society better to a more fundamental asking of what sort of society do we want (Newey, 2018: 15).

Critically exploring how SE may challenge the current dominant economic model within society may lend insight into the transformational potential of SE and also create self-reflection to ensure the concept of SE does not become reified (Mueller et al., 2011) – much like as ‘sport’ has become reified as a universal concept that is inherently good (Coalter, 2013).³ In the following, I briefly identify studies of SE and sport, especially SDP.

Social entrepreneurship and sport

Recently, a review of the concept of SE and sport has been offered by Bjärsholm (2017), who notes that the first article published on SE and sport was as late as 2004, displaying the nascent nature of the concept and that SE is ‘an empirical example of a marked shift towards new organisational forms which blur sector lines’ (Bjärsholm, 2017: 13). In his review, Bjärsholm (2017) illustrates how studies of SE and sport have been conducted at the individual level (Cohen and Peachey, 2015; Griffiths and Armour, 2014; Thompson and Doherty, 2006) and at the organisational level, such as how organisations may improve through business-like strategies that promote SE activity (Chew, 2010; Ratten and Babiak, 2010). In regard to the processes and environment of SE, how enterprise’s goals and activities are financed was highlighted, as well as how social networks of organisations may be enhanced to alleviate various social issues (Bjärsholm, 2017). In particular, Gallagher et al. (2012) display how SE may be utilised to contribute to the economic survival and sustainability of organisations through innovative practices that reinvest money into organisations – a notable point about the potential SE may offer for SDP organisations seeking to be sustainable in an increasingly competitive and donor-driven field in times of austerity (Lindsey, 2017; Rossi and Jeanes, 2018) – and a point I return to later in this paper.

As seen in the above, much of the literature has been produced by management and organisational studies that see the individual or organisation as a driver of social change within the contemporary structures of inequality, rather than acknowledging broader structures that have constituted the need for SE in the first place (compare to Hayhurst, 2014). As such, similar to the broader SE literature, ‘a “business case” narrative and discourse is being privileged in the practice of social enterprise research to the detriment of providing conceptual and theoretical recognition of the social’ (Arthur et al., 2010: 2). Some studies, such as Hayhurst (2014) and Kennedy and Kennedy (2015), offer unique critical insights into SE and sport. Hayhurst (2014), exploring sport, gender and development (SGD) programming in Uganda, displays how many SGD SEs focus on ‘girls in order to help them to survive (and eventually “thrive”) in the current neoliberal order’ (Hayhurst 2014: 298). Similarly, utilising a political economy perspective, Kennedy and Kennedy (2015) explore grass-roots, NFP football organisations that seek to remain sustainable during times of austerity, defined here as ‘a form of voluntary deflation in which the economy adjusts through the reduction of wages, prices and public spending in order to restore competitiveness which is (supposedly) best achieved by auditing state budgets, debts and deficits’ (Parnell et al., 2018: 1). Examining how social enterprises and networks operate outside of a ‘market-driven’ discourse, Kennedy and Kennedy (2015) explore relations of capitalism and counterculturalism, arguing that differences in SE and social transformationalist approaches by NFP football clubs act as forms of resistance in varying ways to neoliberal ideologies. In this case, social transformationalist approaches (an extension of SE approaches) are better suited to disrupt capitalist categories such as price and profit and refrain from (re)producing neoliberal notions within organised football, such as commodification of the game and individualist elitist aspirations (Kennedy and Kennedy, 2015). Although others have conducted studies of SE within the discipline of the sociology of sport (see Kiernan and Porter, 2014; Sanders et al., 2014; Sherry and Strybosch, 2012), like Hayhurst (2014), the focus of the studies is not explicitly on SE – rather, the concept is briefly mentioned or explored.

Overall, and based on Bjärsholm’s (2017) suggestions that empirical studies, both qualitative and quantitative, must be carried out in areas such as the attitudes of social entrepreneurs, the different organisational forms of enterprises and, importantly, the role of the environment and societal factors of SE, the need for critical perspectives that contextualise, politicise, and illuminate the inherent power relations within SE and sport are crucial. In the following section, I discuss how SE is an area worthy of further investigation and what critical examinations of SE and SDP may contribute to the broader field of SDP.

SDP and social entrepreneurship: The possibilities of further exploration

There is not enough space here nor is it my intent to provide a full review of the increasingly popular and nascent field of SDP (for a full review, see Schulenkorf et al., 2016). What is important to recognise from the above critical sociological studies on SE and sport is that SE has been produced and intertwined within neoliberalism (like SDP); however, also, in some ways, it may enable transformation of the societal status-quo or disrupt neoliberal ideologies of individualism and self-sufficiency through collective activity that acts outside of market-oriented norms. Thus, as Hayhurst (2014: 310–311) has suggested in regard to SDP and SE, there is ‘a dire need to understand the socioeconomic, sociocultural and sociopolitical implications and consequences of social entrepreneurship’. Other scholars, such as Cohen and Peachy (2015⁾, have also identified the need for further studies on SE and SDP.

