0% found this document useful (0 votes)
7 views423 pages

Akoh_EI_2023

The document discusses the role of social entrepreneurship in promoting sustainable development in the townships of KwaZulu-Natal, South Africa. It identifies critical factors affecting social entrepreneurs and proposes a model to enhance their contributions amidst various challenges. The research highlights the importance of social entrepreneurs in addressing socio-economic issues and calls for increased support and understanding from government and policymakers.

Uploaded by

masona courage
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
0% found this document useful (0 votes)
7 views423 pages

Akoh_EI_2023

The document discusses the role of social entrepreneurship in promoting sustainable development in the townships of KwaZulu-Natal, South Africa. It identifies critical factors affecting social entrepreneurs and proposes a model to enhance their contributions amidst various challenges. The research highlights the importance of social entrepreneurs in addressing socio-economic issues and calls for increased support and understanding from government and policymakers.

Uploaded by

masona courage
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 423

SOCIAL ENTREPRENEURSHIP AS A TOOL FOR SUSTAINABLE

DEVELOPMENT IN THE TOWNSHIPS IN KWAZULU-NATAL PROVINCE

EMMANUEL INALEGWU AKOH

21856837

APRIL 2023
SOCIAL ENTREPRENEURSHIP AS A TOOL FOR SUSTAINABLE
DEVELOPMENT IN THE TOWNSHIPS IN KWAZULU-NATAL PROVINCE

Submitted in fulfilment of the requirements for the degree: Doctor of Philosophy


(Business Administration) in the Faculty of Management Sciences at the Durban
University of Technology

EMMANUEL INALEGWU AKOH

APRIL 2023

Promoter/Supervisor: 13/04/2023
_________________

Dr Lawrence Mpele Lekhanya Date

(PhD (UWC): Management; DTech (DUT): Marketing)

ii
DECLARATION

This work is entirely my own, independent research, except where otherwise


stated and where a citation is provided. I confirm this work has not been submitted
nor accepted for any degree at any other tertiary institution. All sources consulted
during the course of the research study have been fully acknowledged with
detailed references provided.

13/04/2023

_______________________ ______________________

Emmanuel Inalegwu Akoh Date

iii
ABSTRACT

Globally, social entrepreneurs have been identified as major contributors to


solving social problems such as unemployment, poverty and inequality. They can
also be considered a catalyst to economic transformation as a result of their
significant contribution to a country’s Gross Domestic product (GDP) and have
been identified as a crucial part of any country that aspires to achieve sustainable
development. In countries, such as the United Kingdom, United States, Canada,
France and Australia, growth in social value creation attributable to social
entrepreneurs has strengthened, indicating any predicated or identified economic,
social and environmental challenges may be mitigated or addressed by their
inputs. This indicates beyond reasonable doubt that social entrepreneurs have an
important role to play in any country and, it can also be argued, more especially
in developing countries such as South Africa. The ineffective use and low
contribution of this phenomenon to address the many socio-economic challenges
affecting South Africa have been a significant concern to the South African
government, academies, investors and policy makers, leading to a call for
additional support for social entrepreneurship emergence and growth in the
country. The National Development Plan (NDP) considers small businesses such
as social enterprises a key component of any inclusive growth strategies and
envisions by 2030, 90 percent of new jobs will be created by micro, small and
medium enterprises.

Research on factors affecting social entrepreneurs’ growth and their contribution


to sustainable development in the country has seen various extensive studies in
this field, nonetheless, a serious research gap remains regarding an in-depth
understanding of those characteristics and factors that critically influence social
entrepreneurship and improve their contribution to sustainable development.
Furthermore, theoretical models of these factors are lacking. The current study,

iv
therefore, covers a critical research area with the potential to improve the present
state of South African social entrepreneurship, with specific reference to social
entrepreneurship within the townships in KwaZulu-Natal (KZN).

The study aimed to identify the critical factors affecting social entrepreneurship as
a tool for sustainable development in the KZN townships and to propose a
prototype model to improve its effective contribution, since the contribution level
currently experienced in the social sector is poor, which is attributed to various
significant challenges faced by social entrepreneurs in South Africa. Research
was thus conducted in three townships within the KZN Province, employing a
quantitative research method, where the study population consisted of 90 social
entrepreneurs. A non-probability, convenience sampling technique was adopted,
while a closed-ended questionnaire was used to collect the primary data for the
study. Inferential and descriptive statistical analysis of the data was undertaken
using SPSS (version 27.0) software.

The findings of the study indicate several challenges severely affect social
entrepreneurs, who are constantly faced with significant barriers that affect their
performance, impacting on social entrepreneurs’ innovativeness and creativity
that could promote and improve their contribution to sustainable development.
The study identified environmental factors to have a significant impact on social
entrepreneurs’ contribution to sustainable development, while society’s
perception, social networking, social impact measurement and access to financial
resources were also identified as catalysts to social entrepreneurs’ performance.
Key insights are provided into both the theoretical and practical implications of
social entrepreneurs’ contribution to sustainable development. In addition, an
extensive range of recommendations is outlined and a theoretical framework
proposed for those factors that social entrepreneurs, government officials, and
policy makers can understand to help develop remedies for current challenges
affecting social entrepreneurs

v
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

There is a common phrase I have heard that goes along the lines of “It takes a
village to raise a child”. In a similar fashion, I know I would not have been able to
complete this process without “my village”. I would like to acknowledge the
support and assistance of all those that helped in the successful completion of
this study.

DUT, my gratitude for the opportunity to further my studies and the financial
support throughout the course of this research.

Special thanks to my supervisor, Dr Lawrence Mpele Lekhanya. Your dedication


and advice made this process worthwhile. You were not only my supervisor, but
you also became my friend.

I sincerely appreciate all the participants who gave their valuable time to complete
the questionnaires and provided insightful information. This study would not have
been achieved without your participation.

My wife, Eldinah Akoh, your prayers and unwavering optimism spurred me


throughout this academic journey. Thank you for believing in me, being patient
with me and treating this project as if it was your very own.

Lastly, my humble appreciation also goes to my family, in-laws, and friends for all
their support, encouragement, and prayers. We did it guys!

Romans 9:16 “So then it is not of him that willeth, nor of him that runneth, but of
God that showeth mercy”.

vi
TABLE OF CONTENTS

DECLARATION ............................................................................................... iii

ABSTRACT ..................................................................................................... iv

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS................................................................................ vi

TABLE OF CONTENTS ................................................................................. vii

LIST OF TABLES ........................................................................................ xviii

LIST OF FIGURES ....................................................................................... xxii

ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS ......................................................... xxvi

CHAPTER ONE .................................................................................................. 1

INTRODUCTION AND STUDY OVERVIEW ....................................................... 1

1.1 INTRODUCTION ................................................................................... 1

1.2 BACKGROUND OF THE STUDY .......................................................... 2

1.3 RESEARCH PROBLEM ........................................................................ 7

1.4 AIMS AND OBJECTIVES ...................................................................... 9

1.4.1 Primary and secondary objectives ...................................................... 9

1.4.2 Research Questions ......................................................................... 10

1.4.3 Hypotheses for this study .................................................................. 11

1.5 STUDY SIGNIFICANCE ...................................................................... 13

1.6 RESEARCH DESIGN .......................................................................... 15

1.6.1 Population/Target Population ............................................................ 15

1.6.2 Sample method and size .................................................................. 16

1.6.3 Data collection instrument................................................................. 18

1.7 ANALYSIS OF DATA ........................................................................... 18

vii
1.8 PILOT STUDY ..................................................................................... 18

1.9 VALIDITY ............................................................................................. 19

1.10 RELIABILITY .................................................................................... 19

1.11 ANONYMITY AND CONFIDENTIALITY ........................................... 20

1.12 ETHICAL CONSIDERATION ............................................................ 20

1.13 STUDY LIMITATION ........................................................................ 21

1.14 OUTLINE OF CHAPTERS................................................................ 21

1.15 CONCLUSION ...................................................................................... 23

CHAPTER TWO ............................................................................................... 24

LITERATURE REVIEW: AN OVERVIEW OF SOCIAL ENTREPRENEURSHIP


AND THEORETICAL BACKGROUND .............................................................. 24

2.1 INTRODUCTION ................................................................................. 24

2.2 A CONCEPTUAL VIEW OF SOCIAL ENTREPRENEURSHIP


IMPORTANCE .............................................................................................. 27

2.3 RELEVANT THEORIES CONSIDERED FOR THIS STUDY ............... 30

2.3.1 Social Enterprise Theory ................................................................... 30

2.3.2 Institutional Theory......................................................................... 31

2.3.3 Structuration Theory ...................................................................... 33

2.4 CHALLENGES OF SOCIAL ENTREPRENEURSHIP THEORY


DEVELOPMENT ........................................................................................... 34

2.5 CONCEPTUAL SOCIAL ENTERPRENEURSHIP MODEL AND ITS


CONTRIBUTION TO SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT................................ 35

2.6 FAST-TRACKING SOCIAL ENTERPRENEURS’ VALUE CREATION


FOR SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT ......................................................... 36

2.7 TWO IMPORTANT VIEWPOINTS FOR SOCIAL VALUE CREATION 38

viii
2.8 CATEGORIES OF DEFINITIONS ........................................................ 39

2.8.1 Social entrepreneurship .................................................................... 39

2.8.2 Social enterprise (SE) ....................................................................... 40

2.8.3 Social entrepreneur........................................................................... 42

2.8.4 Sustainable development .................................................................. 43

2.8.5 Townships ......................................................................................... 46

2.9 A DESCRIPTION OF THE INANDA, NTUZUMA AND KWAMASHU (INK)


AREA............................................................................................................. 48

2.10 SOCIAL ENTREPRENEURSHIP CONTRIBUTION TO THE SOUTH


AFRICAN ECONOMY ................................................................................... 50

2.11 SOCIAL ENTREPRENEURSHIP CONTRIBUTION TO THE


INTERNATIONAL ECONOMY ...................................................................... 51

2.12 UNDERSTANDING SOCIAL ENTREPRENEURSHIP AS A CONTEXT


PHENOMENON ............................................................................................ 53

2.13 SOCIAL ENTREPRENEURSHIP DEVELOPMENT IN A SOUTH


AFRICAN CONTEXT..................................................................................... 55

2.14 DIFFERENCE BETWEEN A SOCIAL ENTERPRISE AND A


COMMERCIAL ENTERPRISE ...................................................................... 58

2.15 SOCIAL ENTERPRISE TYPES AND LEGAL FORMS IN SA........... 60

2.15.1 Not-for-profit model ......................................................................... 60

2.15.2 For-profit models ............................................................................. 61

2.15.3 Hybrid model ................................................................................... 62

2.16 TOWNSHIP SOCIAL ENTREPRENEURSHIP ................................. 63

2.17 IMPORTANCE OF SOCIAL ENTERPRENEURSHIP TO SOUTH


AFRICAN TOWNSHIP ECONOMY ............................................................... 64

ix
2.18 THE SIGNIFICANCE OF SOCIAL ENTREPRENEURSHIP DURING
COVID-19 IN SA ........................................................................................... 66

2.19 CONCLUSION ...................................................................................... 68

CHAPTER THREE ............................................................................................ 69

SOCIAL ENTREPRENEURSHIP AND FACTORS AFFECTING ITS


SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT CONTRIBUTION ......................................... 69

3.1 INTRODUCTION ................................................................................. 69

3.2 IMPORTANCE OF SOCIAL NETWORKING ...................................... 71

3.2.1 Corporate Social Responsibility and Social Entrepreneurship .......... 74

3.2.2 Public Institutions and Social Entrepreneurship ................................ 76

3.3 IMPORTANCE OF SOCIETY’S PERCEPTION ................................... 77

3.4 ROLE OF RESOURCES ..................................................................... 78

3.4.1 Financial capital ................................................................................ 80

3.4.2 Human capital within the SE sector .................................................. 81

3.5 IMPORTANT CHARACTERISTICS ..................................................... 82

3.5.1 Educational level ............................................................................... 83

3.5.2 Age ................................................................................................... 84

3.5.3 Gender .............................................................................................. 86

3.6 SOCIAL IMPACT MEASUREMENT INFLUENCE ............................... 88

3.6.1 Benefits ............................................................................................. 91

3.6.2 Challenges ........................................................................................ 92

3.7 INTERNAL/EXTERNAL ENVIRONMENT AND SOCIAL


ENTREPRENEURSHIP CONTRIBUTION TO SUSTAINABLE
DEVELOPMENT ........................................................................................... 93

x
3.7.1 External factors ................................................................................. 96

3.7.2 Internal factors ................................................................................ 120

3.8 CONCLUSION ...................................................................................... 125

CHAPTER FOUR ............................................................................................ 126

RESEARCH METHODOLOGY ....................................................................... 126

4.1 INTRODUCTION ............................................................................... 126

4.2 RESEARCH DESIGN ........................................................................ 126

4.2.1 Research approach....................................................................... 127

4.3 RESEARCH METHOD ...................................................................... 128

4.3.1 Quantitative research ...................................................................... 129

4.4 POPULATION .................................................................................... 130

4.5 SAMPLING ........................................................................................ 130

4.6 DATA COLLECTION INSTRUMENTS............................................... 133

4.6.1 Questionnaire.................................................................................. 134

4.6.2 Design of the questionnaire ............................................................ 135

4.7 DISSEMINATION OF THE QUESTIONNAIRE .................................. 136

4.8 PILOT TESTING THE QUESTIONNAIRE ......................................... 137

4.9 DATA ANALYSIS ............................................................................... 138

4.9.1 Frequency analysis ......................................................................... 139

4.9.2 Descriptive Analysis ........................................................................ 139

4.9.3 Inferential statistics and Chi-square test ......................................... 139

4.9.4 Correlations .................................................................................... 140

4.9.5 Factor analysis ................................................................................ 140

4.10 RELIABILITY .................................................................................. 141

xi
4.11 VALIDITY........................................................................................ 143

4.12 ETHICAL CONSIDERATIONS ....................................................... 143

4.12.1 Anonymity and Confidentiality ....................................................... 145

4.13 CONCLUSION .................................................................................... 145

CHAPTER FIVE .............................................................................................. 146

DATA ANALYSIS, INTERPRETATION AND DISCUSSION ........................... 146

5.1 INTRODUCTION ............................................................................... 146

5.2 THE SAMPLE .................................................................................... 147

5.3 THE RESEARCH INSTRUMENT ...................................................... 147

5.4 RELIABILITY STATISTICS ................................................................ 148

5.5 FACTOR ANALYSIS .......................................................................... 148

5.5.1 KMO and Bartlett’s Test .................................................................. 149

5.6 BIOGRAPHICAL DATA ..................................................................... 150

5.6.1 Highest qualification ........................................................................ 150

5.6.2 Age group ....................................................................................... 151

5.6.3 Gender ............................................................................................ 152

5.6.4 Location of SE................................................................................. 153

5.6.5 Type of social enterprise ................................................................. 154

5.6.6 Type of ownership........................................................................... 155

5.6.7 Years of operation........................................................................... 157

5.6.8 Social entrepreneurs’ activities are influenced by age .................... 158

5.6.9 Social entrepreneurs’ activities are influenced by unemployment ... 160

5.6.10 Social entrepreneurs’ activities are influenced by gender ............. 162

xii
5.6.11 Social entrepreneurs’ activities involves more females than males
................................................................................................................. 163

5.6.12 Social entrepreneurs’ activities are influenced by level of education


................................................................................................................. 164

5.6.13 Social entrepreneurs’ activities are affected by society’s lack of


understanding of the role of social entrepreneurs .................................... 167

5.6.14 Social entrepreneurs’ activities are affected by society’s inadequate


information about their activities .............................................................. 169

5.6.15 Social entrepreneurs’ activities are influenced by society’s poor


awareness of their contributions .............................................................. 171

5.6.16 Social entrepreneurs’ activities are affected by inadequate


involvement of the society in their activities ............................................. 173

5.6.17 Social entrepreneurs’ activities are affected by lack of partnership with


other social entrepreneurs ....................................................................... 176

5.6.18 Social entrepreneurs’ activities are affected by lack of support and


partnership from corporate organisations ................................................ 177

5.6.19 Social entrepreneurs’ activities are affected by lack of support and


partnership from government ................................................................... 178

5.6.20 Social entrepreneurs’ activities are affected by the lack of use of


platforms for social networking ................................................................ 180

5.6.21 Lack of understanding of social impact measurement affects social


entrepreneur’s activities ........................................................................... 182

5.6.22 Social entrepreneurs’ activities are affected by lack of applying


appropriate social impact measurement methods/techniques ................. 184

5.6.23 Lack of social impact measurement affects social entrepreneurs’ from


identifying other opportunities to solve social problems ........................... 185

xiii
5.6.24 Lack of social impact measurement affects the willingness of investors
to invest in social entrepreneurs’ activities ............................................... 187

5.6.25 Lack of access to financial resources affects social entrepreneurs’


activities ................................................................................................... 189

5.6.26 Many social entrepreneurs depend on family and friends for finance to
survive ..................................................................................................... 191

5.6.27 Lengthy processes required by financial institutions to obtain financial


resources affect social entrepreneurs’ activities ...................................... 192

5.6.28 Social entrepreneurs’ activities are affected by lack of government


financial assistance .................................................................................. 194

5.6.29 Lack of management competence and skills affects social


entrepreneurs’ activities ........................................................................... 196

5.6.30 Lack of technical skills affects social entrepreneurs’ activities ...... 198

5.6.31 Lack of education and training development affects social


entrepreneurs’ activities ........................................................................... 199

5.6.32 Lack of marketing skills affects social entrepreneurs’ activities..... 201

5.6.33 Lack of adequate legal framework for social entrepreneurs in SA


affects their activities................................................................................ 203

5.6.34 Adequate government rules and regulations will improve social


entrepreneurs’ activities ........................................................................... 205

5.6.35 Increased government support will improve social entrepreneurs’


activities ................................................................................................... 206

5.6.36 Political instability affects social entrepreneurs’ activities ............. 208

5.6.37 Social entrepreneurs’ activities are affected by corruption ............ 209

5.6.38 Social entrepreneurs’ activities are affected by social factors ....... 210

5.6.39 High crime rate affects social entrepreneurs’ activities ................. 212

xiv
5.6.40 Lack of understanding of taxation for social enterprises affects their
activities ................................................................................................... 213

5.6.41 High interest rates affect social entrepreneurs’ activities .............. 215

5.6.42 Social entrepreneurs’ activities are affected by rapid technological


changes ................................................................................................... 216

5.6.43 Social entrepreneurs’ activities are affected by lack of government


support to technological changes ............................................................ 218

5.6.44 Social entrepreneurs’ activities are influenced by competition from


other businesses ...................................................................................... 219

5.6.45 Social entrepreneurs’ activities have been affected by the Covid-19


pandemic ................................................................................................. 221

5.6.46 Social entrepreneurs’ activities has been affected by lack of


government support from the effects of Covid-19 .................................... 222

5.7 DISCUSSION OF KEY FINGINGS IN LINE WITH THE LITERATURE


REVIEW AND RESEARCH OBJECTIVES OF THE STUDY ...................... 226

5.7.1 Key findings of Objective 1 ............................................................. 226

5.7.2 Key findings on Objective 2 ............................................................ 228

5.7.3 Key findings on Objective 3 ............................................................ 229

5.7.4 Key findings on Objective 4 ............................................................ 230

5.7.5 Key findings on Objective 5 ............................................................ 231

5.7.6 Key findings on Objective 6 ............................................................ 231

5.8 CONCLUSION ON RESEARCH HYPOTHESES .............................. 236

5.9 CONCLUSIONS ON THE VARIABLES MATCHED WITH THEORIES


238

5.10 CONCLUSION ................................................................................ 239

xv
CHAPTER SIX ................................................................................................ 242

CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ............................................... 242

6.1 INTRODUCTION ............................................................................... 242

6.2 SUMMARY OF KEY FINDINGS ........................................................ 242

6.3 CONCLUSIONS................................................................................. 246

6.3.1 Conclusions as to the research objectives ...................................... 246

6.4 IMPLICATIONS.................................................................................. 249

6.4.1 Implications of social entrepreneurship theory ................................ 249

6.4.2 Implications for social entrepreneurship practice ............................ 250

6.5 RECOMMENDATIONS BASED ON THE STUDY RESULTS............ 251

6.5.1 Theoretical framework formulated through variables identified from the


literature review ....................................................................................... 251

6.6 PROPOSED INTEGRATED CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK............. 253

6.7 RECOMMENDATIONS ...................................................................... 256

6.7.1 Society’s perception ........................................................................ 256

6.7.2 Social entrepreneurship policy re-evaluation .................................. 257

6.7.3 Education, training and skills development ..................................... 258

6.7.4 Technology changes adaption ........................................................ 259

6.8 LIMITATIONS OF THE STUDY ......................................................... 260

6.9 RECOMMENDATION FOR FURTHER RESEARCH ......................... 260

6.10 CONCLUDING REMARKS .................................................................. 262

REFERENCES ............................................................................................ 263

APPENDICES ............................................................................................. 334

APPENDIX 1: QUESTIONNAIRE ................................................................ 334

xvi
APPENDIX 2: ETHICAL CLEARANCE LETTER ......................................... 341

APPENDIX 3: GATEKEEPER’S LETTER ................................................... 342

APPENDIX 4: FREQUENCY TABLES ........................................................ 343

APPENDIX 5: DESCRIPTIVE STATISTICS ................................................ 355

APPENDIX 6: CORRELATION ANALYSIS ................................................. 357

APPENDIX 7: CHI SQUARE TEST ............................................................. 358

APPENDIX 8: RELIABILITY TEST .............................................................. 360

APPENDIX 9: FACTOR ANALYSIS ............................................................ 363

APPENDIX 10: BIVARIATE RESULTS OF HYPOTHESES ........................ 372

APPENDIX 11: TURNITIN REPORT ........................................................... 375

APPENDIX 12: EDITOR’S REPORT ........................................................... 396

xvii
LIST OF TABLES

Table 2.1: Key events in social entrepreneurship history in South Africa ..... 57
Table 5.1: Reliability Scores......................................................................... 148
Table 5.2: KMO and Bartlett’s Test ............................................................. 149
Table 5.3: Highest Qualification ................................................................... 150
Table 5.4: Age Group ................................................................................... 152
Table 5.5: Gender ........................................................................................ 153
Table 5.6: Location of Social Enterprise ...................................................... 154
Table 5.7: Type of Social Enterprise ............................................................ 155
Table 5.8: Type of Ownership ...................................................................... 156
Table 5.9: Years of Operation ...................................................................... 157
Table 5.10: Social entrepreneurs’ activities are influenced by age .............. 159
Table 5.11: Social entrepreneurs’ activities are influenced by
unemployment .......................................................................... 160
Table 5.12: Social entrepreneurs’ activities are influenced by gender ......... 161
Table 5.13: Social entrepreneurs’ activities involves more females
than males ................................................................................ 163
Table 5.14: Social entrepreneurs’ activities are influenced by level
of education .............................................................................. 165
Table 5.15: Component Matrix: The characteristics of social entrepreneurs
in the KZN townships ................................................................ 166
Table 5.16: Social entrepreneurs’ activities are affected by society’s lack of
understanding of the role of social entrepreneurs ..................... 168
Table 5.17: Social entrepreneurs’ activities are affected by society’s
inadequate information about their activities ............................. 169
Table 5.18: Social entrepreneurs’ activities are influenced by society’s poor
awareness of their contributions ............................................... 171
Table 5.19: Social entrepreneurs’ activities are affected by inadequate