This presents an opportunity for sociologists of SDP to contribute to a growing field of study, SE, while remaining interested in social change and how sport may offer a way to respond to social issues in order to transform the societal status-quo. Rather than view social enterprises as a ‘temporary patch’ to institutional voids of the market and state, which emphasises ‘the dominance of the business discourse and drive for social enterprises to be the quick fix for societies’ ills’ (Bull, 2008: 271), sociologists of sport bringing a critical lens to the concept of SE and sport may draw attention to the foundations of these organisations – the social. Furthermore, applying a critical lens to SE and SDP may further mainstream sport into international development research while remaining aware of the potential consequences that sport as a tool for development may have on broader societal structures such as neoliberalism and neocolonialism. In the next section, I discuss how SE has been featured in development studies and provide examples of how the study of SE may further contribute to bridging SDP and international development.

Mainstreaming SDP and international development

The field of SDP has grown tremendously in recent years (Schulenkorf et al., 2016) and there is no question that sociological studies of sport and international development have contributed a great deal to the field (e.g. Darnell, 2012; Hayhurst, 2014; Spaaij, 2009). In many of these studies, the broader field of international development is used to explore and frame understandings of SDP (Darnell, 2012; Levermore, 2009). In addition to articles that frame SDP within theories of international development, there has also been an explicit call by sport and international development scholars to ‘mainstream’ sport into international development studies (Darnell and Black, 2011; Levermore, 2008, 2009; Lindsey, 2017). Recently, Darnell and Dao (2017) suggested that the use of the capabilities approach (an international development approach) would be well-suited to bridge development theory with SDP, and has also been suggested to assist in exploring how SDP programmes and organisations may reduce funding reliance in times of austerity (Rossi and Jeanes, 2018). Yet, despite such calls and empirical research that has been conducted on SDP utilising international development frameworks and exploring various thematic areas, there remains a limited focus on SE within SDP. This not only leaves a lacuna of research within the sport sociology and SDP field, but also hinders the possibility of mainstreaming sport and international development studies by turning attention to the growing literature on SE in international development.

Literature on SE within Africa in particular has received increased attention (George et al., 2016; Urban and Teise, 2015) especially as African social entrepreneurs have self-identified as serving the ‘public good’ and, as seen by Rivera-Santos et al. (2015: 368), ‘institutional development and residual ideologies of colonialism made it difficult for Africans to navigate their environments’. This speaks to how social and cultural influences such as remnants of (neo)colonialism affect social entrepreneurs, and how institutions influence the choices and activities of social entrepreneurs (Littlewood and Holt, 2015). Although such power relations inherently underlie SE, ‘market-oriented approaches are being embraced as an integral element in creating lasting social change’ (Dees, 2008: 12) and SE may play an influential role in alleviating poverty through micro-finance programmes and other sustainable social programmes within marginalised communities.

Such studies display the steps that international development scholars are taking to address and further understand SE, especially in contexts where unequal power relations remain for groups and individuals, and explicate how SE is intertwined with (post)colonial histories and common pitfalls of development, such as neocolonialism. However, although caution (as with any development ‘intervention’) must be taken when exploring SE, as highlighted by ^{Seelos and Mair (2005, 2007a, 2007b)}, SE may respond to global development goals in a variety of ways.

Specifically, Seelos and Mair (2005) examined how SE may contribute to human, social and economic development and potentially provide commodities to ‘the poor’, by linking entrepreneurial and innovative ideas to the Millennium Development Goals of the United Nations. Importantly, the authors draw attention to the need to look at the ‘social’ of social entrepreneur, rather than economic value creation that is the secondary focus of social entrepreneurs, and say that ‘the greatest challenge in understanding SE … lies in defining the boundaries of what we mean by “social”’ (Seelos and Mair, 2005: 243). In this sense, Seelos and Mair (2005) call for scholars to consider the way social entrepreneurs actually ‘change the system’, a phrase common within the SE literature that suggests disruption of the status-quo and resistance to the hegemonic capitalist, neoliberal contemporary society. Seelos and Mair’s (2005) study connects well with Lindsey and Darby’s (2019) recent examination of sport and the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). Drawing on the concept of policy coherence, the authors stress the need for critical analysis of sport, SDP and the SDGs that explore and illuminate the potential contributions or limits sport has when applied to the SDGs (Lindsey and Darby, 2019), and that require further ‘analysis that recognises how any such impacts may be enabled or constrained by interconnections across different development agendas, sectors and contexts’ (Lindsey and Darby, 2019: 808). SE, which is characterised as a third sector interacting with a number of different sectors and social contexts that relate to global development goals as seen by Seelos and Mair’s (2005) study, is an area worthy of further investigation to bridge SDP and international development studies. What is more, many social entrepreneurs and enterprises, especially in ‘development’ contexts, partner or engage with micro-finance programmes, which, in addition to studies of SE, are increasingly being turned to for sustainable development ‘interventions’ (Littlefield et al., 2003; Mori et al., 2015).