xviii
involvement of the society in their activities .............................. 173
Table 5.20: Component matrix of society’s perception of social
entrepreneurship in KZN townships .......................................... 174
Table 5.21: Social entrepreneurs’ activities are affected by lack of
partnership with other social entrepreneurs .............................. 176
Table 5.22: Social entrepreneurs’ activities are affected by lack of support
and partnership from corporate organisations........................... 177
Table 5.23: Social entrepreneurs’ activities are affected by lack of support
and partnership from government ............................................. 178
Table 5.24: Social entrepreneurs’ activities are affected by the lack of use
of platforms for social networking.............................................. 180
Table 5.25: Component Matrix: Social networking as it relates to social
entrepreneurs in the KZN townships ......................................... 181
Table 5.26: Lack of understanding of social impact measurement affects
social entrepreneur’s activities .................................................. 183
Table 5.27: Social entrepreneurs’ activities are affected by lack of applying
appropriate social impact measurement methods/techniques .. 184
Table 5.28: Lack of social impact measurement affects social entrepreneurs’
from identifying other opportunities to solve social problems .... 185
Table 5.29: Lack of social impact measurement affects the willingness of
investors to invest in social entrepreneurs’ activities ................. 187
Table 5.30: Component Matrix: Social impact measurement as it affects
social entrepreneurs’ activities in KZN townships ..................... 188
Table 5.31: Lack of access to financial resources affects social
entrepreneurs’ activities ............................................................ 190
Table 5.32: Many social entrepreneurs depend on family and friends for
finance in order to survive ......................................................... 191
Table 5.33: Lengthy processes required by financial institutions to obtain
financial resources affects social entrepreneurs’ activities. ....... 193

xix
Table 5.34: Social entrepreneurs’ activities are affected by lack of
government financial assistance ............................................... 194
Table 5.35: Component Matrix: The effects of financial resources on social
entrepreneurs’ activities ............................................................ 195
Table 5.36: Lack of management competence and skills affects social
entrepreneurs’ activities ............................................................ 196
Table 5.37: Lack of technical skills affects social entrepreneurs’ activities .. 198
Table 5.38: Lack of education and training development affects social
entrepreneurs’ activities ............................................................ 199
Table 5.39: Lack of marketing skills affects social entrepreneurs’ activities . 201
Table 5.40: Component Matrix: Internal environmental factors that affects
social entrepreneur’s contribution to sustainable development
in KZN townships ...................................................................... 202
Table 5.41: Lack of adequate legal framework for social entrepreneurs in
South Africa is affecting their activities ...................................... 204
Table 5.42: Adequate government rules and regulations will improve social
entrepreneurs’ activities ............................................................ 205
Table 5.43: Increased government support will improve social entrepreneurs’
activities .................................................................................... 206
Table 5.44: Political instability affects social entrepreneurs’ activities .......... 208
Table 5.45: Social entrepreneurs’ activities are affected by corruption ........ 209
Table 5.46: Social entrepreneurs’ activities are affected by social factors ... 211
Table 5.47: High crime rate affects social entrepreneurs’ activities ............. 212
Table 5.48: Lack of understanding of taxation for social entrepreneurs
affects their activities ................................................................. 213
Table 5.49: High interest rates affects social entrepreneurs’ activities ......... 215
Table 5.50: Social entrepreneurs’ activities are affected by rapid
technological changes .............................................................. 216
Table 5.51: Social entrepreneurs’ activities are affected by lack of

xx
government support to technological changes ......................... 218
Table 5.52: Social entrepreneurs’ activities are influenced by competition
from other businesses .............................................................. 219
Table 5.53: Social entrepreneurs’ activities have been affected by the
Covid-19 pandemic .................................................................. 221
Table 5.54: Social entrepreneurs’ activities have been affected by lack of
government support from the effects of Covid-19 .................... 222
Table 5.55: Component Matrix: External environmental factors that affect
social entrepreneurship as a tool for sustainable development
in KZN townships ..................................................................... 224

xxi
LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1.1: Characteristics of the proposed model ....................................... 13


Figure 2.1: Conceptual social entrepreneurship model and its contribution
to sustainable development ...................................................... 35
Figure 2.2: Fast-tracking Social entrepreneurs’ value creation for
sustainable development .......................................................... 36
Figure 2.3: INK area map……………………………………………………….. 48
Figure 2.4: Social enterprise spectrum ........................................................ 63
Figure 3.1: Social networks and sustainable development…………………...73
Figure 5.1: Highest Qualification .................................................................. 151
Figure 5.2: Age Group ................................................................................. 152
Figure 5.3: Gender ....................................................................................... 153
Figure 5.4: Location of Social enterprise ...................................................... 154
Figure 5.5: Type of Social enterprise ........................................................... 155
Figure 5.6: Type of ownership...................................................................... 156
Figure 5.7: Years of operation...................................................................... 157
Figure 5.8: Social entrepreneurs’ activities are influenced by age ............... 159
Figure 5.9: Social entrepreneurs’ activities are influenced by
unemployment .......................................................................... 161
Figure 5.10: Social entrepreneurs’ activities are influenced by gender ........ 162
Figure 5.11: Social entrepreneurs’ activities involves more females
than males ................................................................................ 164
Figure 5.12: Social entrepreneurs’ activities are influenced by level
of education .............................................................................. 165
Figure 5.13: Social entrepreneurs’ activities are affected by society’s
lack of understanding of the role of social entrepreneurs .......... 168
Figure 5.14: Social entrepreneurs’ activities are affected by society’s
inadequate information about their activities ............................. 170

xxii
Figure 5.15: Social entrepreneurs’ activities are influenced by society’s
poor awareness of their contribution ......................................... 172
Figure 5.16: Social entrepreneurs’ activities are affected by inadequate
involvement of the society in their activities .............................. 173
Figure 5.17: Social entrepreneurs’ activities are affected by lack of
partnership with other social entrepreneurs .............................. 176
Figure 5.18: Social entrepreneurs’ activities are affected by lack of support
and partnership from corporate organisations........................... 177
Figure 5.19: Social entrepreneurs’ activities are affected by lack of support
and partnership from government ............................................. 179
Figure 5.20: Social entrepreneurs’ activities are affected by the lack of
use of platforms for social networking ....................................... 180
Figure 5.21: Lack of understanding of social impact measurement affects
social entrepreneur’s activities .................................................. 183
Figure 5.22: Social entrepreneurs’ activities are affected by lack of applying
appropriate social impact measurement methods/techniques .. 184
Figure 5.23: Lack of social impact measurement affects social entrepreneurs’
from identifying other opportunities to solve social problems .... 186
Figure 5.24: Lack of social impact measurement affects the willingness
of investors to invest in social entrepreneurs’ activities ............. 187
Figure 5.25: Lack of access to financial resources affects social
entrepreneurs’ activities ............................................................ 190
Figure 5.26: Many social entrepreneurs depend on family and friends for
finance in order to survive ......................................................... 191
Figure 5.27: Lengthy processes required by financial institutions to obtain
financial resources affect social entrepreneurs’ activities ........ 193
Figure 5.28: Social entrepreneurs’ activities are affected by lack of
government’s financial assistance ............................................ 194
Figure 5.29: Lack of management competence and skills affects

xxiii
social entrepreneurs’ activities .................................................. 197
Figure 5.30: Lack of technical skills affects social entrepreneurs’ activities . 198
Figure 5.31: Lack of education and training development affects social
entrepreneurs’ activities ............................................................ 200
Figure 5.32: Lack of marketing skills affects social entrepreneurs’
activities .................................................................................... 201
Figure 5.33: Lack of adequate legal framework for social entrepreneurs in
South Africa is affecting their activities ...................................... 204
Figure 5.34: Adequate government rules and regulations will improve
social entrepreneurs’ activities .................................................. 205
Figure 5.35: Increased government support will improve social
entrepreneurs’ activities ............................................................ 206
Figure 5.36: Political instability affects social entrepreneurs’ activities ........ 207
Figure 5.37: Social entrepreneurs’ activities are affected by corruption ....... 208
Figure 5.38: Social entrepreneurs’ activities are affected by social factors .. 211
Figure 5.39: High crime rate affects social entrepreneurs’ activities ............ 212
Figure 5.40: Lack of understanding of taxation for social enterprises affects
their activities ............................................................................ 213
Figure 5.41: High interest rates affect social entrepreneurs’ activities ......... 215
Figure 5.42: Social entrepreneurs’ activities are affected by rapid
technological changes .............................................................. 217
Figure 5.43: Social entrepreneurs’ activities are affected by lack of
government support to technological changes .......................... 218
Figure 5.44: Social entrepreneurs’ activities are influenced by competition
from other businesses ............................................................... 220
Figure 5.45: Social entrepreneurs’ activities have been affected by the
Covid-19 pandemic ................................................................... 221
Figure 5.46: Social entrepreneurs’ activities have been affected by lack of
government support from the effects of Covid-19 ..................... 223

xxiv
Figure 6.1: Conceptual framework based on literature review ..................... 252
Figure 6.2: Proposed integrated conceptual framework ............................... 253

xxv
ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS

ASEN African Social Entrepreneurs Network


BEIS Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy
COFTA Cooperation of Fair Trade in Africa
COGTA Department of Co-operative Governance and Traditional Affairs
CSESE Centre for Social Entrepreneurship and the Social Economy;
CSR Corporate Social Responsibility
DCMS Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport
DPLG Department of Provincial and Local Government
DTI Department of Trade and Industry
FDI Foreign Direct Investment
GDP Gross Domestic Product
GEAR Growth, Employment and Redistribution
GEM Global Entrepreneurship Monitor
GIBS Gordon Institute of Business Science
ILO International Labour Organization
IO International Organisation
JPOI Johannesburg Plan of Implementation
KMO Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin
KZN KwaZulu Natal
MDGs Millennium Development Goals
NGO Non-governmental Organization
NDP National Development Plan
NPO Non-Profit Organization
OECD Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development
RDP Reconstruction and Development Programme
SA South Africa
SASIX South African Social Investment Exchange

xxvi
SDGs Sustainable Development Goals
SE Social enterprise
SECP Social Entrepreneurship Certificate Programme
SPSS Statistical package for Social Sciences
SSA Sub-Saharan Africa
UK United Kingdom
USA United States of America

xxvii
CHAPTER ONE
INTRODUCTION AND STUDY OVERVIEW

1.1 INTRODUCTION
The focus of this research is on social entrepreneurship as a tool for sustainable
development in townships in the Kwazulu-Natal (KZN) province of South Africa
(SA). It seeks to identify the critical factors affecting social entrepreneurs’
contribution to the sustainable development of township communities in KZN, and
proposes a prototype model that could be used to improve the contribution of
social entrepreneurs in sustainable township development. In SA, the majority of
work considered as social entrepreneurship today emanated from numerous Non-
Governmental Organisation (NGOs) established in the 15-year period preceding
1994, where courageous individuals who decided to assist disadvantaged and
disenfranchised communities as a primary objective, thus substituting and
relegating their own personal agendas in the pursuit of social goals (Visser 2011:
234). The social enterprise (SE) sector consists of numerous entities – from
individuals to national organisations, working tirelessly to employ hundreds of
people, improve literacy, numeracy, and skills, as well as health and living
conditions (GIBS 2018: 6). However, despite the importance of this sector to the
future development of communities such as townships in SA, little is known about
the sector (Littlewood and Holt 2018: 526), and, as such, understanding the
current situation will create the platform to develop strategies enabling improved
social entrepreneurship use as a tool in the sustainable development of
townships.

SA is faced with numerous sustainable development challenges, which include a


high level of unemployment; low national level of skill and education; high
prevalence of HIV/AIDs; and high crime rates; as well as lack of basic amenities

1
– such as water and electricity; and is also still considered as one of the most
unequal countries in the world – with a 63.4 score in the Gini index (Littlewood
and Holt 2018: 526). The limits in capacity of the South African government to
address these societal challenges, as well as the limited efforts by businesses as
part of their Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR), has created a void (Littlewood
and Holt 2018: 526). Social entrepreneurship can be used to fill that void, when
the factors that hinder their contributions to sustainable development are properly
understood and addressed, particularly in the KZN townships.

1.2 BACKGROUND OF THE STUDY


In SA and many other developing countries in Africa, where overwhelming socio-
economic problems have deprived these countries of growth and sustainable
development. The governments of some of these countries have developed and
designed different measures to improve the social well-being of their people
(Bartniczak and Raszkowski 2018: 2). For example, in SA, the government has
developed several measures and policies to reduce the level of poverty,
unemployment and other socio-economic problems among the people, such as
the Reconstruction and Development Programme (RDP); the Growth,
Employment and Redistribution (GEAR), and the National Development Plan
(NDP) (Lewis 2001; DTI 2018: 1). However, years after post-apartheid era, these
measures and policies have not achieved their desired goal of enhancing the
quality of livelihood of South Africans. According to a concept note by the
Department of Trade and Industry (DTI) (2018: 1), “the poorest 20 percent of
South African population consumes less than 3 percent of total expenditure, while
the wealthiest 20 percent consumes 65 percent”. Unemployment increased to a
record 34.5 percent as at the first quarter of 2022, or 45.5 percent when expanding
the definition to include those who have given up seeking jobs (StatsSA, 2022).
In addition, despite the national poverty level declining, it remains relatively high,
with roughly 31 percent of the South African population living below the poverty
line (Littlewood and Holt 2018: 526).

2
According to a study by the Gordon Institute of Business Science (GIBS) (2018:
10), the growth rate of SA’s Gross Domestic Product (GDP) in 2016 dropped from
1.3 percent in the previous year, to 0.4 percent, making it the third consecutive
year the country experienced negative per-capita growth and stagnating poverty.
The report also states the South African growth forecast was downgraded by the
World Bank to 0.6 percent in 2017, because it believed a second quarter recovery
from recession would not be enough to guarantee GDP growth in 2017, with GDP
expected to only rise to 1.1 percent in 2018 and 1.7 percent in 2019, which are
relatively low compared to countries such as China, with GDP still hovering
around seven percent.

The SA government’s inability to effectively deal with diverse and escalating social
and economic problems in the country demands new approaches to assure
acceptable service delivery and the creation of more sustainable systems in
communities such as townships. Some researchers have identified the complete
reliance on government to provide the people with most services as a challenge
that hinders growth in communities such as townships (Steinerowski and
Steinerowska-Streb, 2012: 168; Moses and Olokundun 2014: 159; Olutuyi 2016;
Sroka & Meyer, 2021). More people should, therefore, become involved in the
upliftment of their community through development, as well as service delivery, to
facilitate their communities’ sustainability (Moses and Olokundun 2014: 159;
Olutuyi 2016; Littlewood and Holt 2018: 526; Sroka & Meyer, 2021).

In SA, the term “township” refers to the underdeveloped urban living areas that
started in the early 19th century, which the Department of Co-operative
Governance and Traditional Affairs (COGTA) (2009: 5-6) outlines were a result of
the Group Areas Act of 1950, whereby non-whites (Africans, Coloured and
Indians) were removed from suburbs designated for ‘whites only’ during the
apartheid period. However, the Department of Provincial and Local Government
(DPLG) highlighted that these areas serve as the source of most capital formation

3
and is an important market for local manufacturers in terms of labour force and
raw materials (DPLG 2006).

According to Manyaka-Boshielo (2017: 3), townships are usually saturated by


informal settlements and, in general, these areas commonly lack adequate
infrastructure and basic amenities, which means most people living in these areas
need to travel outside their residential areas to find jobs. It is estimated that, as at
2005, approximately 4.6 million households were living in townships across SA,
which at that time represented approximately 36 percent of the total population of
the country, making it critical to focus on these areas to improve and address their
needs (COGTA 2009: 8).

Manyaka-Boshielo (2017: 3), furthermore, identifies the lack of the apartheid


government to provide entertainment areas for the development of children in the
townships, as an outlet for their energy, resulted in them being depressed and, as
such, they engage in socially unproductive activities that ensue in social
problems, such as the high levels of crime, teenage pregnancies, dropping out of
school and substance abuse. The ability to creatively develop innovative and
strategic ways of providing social services and solving social problems in
communities such as townships has been emphasised through the concept of
social entrepreneurship (Steinerowski and Steinerowska-Streb 2012: 168;
Littlewood and Holt 2018: 526).

In most countries of the world, the use of social entrepreneurship is becoming


more popular as a tool to create sustainable development (Seelos and Mair 2004:
1). Although, the success in using social entrepreneurship in developed countries
to ensure sustainable development is argued as an inadequate solution to solve
problems of a socio-economic nature in developing countries such as SA, unless
the factors that could hinder its contribution are understood (Moses and
Olokundun 2014: 159; Razavi et al. 2014: 1; Littlewood and Holt 2018: 526).

4
As with many countries around the world, SA remains steadfast in its commitment
to the sustainable development concept. The Department of Environmental
Affairs and Tourism (DEAT) (2008) reported that one of the greatest challenges
SA agreed to, in September 2002 in Johannesburg, at the World Summit on
Sustainable Development (WSSD), was dealing with poverty, which resulted in
an agreed, negotiated outcome, known as the Johannesburg Plan of
Implementation (JPOI). With 37 targets through which sustainable development
would be achieved, incorporating the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs), the
JPOI defined part of their commitment to national strategy preparation and
implementation that will lead to sustainable development (DEAT 2008).
Nonetheless, no clear and all-embracing national strategy exists in SA,
notwithstanding the numerous sustainable development considerations,
strategies and programmes, for sustainable development (DEAT 2008).

Montmasson-Clair (2017) agrees and highlights this in a critical review on


Governance with regard to the Sustainability Transition in SA, which argues that
even though the country’s vision to 2030 is clearly defined by the NDP, where the
transition to sustainable development is concerned, strategic and coherent
planning are lacking, without sufficient roadmaps that outline the needed steps in
the medium to long-term, and the subsequent, final state of society and the
economy. To deal with this void, the National Framework for Sustainable
Development (NFSD) was established, which according to the DEAT (2008),
would serve as a foundation in which to embed a national strategy and action
plan. The purpose of the NFSD is, furthermore, to formulate the national vision,
principles and areas in the country’s path of sustainable development, in addition
to identifying fundamental challenges in the short, medium and long-term that
have need of strategic intervention that will guide and facilitate the national
strategy and action plan development towards a direction that is more sustainable
(DEAT 2008).

5
Haywood et al. (2018: 555), are of the opinion the agenda of the new sustainable
development cannot be achieved by itself, since its scope is broader, larger and
more ambitious than what is expected from the MDGs. This means effective
partnerships are “required within countries; across all sectors, disciplines,
government agencies and global partnerships across nations”. As Haywood et al.
(2018: 555) point out, as SA implements the SDGs, there is a need to strengthen
effective partnerships relating to current regional and national strategic plans,
namely SA’s National Development Plan (NDP) along with the African Union’s
Agenda 2063. To identify and prioritise the developmental objectives of SA, the
country has in recent years made an effort to align its NDP and SDGs; and most
significantly, to emphasise the necessity of multi-stakeholder partnerships to
ensure development objective attainment (Haywood et al. 2018: 555).

However, Fourie (2018: 765) asserts that SA, similar to many other developed
and developing countries, is challenged by the alignment of national policies with
global development goals that have been expanded, “especially with regards to
the SDGs’ integrated nature and its related challenges, such as measuring,
monitoring and communicating processes”. Fourie (2018: 766) adds that SA will
face two obstacles in positioning its domestic development plan in accordance
with the SDGs: The author states the first as the “political challenge of
superimposing the adopted 2030 SDGs agenda onto an already developed local
plan that cannot easily be changed without causing serious damage to its
legitimacy”. The second obstacle is that the SDGs “do not and cannot address
national development challenges” specific to SA, because the development plan
is clearly and plausibly created to address apartheid era injustices.

Fourie (2018: 769) suggested an important way these obstacles could be


overcome, is the use of “existing institutional structures and processes –
organizing existing structures to be more efficient and improving policy coherence
by government actors and all other stakeholders”. Where the multi-stakeholder

6
partnership is concerned SEs can, therefore, comprise a crucial part, as they
contribute ways to address social issues that are both creative and innovative and
will assist SA in attaining its NDP and SDGs.

Based on the above context, social entrepreneurship in South African townships


needs to grow and a platform created where more individuals/organisations can
participate and use their innovative and creative ideas to solve some of the social
issues in the townships. This study will examine and investigate those factors that
impact the use of social entrepreneurship as a tool to sustainably develop
townships in the KZN province and propose the adoption of a model to improve
social entrepreneurship in KZN’s townships.

1.3 RESEARCH PROBLEM


Social entrepreneurship can ensure an important and significant contribution to
sustainable development by developing innovative solutions to difficult, complex
and persistent problems that affect townships in the KZN province. However,
despite the important contributions this phenomenon can provide, social
entrepreneurship in communities such as townships has not been greatly
researched (Razavi et al. 2014: 1; Steinerowski and Steinerowska-Streb 2012:
168; Littlewood and Holt 2018: 526; Sroka & Meyer, 2021). Most literature tends
to focus on organisations engaging in charitable and volunteer activities that help
to provide health care, education and food. Although these gestures are critical, it
is obvious the activities from government and charitable organisations alone may
not be adequate to solve the various problems affecting sustainable development
in the KZN townships.

In addition, Bansal, Garg, and Sharma (2019: 1) suggest the main sustainable
development signs or characteristics are based on the amount of social value
each social entrepreneur can create and, as such, social entrepreneurship
promotion is imperative to create these social values. However, most of this
literature emphasises social entrepreneurship’s relevance to sustainable

7
development; however, few highlight the factors that could affect their operation.
Failure to understand the significant influence the factors within an environment
have on social entrepreneurship is considered one of the reasons they might not
be operating at maximum capacity to create adequate social value in a country
such as SA and specifically in communities such as townships (Littlewood and
Holt 2018: 527; Ngatse-Ipangui and Dassah 2019: 2; Rivera-Santos et al, 2015:
1; Sroka & Meyer, 2021).

Problems in the external environment include a lack of public support, political


instability, as well as access to public infrastructure, capital, and technology, while
those in the internal environment range from size and age of the firm, training and
development, level of education, and skills, to experience and management
training. These are some of the challenges facing social entrepreneurs in SA
(Maphalla, Nieuwenhuizen and Roberts 2009: 5; Fernández-Laviada, López-
Gutiérrez, and Pérez. 2020: 12; ILO 2013; GIBS 2018: 20). Thus, social
entrepreneurs often cannot adequately identify opportunities to create social
value to improve their impact in communities (Manyaka-Boshielo 2017: 9;
Ngatse-Ipanqui and Dassah 2019: 7; Seda and Ismail 2019), which further
negatively affects their contribution to sustainable development in SA (Mair and
Marti, 2006: 36; Seelos and Mair 2004: 3).

A study by Rivera-Santos et al. (2015: 3) states the effectiveness of government


actions, quality of infrastructure, formal or informal institutions, cultural
preferences for individuals or collective actions, and the extent to which
compassion can be transformed into social entrepreneurial initiative, are
important factors within a specific environment that could impact the activities of
social entrepreneurs. However, broad details regarding the various factors
identified by the study of Rivera-Santos et al. (2015) were not provided therefore,
it was not known which of these could affect the contributions of social
entrepreneurship to sustainable development in townships, specifically in the KZN

8
province. According to Razavi et al. (2014: 2), management skills (expert
knowledge and motivation) are critical factors in ensuring SEs create social values
that will impact their communities. However, it is important to investigate whether
these factors highlighted by Razavi et al. (2014) are applicable in the KZN
township context.

Furthermore, there have been several attempts by different scholars to develop


and identify the nature and structure that make up a SE and distinguish the
concept from traditional business entrepreneurial enterprise. Visser (2011: 234)
is of the opinion and highlights that even though there are many traits and
behaviours common between a SE and a business enterprise, one central
characteristic that provides a clear vision to a SE is that it aims to add value and
improve the quality of life of the less-privileged sectors of the economy. Therefore,
it is important to identify the characteristics of SEs in the townships of KZN and
how these affect their contribution to sustainable development in the townships.
Overall, according to Littlewood and Holt (2018) and Seelos and Mair (2005),
social entrepreneurs in SA are facing various challenges, including critical factors
within the environment. The main problem this study intends to investigate is,
therefore, a lack of understanding of these factors, with significant tests provided
that will affect the social entrepreneurship contributions to sustainable
development in KZN townships.