As partnerships have been explored in-depth and scholars have accentuated the accompanying challenges and benefits of interorganisational relationships and global connections in SDP (Hayhurst and Frisby, 2010; Nicholls et al., 2011; Peachey et al., 2018), examining how SE may offer new ways of partnering and how these partnerships differ from traditional organisational relationships is a relevant area of study for sociologists of SDP. For example, how may organisations such as the Young African Refugees for Integral Development use their SE women’s centre (which produces clothing, bags and more, to be sold and profits reinvested in the centre) in conjunction with SDP to engage with new partners? Or, how may this social enterprise allow their organisation and SDP programmes to run sustainably without the need for external funding or creating partnerships with global corporations or NGOs?

Thus, although SE must be questioned critically, the potential it offers to the growing and competitive field of SDP – as seen by literature on organisational hybridity and innovation (Svensson and Hambrick, 2016), the thousands of organisations globally becoming involved in SDP, as well as calls by journals for special issues focused on organisational innovation within SDP (see Managing Sport and Leisure) – SE is a concept that is timely and has potential to inform innovative approaches in SDP. In the next section, I discuss SE and SDP in relation to innovation, sustainability and social change.

Social entrepreneurship and SDP: Innovation, sustainability and social change

Recently, literature on SDP has pointed to the need to consider the sustainability and longevity of the field of SDP in times of austerity. In particular, Rossi and Jeanes (2018) discuss how SDP organisations may navigate donor-recipient relations and reduce reliance on international and global funders during an era of austerity within contemporary trends of neoliberalism. Briefly, the authors highlight SE, and how it differs from philanthrocapitalism; however, they do not expand on how social enterprise SDP organisations may offer an interesting concept to explore to respond to the implications of the SDP field due to austerity. The authors do say that ‘despite various foundations and smaller entrepreneurship groups providing philanthropic aid, and donor governments continuing to contribute significant levels of support, the likelihood is that aid/support will probably not increase’ (Rossi and Jeanes, 2018: 191). I add to their commentary and suggest that SE and SDP should be examined in response to austerity and the neoliberal constraints of societies, and that such examinations may provide understanding about how aid/support from donors and corporate funders may be resisted and, ideally, not needed.

In relation to SDP, austerity and innovation are also questions of the sustainability of the field due to the aforementioned funding reliance and unequal global-relations within many contexts (Coalter, 2010; Schulenkorf, 2012). Such critiques have led to considerations of how to better align the field for sustainability and future survival. In particular, Lindsey (2017) has recently highlighted the need for governance of SDP and how sector-wide approaches, rather than project-based approaches, may increase longevity of the field as well as foster connections between international development and sport. Considering SE within SDP may also respond to critiques of unequal donor-recipient relations and potentially provide sustainable options for local ‘development’ organisations to be autonomous, free from reliance on funders, and self-sufficient. Hayhurst (2014) argues that NGOs operating at the grass-roots and local level engage in social entrepreneurial activities to be sustainable and reduce reliance on external funders for survival, while, at the same time, framing and encouraging women to be ‘entrepreneurial, innovative and self-reliant through corporatised SGD programs’ (Hayhurst, 2014: 302) that renders young women and girls as governable entrepreneurs responsible for their own self-conduct and creating social change in patriarchal norms. However, Hayhurst (2014) offers optimism about the potential SE may hold for SDP – specifically, how organisations may utilise SE for sustainability purposes and reduce unequal donor-recipient relationships, and also how – possibly – SE may offer resistance to neoliberal tendencies of SDP.