1.4 AIMS AND OBJECTIVES


1.4.1 Primary and secondary objectives
The overall study aim is to investigate critical factors that impact the use of social
entrepreneurship as a tool with which to sustainably develop the KZN province
townships; and propose a prototype model to be used for improving the social
entrepreneurship level in KZN townships.

For this aim to be achieved, the secondary objectives outlined below will be
addressed:

9
Sub-objective 1: To ascertain the characteristics of social entrepreneurs that
influence their contribution to sustainable development in the townships in KZN.

Sub- objective 2: To investigate society’s perception of social entrepreneurship


as it affects its contribution as a tool for sustainable development in the townships
in KZN.

Sub-objective 3: To examine the impact of social networking on the contribution


of social entrepreneurship as a tool for sustainable development in the townships
in KZN.

Sub-objective 4: To explore the effect of social impact measurement on the


contribution of social entrepreneurship as a tool for sustainable development in
the townships in KZN.

Sub-objective 5: To investigate the impact of financial resources on the


contribution of social entrepreneurship as a tool for sustainable development in
the townships in KZN.

Sub-objective 6: To identify the environmental factors that affect using social


entrepreneurship as a tool to achieve sustainable township development in KZN.

1.4.2 Research Questions


This study thus attempts to find answers to the following critical questions listed
below:

Question 1. What are the characteristics of social entrepreneurs that influences


their contribution to sustainable development in the townships in KZN?

Question 2. Does society’s perception of social entrepreneurship affect its


contribution to sustainable development in the townships in KZN?

Question 3. What is the impact of social networking on social entrepreneurship as


a tool for sustainable development in the townships in KZN?

10
Question 4. What is the effect of social impact measurement on social
entrepreneurship as a tool for sustainable development in the townships in KZN?

Question 5. What is the impact of financial resources on social entrepreneurship


as a tool for townships sustainable development in KZN?

Question 6. Which environmental factors (Internal and external) impact social


entrepreneurship as a tool for sustainable development in the townships in KZN?

1.4.3 Hypotheses for this study


The main study hypotheses are as follows:

Ho1: There is no relationship between society’s perception and social networking


and social entrepreneurship contribution to sustainable development in the
townships in KZN.

Ha1: There is a relationship between society’s perception and social networking


and social entrepreneurship contribution to sustainable development in the
townships in KZN.

Ho2: There is no relationship between social networking and social impact


measurement and social entrepreneurship contribution to sustainable
development in the townships in KZN.

Ha2: There is a relationship between social networking and social impact


measurement and social entrepreneurship contribution to sustainable
development in the townships in KZN.

Ho3: No relationship exists between social networking and internal environment


and social entrepreneurship contribution to sustainable development in the
townships in KZN.

11
Ha3: There is a relationship between social networking and internal environment
and social entrepreneurship contribution to sustainable development in the
townships in KZN.

Ho4: There is no relationship between social impact measurement and internal


environment and social entrepreneurship contribution to sustainable development
in KZN townships.

Ha4: There is a relationship between social impact measurement and internal


environment and social entrepreneurship contribution to sustainable development
in KZN townships.

Ho5: No relationship exists between financial resources and external environment


and social entrepreneurship contribution to sustainable development in KZN
townships.

Ha5: A relationship does exist between financial resources and external


environment and social entrepreneurship contribution to sustainable development
in KZN townships.

Ho6: There is no relationship between external environment and social impact


measurement and social entrepreneurship contribution to sustainable
development in KZN townships.

Ha6: There is a relationship between external environment and social impact


measurement and social entrepreneurship contribution to sustainable
development in KZN townships.

Figure 1.1 below reflects the variables for the proposed framework of the study.

12
Figure 1.1: Characteristics of the proposed model

Source: Developed by researcher from the literature review

1.5 STUDY SIGNIFICANCE


This study was conducted to add to the existing body of knowledge with regard to
those factors that impact social entrepreneurship as a sustainable development
tool, specifically concerning KZN townships and to develop an integrated model
that can be used to grow and improve social entrepreneurship in the townships.
Most of the work on social entrepreneurship as a sustainable development tool
focused on the challenges, without suggesting a model that can be applied in
improving the use of social entrepreneurship as a tool for sustainable
development, particularly in KZN townships.

In addition, this study seeks to provide clear insights into those critical factors that
could hinder social innovation and the creation of social value, which also affects
social entrepreneurs’ survival within a challenging and dynamic environment such
as the townships in KZN. This study will also contribute to the success stories of

13
social entrepreneurship by providing a theoretical antecedent that will create the
platform for better understanding of this phenomenon in the KZN township
context. There have been several studies conducted on how the environment can
affect social entrepreneurship (for example Littlewood and Holt 2018; Bacq and
Janssen 2011; Seelos and Mair 2005; Fernández-Laviada et al. 2020). However,
no work has been done specifically on social entrepreneurship and its link to
sustainable development in the townships in KZN. This study further intends to
determine and understand social entrepreneurship characteristics in KZN
townships.

Not only will this study be relevant academically and educationally, it may also
have an impact on the setting-up and running of social entrepreneurship in
communities in many countries with similar characteristics as townships in SA.
Owners and managers of such organisations can find this study useful in
understanding many issues that will help them to maximise the effectiveness of
their operations and activities, which will enable them to successfully contribute
to sustainable development in their respective countries. In SA, the level of
participation in social entrepreneurship remains very low compared to other
countries around the world (GEM 2019). Most people are being forced to avoid
participation because of the various challenges and barriers they envisage.
Therefore, this study intends to provide individuals and organisations with the
relevant understanding to overcome these barriers and thus increase their
participation in social entrepreneurship, which can, in turn, lead to sustainable
development in the townships in KZN. Furthermore, this study can provide local
and provincial government with a roadmap that to address most social issues in
the communities and can also help create a conducive environment for social
entrepreneurship to grow and thrive.

14
1.6 RESEARCH DESIGN
The design of a research study is described as the “plan or structure that holds all
the element in a proposed research work together” in a manner that ensures
relevant information required to address a research problem is obtained (Akthar
2016: 68). The approach adopted for this study was quantitative, using a closed-
ended questionnaire. This type of method is adequate and enables the researcher
to obtain detailed, relevant quantitative data for the purpose of acquiring an in-
depth comprehension of the critical factors that impact social entrepreneurship as
a sustainable development tool in the KZN townships (Stochemer 2019). Data
were collected from selected social entrepreneurs operating in the townships in
KZN.

1.6.1 Population/Target Population


According to Stochemer (2019), the entire group of subjects a researcher selects
a sample and wants information from, is called the population. However, SEs are
an emerging venture in SA and as such there is lack of specific regulatory
framework for SEs as a sector or subsector (GIBS 2018: 6; Kajiita and Kang’ethe
2020: 97; Dzomonda 2021: 3). Hence, their population is unknown and as such
there is no specific database for social entrepreneurs in SA to constitute a
sampling frame. This being the case, Martinez-Mesa et al. (2016: 327) suggests
that the researcher needs to carefully determine and examine the target
population and ensure that it fits the study objectives and hypothesis. Social
entrepreneurs in SA usually adopt the Non-Profit Organisation (NPO) structure
(British Council 2020a) and a Department of Social development report (2020)
shows 41 639 registered NPOs in the KZN. However, there are three main
elements that differentiates a social entrepreneur from other entrepreneurs, NPOs
and/or charitable organisations, and these include: social mission is a
predominant factor; innovation is of great importance; and there is the role of
earned income (Fernández-Laviada et al. 2020:1). According to Asawapoom
(2020: 2375), when all subjects of a research population are hardly defined,

15
located and listed, it is called an infinite population and the researcher can
conceptualise the target population by assuming a subdivided target population,
compiled from the research subjects’ common character.

1.6.2 Sample method and size


This survey will be conducted with 90 social entrepreneurs operating in three
selected township areas in KZN. The three selected townships for this study are
Inanda, NtuZuma and KwaMashu (INK) in the KZN province. These three
townships are selected because through the eThekwini Municipality, a single
administrative unit was responsible for their management across the three areas,
with local councillors responsible for wards (DPLG 2006). The INK area is
predominantly residential, situated 20km north-west of the centre of Durban city.
The individual areas might have their differences; however, they share similar
kinds of challenges that include: low levels of economic activities, poverty, limited
level of social amenities and strong dependence on external areas such as
Durban. The area covers about 70.1 km2 and is estimated to accommodate
roughly 580 000 people with a population density of 6 325 persons per km2 (PDLG
2006).

Due to the lack of specific database to constitute a sample frame, as well as time
and financial constraints, it became the decision of the researcher to identify a
sample size relevant for the study. According to Sekaran and Bougie (2013, cited
in Lekhanya 2017: 76), for parametric statistics, 30 is the smallest usable sample
number, while also following a normal distribution curve. A sample of 30
participants from each township will, therefore, be chosen to make up a total of
90 participants. Use was made of non-probability, convenience, snowball
sampling to identify and choose social entrepreneurs as key participants for data
gathering. These individuals are ideal for providing in-depth information that
relates to the variables of this study, these being: characteristics of the social
entrepreneur, social impact measurement, resources, and environmental factors,

16
as well as social network, and society’s perception of the social entrepreneur’s
activities, all of which have been identified from the literature review to affect the
social entrepreneurship contribution to sustainable development. As defined by
Frey (2018), snowball sampling, also known as ‘chain sampling’ or ‘chain referral’
sampling, is used to generate a pool of participants for a study by researchers, as
a result of referrals made by individuals with the same research interest
characteristics as the target population. In the process of building the sample,
adequate data are collected to be of use to the study (Sharma 2017: 752). This
sampling technique is appropriate to recruit participants for this study because
they are not widely known, and as earlier indicated, there is no validated national
database of social entrepreneurs in SA.

In the first stage of recruiting participants, the list of registered NPOs was
requested and obtained from the Department of Social Development office in the
eThekwini Municipality. The NPOs were screened against the established
inclusion and exclusion criteria. NPOs that met the criteria were contacted by the
researcher through email and telephonically, to form the first group of respondents
recruited for the study. Thereafter, the snowball sampling technique was applied.
In addition, using a convenience sampling method for this study was pivotal since
selection of participants relied on their willingness to participate in the study as
well as their availability.

The inclusion criteria of participants for this study were based on the following:
the social entrepreneur has been operating for the past one year, the social
entrepreneur is only pursuing a social issue that is not for personal gain, the social
entrepreneur is registered with the Department of Social Development or intents
to do so in the near future, and the social entrepreneur is involved in an income
generating venture. The exclusion criteria included: social entrepreneurs
operating for less than a year, those social entrepreneurs who only pursue social

17
issues for personal gain, and social entrepreneurs not involved in any income
generating venture.

1.6.3 Data collection instrument


Data collection instruments play a critical role in the design and development of
research projects. This study is quantitative in nature and was a closed-ended
questionnaire. Bless and Higson-Smith (1995: 107) highlight that:

“…a questionnaire is a set of questions with fixed wording and sequence


of presentation, as well as more or less precise indications of how to
answer each question and must be presented to the participants in
exactly the same manner to minimize the role and influence of the
researcher and to enable a more objective comparison of the results”.

The data collection instrument used to gather information from social


entrepreneurs in the townships in KZN to address the objectives, as well as the
hypotheses of the study was a questionnaire.

1.7 ANALYSIS OF DATA


The analysis of data is a statistical technique that helps a researcher investigate
variables and understand their effects, relationships and pattern of involvement
within a particular context (Litabingwa and Auriacombe 2007). The Statistical
package for Social Sciences (SPSS) version 27.0 was used in analyses of the
collected data. This software enables the researcher to perform various tests in
the form of descriptive analysis, frequency analysis, correlation, and tabulation,
along with t-test analysis to address the study objectives. Results obtained from
the data analysis were presented as tables, graphs, and pie charts.

1.8 PILOT STUDY


According to Van Teijlingen and Hundley (2002: 1), a pilot study refers to a
feasibility study, or rather, a mini-scale of a full-scale study, with a purpose of
specifically pre-testing a particular research instrument such as a questionnaire,

18
to ensure the information required is collected and it is a good study design. The
pilot study is used to improve the main study’s quality or efficiency and can either
be performed independent of the main study as an external pilot study or included
in the main study as an internal pilot study (In 2017: 1). For the pilot study, 10
percent of the main study respondents were selected (Cadete 2017), however,
they were not part of the main study. The pilot study purpose is to help develop a
risk mitigation strategy that will ultimately reduce the chances of failure of the
larger study (Fraser et al.2018: 1).

1.9 VALIDITY
Validity is described as the degree of measurement a research instrument
(questionnaire) achieves in the entire domain related to the variables it was
designed to measure (Heale and Twycross 2015). Haradhan (2017) elaborates
that the validity shows the degree at which the results are truthful and encompass
the entire experimental concept to ensure the research findings meet all the
scientific research method requirements. To ensure the methods used in this
research have valid findings, there were research procedures used to test the
application. The researcher ensured participants were informed adequately with
regard to the research aims and objectives, their contributory role and how their
participation in the research and information provided were recorded without any
bias. Furthermore, by piloting the questionnaire to the target population, the
researcher ensured all the factors that could compromise the validity of the study
were detected early, allowing adequate measures to be taken to ensure
questionnaire suitability and its effectiveness as data collecting method for the
study (Haradhan 2017).

1.10 RELIABILITY
Research reliability denotes the degree to which no bias exists, and the
assessment tool produces a consistent, stable and repeatable result that will
remain consistent or can be replicated, even if obtained in identical situations but

19
different circumstances (Haradhan 2017; Bolarinwa 2015; Heale and Twycross
2015). To ensure the reliability of the study instrument, use was made of the
correlation coefficient test, Pearson’s product moment correlation coefficient (r)
and coefficient determination (R-sq.), as well as a t-test, at 90 percent and 99
percent confidence level, to establish the study reliability. Furthermore, adequate
application of Chi-square and other relevant tests ensured reliability of the study.
In addition, to improve instrument reliability, the Cronbach coefficient alpha was
used to measure internal consistency at 0.70. The internal consistency quantifies
how similar the items represent an outcome construct that the questionnaire is
aiming to measure (Heo, Kim and Faith 2015). As stated by Taber (2018: 1273),
a Cronbach’s Alpha is a statistic that is generally used to demonstrate whether
constructed and or adopted tests and scales for research projects fit the purpose.

1.11 ANONYMITY AND CONFIDENTIALITY


Anonymity in research ensures the personal identity of any individual who
participated in the study is not revealed and the researcher cannot trace data to
any particular individual participant (Coffelt 2017). Hence, for this study, the
researcher ensured all participants were adequately informed that the information
provided was only for this research purpose and would not be shared with any
other person. A cover letter and letter of information were distributed to all
participants to provide detailed requirements for participation in the study.

1.12 ETHICAL CONSIDERATION


It is important to conduct every research study in a professional manner, with the
researcher adequately addressing any ethical issues potentially arising during a
study (Babbie 1998). Hence, permission from the Durban University of
Technology (DUT) Higher Degrees Committee was obtained to conduct this
study. Furthermore, it was ensured by the researcher that the relevant authorities
in the townships involved in this study were adequately consulted and permission
granted prior to proceeding with the study. Furthermore, participants were made

20
to understand the aim and objective of the study, as well as the voluntary nature
of their participation. They were neither bribed nor forced to take part and could
opt out at any point they no longer felt comfortable with the process. Participants
were also fully informed about the study confidentiality and information provided
were recorded without any bias. In addition, an informed consent form was
obtained from each participant to respect the principle of autonomy and
confidentiality (Varkey 2021: 18). Moreover, the letter of information covers the
following aspects: the purpose of the study; outline of the procedures; risks or
discomforts to the participants; and benefits; remuneration; as well as participant
confidentiality.

1.13 STUDY LIMITATION


Due to the kind of legal framework that governs social entrepreneurship in SA,
and in order to acquire the appropriate information for this study, it was agreed to
limit this study to focus only on the characteristics of, and influences affecting
identified social entrepreneurs and only pertaining to those operating in the
selected KZN townships. Therefore, the outcome of this study may not be
generalised to social entrepreneurs in other townships, in the province or to social
entrepreneurs elsewhere in the country. However, the study findings could
improve social entrepreneurship contributions as a sustainable development tool
in SA, because many of the variables in this study are similar to other provinces.

1.14 OUTLINE OF CHAPTERS


This study comprises six chapters.

Chapter One. Study introduction and overview


The reader is provided with a detailed introduction and background to the study
in this chapter. It outlines the aim and objectives of the research, problem
statement, hypotheses, study significance, as well as its limitations. The chapter
also presents the framework within which the study was conducted, and acts as

21
the guide throughout the study, ensuring the aims and objectives of the research
are achieved.

Chapter Two. Review of literature: An overview of social entrepreneurship


and theoretical background
This chapter deals with the primary review of literature and consists of all theories
relevant to the topic and a conceptual framework for the social entrepreneurship
sector in South Africa, specifically as it applies to sustainable development in the
townships. It also provides an overview of previous research on the definitions of
social entrepreneurship and the importance of the SE sector to sustainable
development in other parts of the world. Further to this, the chapter will also
provide an overview of the social entrepreneurship sector in SA, with specific
reference to the townships in the KZN province.

Chapter Three. Literature review: Social entrepreneurship and factors that


impact its sustainable development contribution
This chapter covers the literature review’s second part, and will provide the reader
with detailed, identified, internal and external environmental factors affecting
social entrepreneurship in the townships, as along with social impact
measurement effects, social networking, financial resources and society’s
perception of social entrepreneurship as a sustainable development tool for KZN
townships.

Chapter Four. Research Methodology


This chapter will discuss the choice of research design and methodology
employed. In addition, the justification of method choice that ensured the research
method, population, sampling, and data collection, as well as the analysis, are set
out, showing their alignment with the study aims and objectives. The chapter will
further also discuss the ethical considerations that will guide the study.

Chapter Five. Findings and Interpretations

22
The study findings will be presented and discussed in this, which will also provide
interpretations in line with the study aims and objectives, thus ensuring the reader
finds it easy to understand. Furthermore, the findings were assessed in relation
to the secondary data, as well as tested with the hypotheses generated.

Chapter Six. Conclusions and Recommendations


This chapter draws from the findings detailed in chapter five to present the overall
conclusions and discuss the recommendations that could be applied in ensuring
improvement of social entrepreneurship as a tool for sustainable township
development in KZN. It will further provide details of the proposed integrated
model for policy makers and government officials. Recommendations will also be
made for further research.

1.15 CONCLUSION
Social entrepreneurs are believed to have a critical role to play in achieving
sustainable development in a country like South Africa, particularly in township
communities. Their growth and survival hinges on many factors within the
environment. This study sought to investigate and understand the factors affecting
social entrepreneurship contributions to sustainable development in the
townships in KZN province. This chapter offered the introduction and overview of
the study. The chapter provided the research problem together with the research
aim, objectives, questions, hypotheses, and significance of the study. It also
offered a primer of the research methodology, which outlined the research design,
target population, sampling method, data collection, data analysis, pilot study,
validity and reliability, anonymity and confidentiality, ethical consideration, and
lastly, the study limitations. The last section of the chapter outlined the structure
of the study.

The subsequent chapter reviews the literature in detail and provides the
background information on social entrepreneurship and the important aspects
pertaining to this study.

23
CHAPTER TWO
LITERATURE REVIEW: AN OVERVIEW OF SOCIAL
ENTREPRENEURSHIP AND THEORETICAL BACKGROUND

2.1 INTRODUCTION
According to the report on creative SEs in SA by the British Council (2020a: 4),
these enterprises are an emerging phenomenon, classified as small businesses,
yet operating primarily as private companies, with under R500 000 turnover.
Researchers such as Visser (2011: 237) highlight that SEs in SA include a wide
range of organisations, “from traditional NGOs, not-for-profit SEs, hybrid SEs, and
for-profit SEs, as well as socially committed enterprises”, with social value
creation as their primary objective. This commonly distinguishes SEs from other
forms of small businesses (ILO 2017: 9; Davies, Haugh and Chambers 2019:
1617; Ngatse-Ipanqui and Dassah 2019: 2; Littlewood and Holt 2018: 526).

Interestingly, because SEs in SA often register as both for profit and not-for-profit
companies, they are open to accessing both grants and commercial funding
which, according to the Gordon Institute of Business Sciences (GIBS), creates a
spectrum of opportunities to develop unrestricted income streams into the
organisation (GIBS 2015). Most SEs have emerged from their founders identifying
a social problem in society, and through their goodwill spirit, have developed
entrepreneurial ways of addressing these problems, with some not knowing they
demonstrate social entrepreneurship (Mair and Marti 2006: 37). Hence, there has
been no clear definition of the phenomenon, yet, its nature usually implies more
priority is assigned to social value creation and sustainable development, as
opposed to focusing on economic value (Mair and Marti 2006: 36; Moses and
Olokundun 2014: 160; Littlewood and Holt 2018: 532).

24
Social entrepreneurship has become trendy, “gaining popularity as a tool to bring
about change and sustainable development” in most countries, globally
(Littlewood and Holt 2018: 526). On that basis, Steinerowski and Steinerowska-
Streb (2012: 167-182) and Littlewood and Holt 2018: 530) suggest the
identification of the strengths, innovation and knowledge of individuals within
communities may serve as an important way of transforming and addressing the
social and economic problems affecting them. A well-established and supported
SE sector will ensure the use of business management strategies that focuses on
developing benefits with social purpose and providing solutions to problems
affecting communities, such as unemployment, poverty and crime (Fernández-
Laviada et al. 2020: 826). Accelerating social entrepreneurship activities becomes
crucial in a context where SA has experienced a continuous drop in GDP, a record
34.4 percent unemployment as at the second quarter of 2021, or 44.4 percent
when expanding the definition to include those who have given up seeking jobs
(StatsSA 2021), and the jobless situation of more than six million working age
South Africans, (GIBS 2018: 10).

In this regard, social entrepreneurship has been shown as significant in the


development of countries around the globe. For instance, a recent joint report
commissioned by the Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport (DCMS)
and the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (BEIS) (2017:
8), highlight that roughly nine percent of the small business population in the
United Kingdom (UK) are SEs. The report further states an overall estimate of
471 000 SEs in the UK, where 99 000 have employees and 371 000 do not
(DCMS and BEIS 2017: 8). In addition, it stipulates that in the UK, SEs employ
approximately 1.44 million people, with most being employees while the
remainder is considered working owners and partners (DCMS and BEIS 2017: 8).

Moses and Olokundun (2014: 164), Razavi et al. (2014: 1) and Littlewood and
Holt (2018: 527) explain social entrepreneurship might have been successful in

25
ensuring sustainable development and addressing social problems in countries
that are developed; nevertheless, it is not the most suited solution to address
socio-economic problems in developing countries, such as SA, without proper
comprehension of the potential effect of certain factors. Social entrepreneurs are
confronted by internal and external factors (GIBS 2018: 15), often limiting their
effective social value creation. Not only challenges in the external environment
such as lack of legislative framework, difficult process of registering and
measuring impact for funders, but also internal factors, such as shortage of
business management skills, mismanagement of resources and lack of leadership
affect their ability to thrive and contribute to sustainable development (GIBS 2018:
63; Watters et al. 2012; Steinerowski and Steinerowska-Streb 2012: 176).

In order to ensure social entrepreneurship improves and contributes significantly


to the sustainable development of communities, Rivera-Santos et al. (2015: 72-
91) argue there is a need for an in-depth understanding of the environmental
contexts where they operate. Furthermore, GIBS (2018: 11) also emphasises the
need for government to address bottlenecks within the environment, such as
access to resources, legislative barriers and policy development, for SEs to grow
and flourish. This would provide the platform required to enhance social
entrepreneurs’ effective social value creation that will enable their substantial
contribution to long-term, economic township growth and development.