Lastly, the ideal of SDP programmes to contribute to social change is complex, ambiguous, and difficult to claim (Coalter, 2013). Scholars in SDP, such as Spaaij and Jeanes (2013), Schulenkorf (2012), and Hartmann and Kwauk (2011), have discussed the importance of understanding the structural systems in which SDP operates and how programmes (and their associated benefits or objectives) may disrupt and/or maintain institutionalised social norms (e.g. the limited participation of young women in physical activity in some contexts). At the same time, other scholars have highlighted the importance of understanding individual ‘development’ and the micro (as well as meso) impacts of SDP at the local and community level (Lindsey et al., 2017). SE, as has been discussed, is inherently underlined by a social mission that seeks to respond to a social issue and, ultimately, upon addressing that issue, ‘should result in the end of social entrepreneurship’ (Mueller et al., 2011: 112). That is, SE should no longer be needed once the social issue has been responded to and overcome. Thus, sociological and critical explorations of SE and SDP may add to the contemporary discussions on social change within SDP by highlighting the practices, decision making, innovativeness and ways that social enterprises and social entrepreneurs attempt to achieve social change at individual, organisational, community and structural levels.

Of course, as highlighted earlier, this does not mean that social enterprises or entrepreneurs operate outside of neoliberal discourses or ideologies – rather, they are influenced by and influence market-based approaches that, although they have a secondary profit-motive as an objective, seek first to promote and initiate social change. Understanding further how SDP organisations are inherently innovative – especially through SE approaches and models, and how such approaches take place within the broader power relations and structures of the field of international development that SDP is a part of (Lindsey, 2017) – may offer a way of ‘connecting SDP to broader issues and contexts of sport, politics and international development’ (Darnell et al., 2018: 147). In the following section, I conclude by offering suggestions for future research and a potential way forward in how SE may be explored critically by sociologists of sport.

Discussion and conclusion

One of the significant contributions that studying SE and SDP from a critical lens may offer is understanding the processes and nuances of how SE moves beyond compensatory approaches to development that merely work within the confines of neoliberalism. As seen by Hayhurst’s (2014) study, resistance to norms and societal inequalities is possible (in this case through SE activities that resist patriarchal norms), while, at the same time, structural and systemic unequal power relations remain in favour of the dominant status-quo (that is, the systemic structures of gender inequality and individual responsibility are not disrupted long-term). Thus, although SE claims social change, explorations such as Hayhurst’s (2014) may serve as examples for critical examinations of SE’s compensatory and transformational (and everything in between and beyond) potential within SDP.

In order to provide an example of how scholars may potentially critically examine SE and SDP and what this would look like, I draw on postcolonial management theory (Frenkel and Shenhav, 2006) and participatory action research, which have been advocated for in the field of SDP and is similar to the approach Hayhurst (2014) utilised within her study. In bridging SE, SDP, and a postcolonial management lens that highlights the ongoing cultural significance of colonialism (Westwood, 2006), researchers may be able to shed insights into the historical and political environment inherent within SE – especially within contexts that have histories of (post)colonialism. As many SDP studies take place in the global South by global North researchers (Schulenkorf et al., 2016), adopting a postcolonial lens also places an emphasis on the decolonisation of the research process and attempts to disentangle the complex relations of race, class, and gender, within institutionalised settings of organisational management and business (Banerjee and Prasad, 2008), such as SE. Finally, a postcolonial management lens also signifies an approach to research that seeks collaboration and participation from those involved in the research study. I suggest here that methodological approaches to the study of SE and SDP guided by critical participatory action research approaches would be well-suited to align with the premise of SE as a concept, which is to address social issues and produce social change. For example, using a participatory approach to research would require involvement from those in SE SDP programmes to voice their experiences and challenges of SE, as well as to provide insight into the potential opportunities it holds for individual empowerment and community development. Furthermore, participants would be involved in developing questions and the direction of research in order to address those issues that are most important to them, which are most likely aligned or the exact same as the SE programme, initiative or organisation. Approaching research collaboratively with a participatory action research approach would be able to identify, highlight, and negotiate in what ways SE offers a means for social change, while at the same time working toward understanding local perspectives that may differ from the perspectives of those involved in the global movement of SDP (i.e. SE programme funders or partners working internationally with community-based SE programmes or initiatives).

Exploring SE and SDP guided by a postcolonial lens and a participatory action research approach would be able to pose and explore significant questions at both the individual level and organisational level, as well as inquire into the nuances of the environment and processes of SE. What characterises an individual social entrepreneur in SDP and how do they elicit and promote social change? In what ways do social enterprises employ innovative strategies while ensuring sustainable solutions to social issues such as gender equality and other social movements globally? How are social enterprises constructed and in what way do they navigate the ‘business’ discourse of the private sector and neoliberal ideologies while operating toward social change? Or, how do they disrupt neoliberal ideals of SDP and move toward emancipatory, community social change? How do they reach their desired social mission, and, in what ways, especially in SDP, do they manage donor-recipient relations in an increasingly funder-reliant and competitive field? These are only some of the questions that may be posed when considering SE and SDP from a critical, postcolonial lens.

I have argued throughout this article that SE and sport is thus far a significant oversight by scholars interested in SDP, especially due to the potential contributions, such as further understanding the complex claims and processes of social change, innovation, and sustainability inherent in SE, that critically examining the concept offers. Furthermore, it is clear that SE models and approaches are growing within the SDP field, and more generally, sport (Ratten and Ferreira, 2017). As SE has been dominated by management and business studies, critical explorations of SE and sport are needed, and may ‘represent a counterbalance to mainstream sport management perspectives by demystifying neoliberal ideologies’ (Hovden, 2015: 475) that are taken-for-granted in studies of SE.

As critical researchers, we should be interested in how social change may take place, and, when claimed to occur, critically question the processes and (un)intended consequences of such claims. As SDP researchers, we should be interested in understanding organisational innovation and sustainability, and how this may respond to neoliberal undertones, in particular, unequal donor-recipient relations. Are SDP social entrepreneurs and enterprises only acting as forms of compensatory SE, merely working within the constraints of capitalism and neoliberalism – or, instead, are they transforming social structures and contributing to social change?

As Malcolm (2018: 7) argues within his editorial introduction paper as the editor of the International Review for the Sociology of Sport, ‘in addition to being critical, sociology is remarkably pliable, parasitic almost (Urry, 1981) in its ability to capitalise on new areas of study’. As a ‘dynamic and receptive’ (Malcolm, 2018: 7) field, the sociology of sport should be open and interested in further empirical analysis and critical considerations of SE – not only because of its increasing role in society and sport, but also because of the potential it may offer to respond to challenges within the SDP field.

Footnotes

Acknowledgements

I am grateful to the three anonymous reviewers for their guidance and support in the development of this paper. I am also thankful to Dr. Lyndsay Hayhurst and Dr. Lisa Kikulis for their thought-provoking insights and continuous support.

Declaration of conflicting interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Notes

References

Arthur

Keenoy

Scott Cato

, et al. (2010) Where is the ‘social’ in social enterprise? In: Fuller

Jonas

AEG

Lee

(eds) Interrogating Alterity: Alternative Economic and Political Spaces. Farnham: Ashgate, pp. 207–222.

Ashoka (2018) Social entrepreneurship. Available at: https://www.ashoka.org/en/focus/social-entrepreneurship (accessed 12 March 2018).

Austin

Stevenson

Wei-Skillern

(2006) Social and commercial entrepreneurship: Same, different, or both? Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice 30(1): 1–22.

Bacq

Janssen

(2011) The multiple faces of social entrepreneurship: A review of definitional issues based on geographical and thematic criteria. Entrepreneurship and Regional Development 23(5–6): 373–403.

Banda

Gultresa

(2015) Using global South sport-for-development experiences to inform Global North CSR design and implementation: A case study of Euroleague Basketball’s One Team programme. Corporate Governance 15(2): 196–213.

Banerjee

Prasad

(2008) Introduction to the special issue on ‘Critical reflections on management and organisations: A postcolonial perspective’. Critical Perspectives on International Business 4(2–3): 90–98.

Bjärsholm

(2017) Sport and social entrepreneurship: A review of a concept in progress. Journal of Sport Management 31(2): 191–206.

Black

(2017) The challenges of articulating ‘top down’ and ‘bottom up’ development through sport. Third World Thematics: A TWQ Journal 2(1): 7–22.

Bull

(2008) Challenging tensions: Critical, theoretical and empirical perspectives on social enterprise. International Journal of Entrepreneurial Behavior & Research 14(5): 268–275.

10.

Calas

Smircich

Bourne

(2009) Extending the boundaries: Reframing ‘entrepreneurship as social change’ through feminist perspectives. Academy of Management Review 34(3): 552–569.

11.

Carroll

(1999) Corporate social responsibility: Evolution of a definitional construct. Business & Society 38(3): 268–295.

12.

Certo

Miller

(2008) Social entrepreneurship: Key issues and concepts. Business Horizons 51(4): 267–271.

13.

Chew

(2010) Strategic positioning and organisational adaptation in social enterprise subsidiaries of voluntary organisations: An examination of community interest companies with charitable origins. Public Management Review 12(5): 609–634.

14.

Choi

Majumdar

(2014) Social entrepreneurship as an essentially contested concept: Opening a new avenue for systematic future research. Journal of Business Venturing 29(3): 363–376.

15.

Coakley

(2011) Ideology doesn’t just happen: Sports and neoliberalism. Journal of the Latin American Association of Sociocultural Studies of Sport [Revista da Associación Latinoamericana de Estudios Socioculturales del Deporto] 1(1): 67–84.

16.

Coalter

(2010) The politics of sport-for-development: Limited focus programmes and broad gauge problems? International Review for the Sociology of Sport 45(3): 295–314.