In addition, the lack of an agreed definition as to who should be considered as a


social entrepreneur in SA should be addressed, as it creates a challenge and
confusion for financial service providers to understand their unique nature and
business model, which in turn, affects social entrepreneurs’ growth and
development (ILO 2013: 17). The contributions of individual social entrepreneurs
in achieving sustainable development cannot be overemphasised. This is
confirmed by various study authors, including Seelos and Mair (2005: 241), Mair
and Marti (2006: 38), Bacq and Janssen (2011: 376), and Santos (2012: 337),

26
who suggest social entrepreneurs serve as innovative and creative forces, with
flexibility of choices in relation to factors that can be used to meet unsatisfied
needs, amongst which are: structure, funding, resources and business models.

Moses and Olokundun (2015: 164) nevertheless, argue there are no universal
formula for achieving sustainable development. Hence, nations would have to
develop and design practical ways that will gear them towards sustainability.
Otherwise, the increasing level of foreign investments, aids, as well as policy
reforms to improve economic growth, might turn out to be failed efforts and
attempts (Moses and Olokundun 2015: 163). This sentiment is supported by
Watters et al. (2012: 2), when they state aid is not the solution to the long-lasting
socio-economic problems in developing countries such as SA, instead advocating
for the provision of support to small entrepreneurs, particularly social
entrepreneurs, who can be a critical tool to bring sustainable and lasting solutions.

2.2 A CONCEPTUAL VIEW OF SOCIAL ENTREPRENEURSHIP


IMPORTANCE
With the majority of countries in the world starting to explore social
entrepreneurship contributions in the enhancement and promotion of
development in society, this phenomenon and its importance in the economy of a
country cannot be overstated (Ngatse-Ipangui and Dassah 2019: 1; Mefi and
Asoba 2020: 1; GIBS 2015). With job losses, high unemployment rates and
increased vulnerability in many countries around the world, and SA in particular,
a need exists for new urgency and determination to develop sustainable models
that support economic growth and the transformation of societies (Moloi-Motsepe
2021).

Social entrepreneurship is explained as vital by Kazmi et al. (2016: 161), where it


is fundamental to unlock the economic growth and inclusion of Pakistan, while it
also serves as an instrument with which a social market economy that is resilient
and pluralistic can be built through job creation, provision of innovative services

27
and products, stimulation promotion of a sustainable economy, in addition to
future hope and opportunities. Further to this, in the authors’ opinion, “social
entrepreneurship has a promising approach, through its entrepreneurial
strategies, to open trade, which has a positive impact in eliminating poverty and
creating a boost to the Pakistani economy” (Kazmi et al. 2016: 161).

It is estimated the social entrepreneurship sector currently employs roughly 40


million people globally, with more than 200 million people that are engaged in
volunteering activities (Summerfield 2020). This makes social entrepreneurs
important contributors in enhancing “the quality of life, efficiency, and
sustainability of social and economic growth, incorporating some social and
business skills into entrepreneurial activities” (Sijabat 2015: 36). According to the
SA Minister of Economic Development at the time, Ebrahim Patel, “the social
economy is a vital tool for the recovery of economies in Africa” (Moss 2012: 12).
Most importantly, the minister committed to develop a more socially and
economically equitable growth plan for the country. Moss (2012: 12) explained
the New Growth Path (NGP) was subsequently developed to introduce new and
different measures that would “encourage and promote social entrepreneurship
and build” the South African SE sector.

Given an ideal environment, SEs are flexible and able to carry out innovative
activities by discovering new ideas relating to products, services and models,
which are generally suitable and appropriate to address societal needs such as
social inclusion, environmental protection and sustainable development (Sijabat
2015: 37). However, their growth is very low in SA, where less than two percent
of adults participate in the SE sector, even though SA has structures similar to
countries where social entrepreneurship is flourishing, as set out by the Global
Entrepreneurship Monitor (GEM) (2009, cited in GIBS 2018: 10).

Social entrepreneurship is increasingly becoming the focus of attention for many


developing stakeholders interested in addressing societal problems and achieving

28
sustainable development. As discussed above, SEs are considered important
ventures that can drive economic growth and sustainable development around
the world. Nonetheless, in order to effectively create social value, they need to
have the appropriate structure and conducive environment (Littlewood and Holt
2018: 2; Rivera-Santos et al. 2015: 74; Seelos and Mair 2004: 6).

Sckliuckiene and Kisielius (2015: 1016) and Zahra et al. (2009: 524) agree
contextual factors, such as institutional, legal, and social environment factors,
are of significant importance in supporting or hindering the social value creation
process. In other words, understanding these factors is paramount to ensure
effective and efficient social value creation, more so, as social entrepreneurship
performance is linked to the environmental and structural factors within a
country. In this regard, Rivera-Santos et al. (2015: 75) agree that understanding
the context in which social entrepreneurs operate creates social needs and many
opportunities for them to emerge in new and creative forms. However, recent
research by Littlewood and Holt (2018: 2) confirm the effects of the environment
receive limited consideration particularly, how these impact social
entrepreneurship growth and development in SA.

In the UK, apart from the significant number of people employed by SEs, these
businesses also contribute more than £24 billion to the UK economy (British
Council 2015: 5). In essence, therefore, in this highly successful country, social
entrepreneurship is a major contributor to economic growth and sustainable
development. This could well be an indication that social entrepreneurship is an
essential tool in achieving sustainable development around the world (Ifeoma and
Ifeanyichukwu, 2019: 14). Understanding the factors affecting social
entrepreneurship may be necessary to create a conducive environment and
platform for growth and creating social value relevant to drive change and
sustainable development.

29
2.3 RELEVANT THEORIES CONSIDERED FOR THIS STUDY
This section discusses the embedded theories that create the link between social
entrepreneurship and sustainable development, namely SE, Institutional and
Structuration theories.

2.3.1 Social Enterprise Theory


The proponent of the SE theory is Drucker (1985), who believed an important
characteristic of an entrepreneur is the ability to always search for change,
respond to it, and exploit it as an opportunity, which could either be commercial
or social in nature. According to this theory, entrepreneurship should not
necessarily be for profit-making, but should be driven by the combination of
innovation and resources for the purpose of improving the well-being of people
and providing them with opportunities (Drucker 1985). Martin and Osberg (2007:
30) agree with this theory, when they emphasise the motivation of social
entrepreneurship is driving social change, and it is set apart by the long-lasting
transformational benefit to society.

This theory, however, fails to dissect and provide a clear understanding on how
society can, in return, either boost or hinder social entrepreneurship as a driver of
social change. Furthermore, contrary to the belief by scholars such as
Schumpeter, who sees entrepreneurs as an agent of change within the larger
economy, Drucker’s (1985) theory avers entrepreneurs are not necessarily agents
of change themselves, but rather committed exploiters of change. Regardless of
whether entrepreneurs are perceived to be innovators or early exploiters, a
universal perception of theorists about entrepreneurs is their ability to see and
seize new opportunities, with full cognisance of the context where the opportunity
is situated (Martin and Osberg 2007: 30). This means, for SEs to create social
value and bring change in society, an understanding is needed of the context they
operate in to effectively exploit opportunities and create the necessary change.

30
Deshwal (2015: 977) mentions the potential for economic and societal gains that
SEs offer, while it also plays an increasingly more significant part in rounding out
“the social services offered by charitable organisations and government
agencies”. As Drucker (1985, cited in Straub 2016) stated, society does not only
need an entrepreneurial economy but an entrepreneurial society, where
innovation and entrepreneurship are normal, steady and continuous. These
theories, however, do not provide an indication of the critical elements, tools,
processes, and/or procedures required to ensure entrepreneurs, such as social
entrepreneurs, are successful in creating social value that will improve their
contribution to sustainable development when operating in, for example,
communities in KZN townships. This study seeks to identify these elements and
procedures.

2.3.2 Institutional Theory


One of the first authors to highlight institutional theory was North (1990) and it is
still considered relevant in social science today. This theory is also very relevant
to achieving the objectives of this research study. Institutional theory has grown
beyond its sociological field of origin and is widely applied in other fields, sectors
and industries (Lammers and Garcia 2017: 195). The consequences of
institutions vary widely with regards to economic performance – some economies
develop institutions that will generally lead to growth and development, while
others develop institutions that will lead to stagnation (North 1990). Krajnović
(2018: 3) points out that Institutional theory helps to eliminate any potentially
undesirable behaviour, by providing guidelines to ensure organisational behaviour
is considered proper, desirable and ultimately legitimate.

Institutional theory puts the institution at the heart of the design and conduct of
organisations. In addition, complying with institutionalised prescriptions ensures
legitimacy, decreases uncertainty, and increases the unambiguousness of the
organisation’s action and activities (Berthod 2018: 1). This theory is used to

31
provide explanation(s) for the adoption and spread of formal organisational
structures, which may include written policies and standard practices (David,
Tolbert and Boghossian 2019). These authors highlight that the institution creates
the incentive structure in an economy, and organizations within that structure will
identify ways of taking advantage of the opportunities provided within a given
institutional framework. Even though the institution is considered critical in
providing the relationship between the organisation’s goals and the functioning of
society at large, uncertainty whether the formal institution conforms to the norms
and cultural guidelines that comprise the informal institution, presents a
considerable challenge to the entire process (David et al. 2019).

The researcher believes this theory allows social entrepreneurs in SA to


understand the significant influence the institution has on their approaches and
strategies towards improving their contribution to sustainable development. As
explained by Scott (2004: 2), institutional theory is key to social structure, which
allows inquiries into how authoritative guidelines for social behaviour are created,
diffused, adopted, and adapted, over space and time. Studies by Mair and Marti
(2009: 419-435), Ferri and Urbano (2010), Dacin, Goodstein and Scott (2002: 45-
57) and Sud, VanSandt and Baugous (2009: 201-216) have all shown the
importance and relevance the institutional environment has on organisations,
such as SEs, in improving their effective functioning, increased participation in
market activities and enhancing their social value creation.

SEs in SA, however, seem to struggle with adapting to the institutional


environment at various levels. Accordingly, this theory can be an important
support to SEs when adapting to the institutional environment as it aids in broadly
understanding the dynamism between individuals or organisations and institutions
(government, market, culture, religion) (Agrawal and Hockerts 2013: 4). This
theory will further help SEs to gain legitimacy by adhering to the widely accepted
rules, social norms and legal structures.

32
Accordingly, institutional theory in social entrepreneurship is essential, not only in
ensuring organisational legitimacy, but also to improve operations and their
performance in the economy, as well as effectively creating social value (Agrawal
and Hockerts 2013: 11). When there are weak and absent institutional
agreements, an institutional void is created that prevents individuals from
participating in market activities (Mair and Marti 2009: 419-435). The adoption of
this theory can thus help SEs to develop strategies in response to the many
turbulences created by the institutional environment that affect their contribution
to sustainable development, with specific reference to KZN.

2.3.3 Structuration Theory


This theory was developed in 1984 by a British sociologist, Anthony Giddens, who
argued that “human agency and social structure are not two separate concepts”,
as such, humans are completely free to create the environment they live in
(Lamsal 2012: 111). In support of this theory, Mair and Marti (2006: 39)
emphasised the inability to understand social entrepreneurship purely in an
economic sense; it has to be examined in the context of its social and local
environment, much like traditional business entrepreneurship. By implication,
social entrepreneurship can be separated from the structure, which includes
community and society, among others (Mair and Marti 2006: 40). In other words,
structuration theory provides the ability to adequately examine the various ways
a particular context enables or constrains social entrepreneurship appearance
and how social change occurs. This theory is closely linked to the study
objectives, as it highlights that for social entrepreneurs to be successful in a
particular environment, there needs to be a structure that contributes to civil
society, that is open, available, active and supportive (Razavi et al. 2014).