17.

Coalter

(2013) Sport for Development: What Game Are We Playing? London, UK: Routledge.

18.

Cohen

Peachey

(2015) The making of a social entrepreneur: From participant to cause champion within a sport-for-development context. Sport Management Review 18(1): 111–125.

19.

Darnell

(2007) Playing with race: Right to play and the production of whiteness in ‘development through sport’. Sport in Society 10(4): 560–579.

20.

Darnell

(2012) Sport for Development and Peace: A Critical Sociology. London, UK: Bloomsbury Academic.

21.

Darnell

Black

(2011) Mainstreaming sport into international development studies. Third World Quarterly 32(3): 367–378.

22.

Darnell

Chwansky

Marchesseault

, et al. (2018) The state of play: Critical sociological insights into recent ‘sport for development and peace’ research. International Review for the Sociology of Sport 53(2): 133–151.

23.

Darnell

Dao

(2017) Considering sport for development and peace through the capabilities approach. Third World Thematics: A TWQ Journal 2(1): 23–36.

24.

Darnell

Hayhurst

(2012) Hegemony, postcolonialism and sport-for-development: A response to Lindsey and Grattan. International Journal of Sport Policy and Politics 4(1): 111–124.

25.

Dees

(2008) Philanthropy and enterprise: Harnessing the power of business and social entrepreneurship for development. Innovations: Technology, Governance, Globalisation 3(3): 119–132.

26.

Defourny

Nyssens

(2010) Conceptions of social enterprise and social entrepreneurship in Europe and the United States: Convergences and divergences. Journal of Social Entrepreneurship 1(1): 32–53.

27.

Dey

Steyaert

(2016) Rethinking the space of ethics in social entrepreneurship: Power, subjectivity, and practices of freedom. Journal of Business Ethics 133(4): 627–641.

28.

DIVERTcity (2018) Entrepreneurship programme. Available at: http://www.divertcity.co/EPROGRAM (accessed 10 March 2018).

29.

Frenkel

Shenhav

(2006) From binarism back to hybridity: A postcolonial reading of management and organisation studies. Organisation Studies 27(6): 855–876.

30.

Gallagher

Gilmore

Stolz

(2012) The strategic marketing of small sports clubs: From fundraising to social entrepreneurship. Journal of Strategic Marketing 20(3): 231–247.

31.

George

Kotha

Parikh

, et al. (2016) Social structure, reasonable gain, and entrepreneurship in Africa. Strategic Management Journal 37(6): 1118–1131.

32.

Giulianotti

(2015) Corporate social responsibility in sport: Critical issues and future possibilities. Corporate Governance 15(2): 243–248.

33.

Griffiths

Armour

(2014) Volunteer sports coaches as community assets? A realist review of the research evidence. International Journal of Sport Policy and Politics 6(3): 307–326.

34.

Gruneau

Horne

(eds) (2015) Mega-Events and Globalisation: Capital, Cultures and Spectacle in a Changing World Order. London, UK: Routledge.

35.

Hartmann

Kwauk

(2011) Sport and development: An overview, critique, and reconstruction. Journal of Sport and Social Issues 35(3): 284–305.

36.

Harvey

(2007) A Brief History of Neoliberalism. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

37.

Hayhurst

(2011) Corporatising sport, gender and development: Postcolonial IR feminisms, transnational private governance and global corporate social engagement. Third World Quarterly 32(3): 531–549.

38.

Hayhurst

LMC

(2014) The ‘girl-effect’ and martial arts: Social entrepreneurship and sport, gender and development in Uganda. Gender, Place and Culture 21(3): 297–315.

39.

Hayhurst

Frisby

(2010) Inevitable tensions: Swiss and Canadian sport for development NGO perspectives on partnerships with high performance sport. European Sport Management Quarterly 10(1): 75–96.

40.

Hayhurst

Szto

(2016) Corporatisating activism through sport-focused social justice? Investigating Nike’s corporate responsibility initiatives in sport for development and peace. Journal of Sport and Social Issues 40(6): 522–544.

41.

Hossain

Saleh

Drennan

(2017) A critical appraisal of the social entrepreneurship paradigm in an international setting: A proposed conceptual framework. International Entrepreneurship and Management Journal 13(2): 347–368.

42.

Hovden

(2015) Assessing the sociology of sport: On sport organisations and neoliberal discourses. International Review for the Sociology of Sport 50(4–5): 472–476.

43.

Huybrechts

Nicholls

(2012) Social entrepreneurship: Definitions, drivers and challenges. In: Volkmann

Tokarski

Ernst

(eds) Social Entrepreneurship and Social Business: An Introduction and Discussion with Case Studies. Wiesbaden, Germany: Springer Gabler, pp. 31–48.

44.

Kennedy

(2015) Grass-roots football, autonomous activity and the forging of new social relationships. Sport in Society 18(4): 497–513.

45.

Kenyon

Mason

Rookwood

(2018) Emerging third-sector sports organisations and navigating uncertainty in an ‘era of austerity’: A single ethnographic case study from Liverpool. International Journal of Sport Policy and Politics 10(1): 25–42.

46.

Kidd

(2008) A new social movement: Sport for development and peace. Sport in Society 11(4): 370–380.

47.

Kiernan

Porter

(2014) Little United and the big society: Negotiating the gaps between football, community and the politics of inclusion. Soccer and Society 16(6): 847–863.

48.

Levermore

(2008) Sport in international development: Time to treat it seriously? The Brown Journal of World Affairs 14(2): 55–66.

49.

Levermore

(2009) Sport-in-international development: Theoretical frameworks. In: Levermore

Beacom

(eds) Sport and International Development. London, UK: Palgrave Macmillan, pp. 26–54.

50.

Levermore

(2011) Evaluating sport-for-development: Approaches and critical issues. Progress in Development Studies 11(4): 339–353.

51.

Lindsey

(2017) Governance in sport-for-development: Problems and possibilities of (not) learning from international development. International Review for the Sociology of Sport 52(7): 801–818.

52.

Lindsey

Kay

Jeanes

Banda

(2017).Localizing GlobalSport for Development. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

53.

Lindsey

Darby

(2019) Sport and the sustainable development goals: Where is the policy coherence? International Review for the Sociology of Sport 54(7): 793–812. DOI: 10.1177/1012690217752651.

54.

Littlefield

Morduch

Hashemi

(2003) Is microfinance an effective strategy to reach the millennium development goals? Focus Note 24: 1–11.

55.

Littlewood

Holt

(2015) Social entrepreneurship in South Africa: Exploring the influence of environment. Business & Society 57: 525–561.

56.

Mair

Marti

(2004) Social entrepreneurship: What are we talking about? A framework for future research. IESE Research Papers D/546. New York, NY: IESE Business School.

57.

Malcolm

(2018) Learning from history and acting politically: The threats and opportunities facing the sociology of sport community. International Review for the Sociology of Sport 53(1): 3–10.

58.

Martin

Osberg

(2007) Social entrepreneurship: The case for a definition. Stanford Social Innovation Review 5(2): 28–39.

59.

Mathare Youth Sports Association ( 2018) Home. Available at: http://www.mysakenya.org/ (accessed 18 June 2018).

60.

McSweeney

Hayhurst

LMC

Kidd

(2018) Corporate social responsibility, sport and development. In: Li

Macintosh

Bravo

(eds) International Sport Management, 2nd ed. Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics.

61.

McWilliams

Siegel

(2000) Corporate social responsibility and financial performance: Correlation or misspecification? Strategic Management Journal 21: 603–609.

62.

Misener

(2017) Grey is the new black: Advancing understanding of new organisational forms and blurring sector boundaries in sport management. Journal of Sport Management 31(2): 125–132.

63.

Mori

Golesorkhi

Randøy

, et al. (2015) Board composition and outreach performance of microfinance institutions: Evidence from East Africa. Strategic Change 24(1): 99–113.

64.

Mueller

Nazarkina

Volkmann

, et al. (2011) Social entrepreneurship research as a means of transformation: A vision for the year 2028. Journal of Social Entrepreneurship 2(1): 112–120.

65.

Newey

(2018) ‘Changing the system’: Compensatory versus transformative social entrepreneurship. Journal of Social Entrepreneurship 9(1): 13–30.

66.

Nicholls

(2009) On the backs of peer educators: Using theory to interrogate the role of young people in the field of sport-in-development. In: Levermore

Beacom

(eds) Sport and International Development. London, UK: Palgrave MacMillan, pp. 156–175.

67.

Nicholls

Giles

Sethna

(2011) Perpetuating the ‘lack of evidence’ discourse in sport for development: Privileged voices, unheard stories and subjugated knowledge. International Review for the Sociology of Sport 46(3): 249–264.

68.

Ogbor

(2000) Mythicising and reification in entrepreneurial discourse: Ideology-critique of entrepreneurial studies. Journal of Management Studies 37(5): 605–635.

69.

Parnell

Millward

Widdop

, et al. (2018) Sport policy and politics in an era of austerity. International Journal of Sport Policy and Politics 10(1): 1–17.

70.

Peachey

Cohen

Shin

, et al. (2018) Challenges and strategies of building and sustaining inter-organisational partnerships in sport for development and peace. Sport Management Review 21(2): 160–175.

71.

Peredo

Chrisman

(2006) Toward a theory of community-based enterprise. Academy of Management Review 31(2): 309–328.

72.

Phillips

Lee

Ghobadian

, et al. (2015) Social innovation and social entrepreneurship: A systematic review. Group & Organisation Management 40(3): 428–461.

73.

Ratten

(2011) Sport-based entrepreneurship: Towards a new theory of entrepreneurship and sport management. International Entrepreneurship and Management Journal 7(1): 57–69.

74.

Ratten

Babiak

(2010) The role of social responsibility, philanthropy and entrepreneurship in the sport industry. Journal of Management & Organisation 16(4): 482–487.

75.

Ratten

Ferreira

(eds) (2017) Sport Entrepreneurship and Innovation. New York, NY: Routledge.

76.

Reid

(2017) A fairytale narrative for community sport? Exploring the politics of sport social enterprise. International Journal of Sport Policy and Politics 9(4): 597–611.

77.

Rivera-Santos

Holt

Littlewood

, et al. (2015) Social entrepreneurship in sub-Saharan Africa. The Academy of Management Perspectives 29(1): 72–91.

78.

Rossi

Jeanes

(2018) Is sport for development already an anachronism in the age of austerity or can it be a space of hope? International Journal of Sport Policy and Politics 10: 185–201.

79.

Sanders

Heys

Ravenscroft

, et al. (2014) Making a difference: The power of football in the community. Soccer and Society 15(3): 411–429.

80.

Schulenkorf

(2012) Sustainable community development through sport and events: A conceptual framework for sport-for-development projects. Sport Management Review 15(1): 1–12.

81.

Schulenkorf

Sherry

Rowe

(2016) Sport for development: An integrated literature review. Journal of Sport Management 30(1): 22–39.

82.

Seelos

Mair

(2005) Social entrepreneurship: Creating new business models to serve the poor. Business Horizons 48(3): 241–246.

83.

Seelos

Mair

(2007a) How social entrepreneurs enable human, social, and economic development. In: Rangan

Quelch

Herrero

, et al (eds) Business Solutions for the Global Poor: Creating Social and Economic Value. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass, pp. 271–294.

84.

Seelos

Mair

(2007b) Profitable business models and market creation in the context of deep poverty: A strategic view. The Academy of Management Perspectives 21(4): 49–63.

85.

Sherry

Strybosch

(2012) A kick in the right direction: Longitudinal outcomes of the Australian community street soccer programme. Soccer and Society 13(4): 495–509.

86.

Short

Moss

Lumpkin

(2009) Research in social entrepreneurship: Past contributions and future opportunities. Strategic Entrepreneurship Journal 3(2): 161–194.

87.

Silk

Andrews

(eds.) (2012) Sport and Neoliberalism: Politics, Consumption, and Culture. Philadelphia, PA: Temple University Press.

88.

Spaaij

(2009) Sport as a vehicle for social mobility and regulation of disadvantaged urban youth: Lessons from Rotterdam. International Review for the Sociology of Sport 44(2–3): 247–264.

89.

Spaaij

Jeanes

(2013) Education for social change? A Freirean critique of sport for development and peace. Physical Education and Sport Pedagogy 18(4): 442–457.

90.

Svensson

Hambrick

(2016) ‘Pick and choose our battles’ – Understanding organisational capacity in a sport for development and peace organisation. Sport Management Review 19(2): 120–132.

91.

Tapsell

Woods

(2010) Social entrepreneurship and innovation: Self-organisation in an indigenous context. Entrepreneurship and Regional Development 22(6): 535–556.

92.

Thompson

Doherty

(2006) The diverse world of social enterprise: A collection of social enterprise stories. International Journal of Social Economics 33(5–6): 361–375.

93.

Urban

Teise

(2015) Antecedents to social entrepreneurship intentions: An empirical study in South Africa. Management Dynamics: Journal of the Southern African Institute for Management Scientists 24(2): 36–52.

94.

Urry

(1981) Sociology as a parasite: Some vices and virtues. In: Abrams

(ed.) Practice and Progress: British Sociology, 1950–1980. London, UK: Allen & Unwin, pp. 25–38.

95.

Weerawardena

Mort

(2006) Investigating social entrepreneurship: A multidimensional model. Journal of World Business 41(1): 21–35.

96.

Westwood

(2006) International business and management studies as an orientalist discourse: A postcolonial critique. Critical Perspectives on International Business 2(2): 91–113.

97.

Wilson

Hayhurst

(2009) Digital activism: Neoliberalism, the Internet, and sport for youth development. Sociology of Sport Journal 26(1): 155–181.