Furthermore, the researcher is of the opinion this theory will enable SEs in SA to
navigate the structural challenges that affect their operations and impact their
ability negatively in the creation of social value that furthers sustainable

33
development. Maas (2013) mentioned structuration theory and its importance in
understanding the underlying cause(s) and direction in how social entrepreneurs
interact with their environment. Accordingly, this theory can be of great support to
the country’s SEs in understanding how government monopoly, bureaucracy,
domination, and centralisation, as well as the lack of legal systems, are some
critical factors within the structure that could highly affect their operations (Razavi
et al. 2014: 1-5).

Robinson (2006: 95-120) believes social entrepreneurship opportunities are


usually best analysed within the context that helps to create them and, as such, it
is important to understand how to navigate the various barriers in the social
entrepreneurship process, in order to be involved and contribute to solving the
social problems identified in society. Adopting this theory can help SEs
understand the various dynamics and create the ability to deal with external
factors when serving in different demographics that might significantly influence
their day-to-day operations.

2.4 CHALLENGES OF SOCIAL ENTREPRENEURSHIP THEORY


DEVELOPMENT
A study by Dacin, Dacin and Matear (2010) identified critical challenges for social
entrepreneurship theory development and provided insights as to the direction for
future research. However, they did not adequately articulate how social
entrepreneurs’ value creation is significantly influenced by various factors within
a particular context and how these factors are different in various contexts around
the world. Chepurenko (2015) added the general problem facing entrepreneurship
theory development is the lack of importance placed on contextual differences,
which affects entrepreneurship practices and limits investigations into new
institutions and actors, particularly with regard to social entrepreneurship.

34
2.5 CONCEPTUAL SOCIAL ENTERPRENEURSHIP MODEL AND ITS
CONTRIBUTION TO SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT

Purpose Sustainable development

Levels Individuals Community/Society Future Generation

Social Basic needs Needs for enabling structures Needs for maximising

Challenges/Problems choices

Social

Entrepreneurship
Effectively addressing social challenges and problems

Figure 2.1: Conceptual social entrepreneurship model and its sustainable


development contribution
Source: Seelos and Mair (2004)

Based on the above theoretical framework, it is clear the social entrepreneurship


contribution to sustainable development is influenced by many factors. However,
for the basis of this study, the researcher is interested in the structural factors
within the environment/society that could hinder social entrepreneurship from
contributing to sustainable development. Littlewood and Holt (2018), as well as
Mendez-Picazo, Galindo-Martin and Castano-Martinez (2021: 69-77), assert
factors exist within the environment that influence effective social
entrepreneurship operations; this hinders their contribution to sustainable
development. Lubberink (2019: 7) advises that in order for social
entrepreneurship to effectively contribute to sustainable development, there
needs to be an understanding of its embeddedness in a local structure, as it is
crucial for scaling-up or hindering social value creation. The above discussion
shows this is due to the environment enhancing the creativity and innovation

35
required to generate change, consequently improving the quality of life (Iwueke
and Nwaiwu 2014: 4). However, using social entrepreneurship to achieve
sustainable development in a particular environment is a tricky and intricate
activity that requires adequate understanding (Seelos and Mair 2004: 1-17).

The framework designed by Seelos and Mair (2004: 1-17) indicates there are no
structures or resources in many developing countries to enable and support social
entrepreneurship operations to contribute to sustainable development.
Additionally, without structure and resources, Bansal et al. (2019: 1) believe the
government has an even larger role to play to ensure social entrepreneurship
grows, thrives and contributes to sustainable development. Hosseini and Ziaaldini
(2019: 52-59) are of the view that government pays overwhelming attention to the
economic aspect of entrepreneurship yet neglects the environmental, specifically
the social dimension, which may not create much concern in the short-term, but it
will be a problem in the long-term.

2.6 FAST-TRACKING SOCIAL ENTERPRENEURS’ VALUE CREATION


FOR SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT

Mission & Measuring


Objectives Strategy impact

Entrepreneurial
Adjustment

Figure 2.2: Fast-tracking Social entrepreneurs’ value creation for


sustainable development
Source: Ormiston and Seymour (2011)

36
Fischer and Comini (2012: 363-369) are of the opinion social entrepreneurs
operate ventures that focus on economic production: creating work and
generating income for individuals or groups with difficulties in accessing formal
markets. They dedicate themselves to natural resource conservation activities,
increasing the vitality of economic relations, and serving as a means that brings
together two crucial sustainable development objectives that previously seemed
incompatible - financial sustainability and the creation of social value. In other
words, the social entrepreneur’s value creation and ability to generate income
becomes vital to sustain their operation and contribute to sustainable
development. The dynamic and complex social problems in society today require
social entrepreneurs to use business models that will provide solutions and
create shared value, which also consist of both economic and social value that
will significantly impact society (Zahra et al. 2009: 519-532).

Perrini, Vurra, and Costanza (2010, cited in Sckliuckiene and Kisielius 2015:
1015-1019) identified four stages social entrepreneurs undergo to ensure social
value creation. These include; 1) an opportunity is identified, perceived by the
entrepreneur to be an inappropriate social situation; 2) evaluation of opportunity,
which focuses on creating a balance between project sustainability and social
impact; 3) opportunity exploitation, where the required operating principles and
innovativeness for the opportunity are defined; 4) expansion, making it possible
to identify underlying potential in different contexts and provide a wider social
impact.

Sinkovics, Sinkovics and Yamin (2014) suggest, on the one hand, in a theoretical
construct, numerous recognised international organizations, for example the
World Bank and the United Nations (UN), emphasise the private sector’s role in
advancing the social agenda in society. On the other hand, it is suggested in
literature that although commercial enterprises can provide transformational
social impact, the primary mission of a social entrepreneur is commonly found

37
and considered to be social value creation, more so than a commercial
entrepreneur (Sinkovics et al. 2014). Subsequently, social value creation and its
effectiveness is the key to success and a major factor for social entrepreneurs to
remain relevant and contributors to sustainable development (Davies et al. 2019;
Sckliuckiene and Kisielius 2015: 1015-1019; Szabo and Krátki 2018: 15-25). A
culture of social value creation must, therefore, be fostered in social
entrepreneurship (Blagoycheva 2019: 488-495), as it brings available resources
together in order to establish new products, services and processes for a better
quality of life for everyone (Marin 2017: 89-106).

In the context of social entrepreneurship, Ormiston and Seymour (2011: 125-


150) found a more holistic and deeper understanding of social value creation
would require significantly recalibrating their mission, objectives and strategy,
through entrepreneurial adjustments. In addition, resources and the external
environment are acknowledged as important features associated with social
value creation.

2.7 TWO IMPORTANT VIEWPOINTS FOR SOCIAL VALUE CREATION


To start the social value creation process, a pro-active relationship is developed
with various stakeholders, which requires a clear vision that will enable the social
entrepreneur to develop social initiatives and ensure these initiatives are
successfully transferred to other markets (Sckliuckiene and Kisielius 2015: 1015-
1019). Singh (2016: 105-116) considers social value creation has two important
viewpoints, namely: the social entrepreneurs’ viewpoint and that of the
beneficiaries.

On the one hand, it is believed social value creation is at the heart of all social
entrepreneurs, as the impact created in the long- or short-term or immediately
through social change that deals with problems/issues/needs on a social level.
This creation of social value encompasses a broad array of social impacts,
starting with awareness creation, beneficiary empowerment, and ensuring altered

38
perceptions, attitudes, behaviour, and norms as well as institutions, while
beneficiaries and their communities also benefit from the socio-economic impacts
(Singh 2016: 105-116). For beneficiaries, on the other hand, social value is
understood as benefits social entrepreneurs create through their activities and the
subsequent variety of positive changes and direct or indirect impact as a result of
the benefits created (Singh 2016: 105-116).

2.8 CATEGORIES OF DEFINITIONS


In the following sections, the definitions found to be most appropriate for this study
are discussed.

2.8.1 Social entrepreneurship


The increasing interest in social entrepreneurship in recent years from an
assortment of disciplines, including sociology, management, economics and
entrepreneurship, has resulted in several overlapping research studies and
contributions (Matsimela 2017). Hence, the definition of the term varies and what
it in fact entails, is still a heated debate by scholars (Rivera-Santos et al. 2015).

Bacq and Janssen (2011: 388) describe the social entrepreneurship concept as
“the process of identifying, evaluating and exploiting opportunities aiming at social
value creation by means of commercial, market-based activities and of the use of
a wide range of resources”. Equally, Bornstein and Davies (2010: 1) state that
social entrepreneurship is a process where institutions are built or transformed by
citizens to advance solutions to social problems, such as poverty and corruption,
in order to ensure many have a better life. Furthermore, researchers such as
Fernández-Laviada et al. (2020: 1) propose social entrepreneurship “focuses on
the use of business management strategies with the aim of generating benefits
with a social purpose”. This was also the sentiment of Visser (2011: 233), who
explains social entrepreneurship as engagement in entrepreneurial activities by
either individuals or organizations, with a focus on a social objective.

39
With reference to other writers, Visser (2011: 233-247) submits there is emphasis
on problem–solving and social innovation, where social entrepreneurship
activities blur the traditional boundaries between the public, private and non-profit
sectors. However, one of the generally acceptable, broad measure definitions of
social entrepreneurship that forms the basis for this study, is by the GEM (2015:
9), which describes the concept as “individuals who are starting or currently
leading any kind of activity, organization or initiative that has a particularly social,
environmental or community objective”.

Presenting the above definitions is not to strive to find a statement that


encompasses all the aspect of the various definitions, but rather, to identify and
integrate common viewpoints that provide a heuristic way of understanding the
concept. From the above discussion, three important points were highlighted and
worth noting. First, one factor common among the definitions, is that social
entrepreneurship is a type of entrepreneurship with a distinction motivated by
social impact and the creation of social value (GIBS 2015). Second, the definitions
emphasised social entrepreneurship is not limited to organizations aimed at
profiting from the enterprise or earning an income from it to sustain their social
objectives; it encompasses non-profit organizations (NPOs), for-profit
organizations, commercial businesses and public entities with social goals and
mission (Matsimela 2017). The third point is that social entrepreneurship is
characterised by an innovativeness to address social problems and this
innovative entrepreneurial practice highlights its advantage that ensures a blur of
boundaries that are traditionally found in the public and private sector association
(Bacq and Janssen 2011).

2.8.2 Social enterprise (SE)


SE, along with social entrepreneurship, are some of the structures that constitute
the social economy of any country. While social entrepreneurship is associated
with developing innovative and entrepreneurial means of addressing social

40
problems in society, SE as mentioned by (Littlewood and Holt 2018), is
increasingly seen as an organisation that focuses on social over economic value
creation, which is the key boundary line separating such enterprises from normal
businesses.

A debate about the description of SEs by Defourny and Nyssen (2012) highlights
two different schools of thought. The first is classified as the “earned income”
perspective, because they conceptualise and refer to SEs as NPOs using
commercial activities to support their mission. Furthermore, Defourny and Nyssen
(2012) elaborate and expand this perspective by emphasising the SE definition
should be broader and encompass all forms of business activities with a social
purpose as part of its business strategy, including for-profit organisations. This
latter perspective was referred to as a “mission-driven business approach”.

One scholar who identified with this perspective was Barney (2007, cited in Maji
and Itodo 2016: 2), who describes a SE as “any business formulation with social
objectives whose surpluses are reinvested either in the business or community
geared towards improving the welfare of the society”. The second school of
thought was classified as the “social innovation” perspective. It lays emphasis on
the profile and behaviours of SEs and describes them as “change makers”, who
focus on outcomes rather than incomes and use “new combinations” of a systemic
nature of innovation to bring about change and impact the broader levels of
society (Defourny and Nyssen 2012).

One distinctive definition of SE from this school of thought is by Dees (1998: 4),
who explained that SEs:

“Play the role of change agents in the social sector, by adopting a


mission to create and sustain social value (not just private value),
recognizing and relentlessly pursuing new opportunities to serve that
mission, engaging in a process of continuous innovation, adaptation,

41
and learning, acting boldly without being limited by resources currently
in hand, and exhibiting heightened accountability to the constituencies
served and for the outcomes created”.

In an attempt to have a South African description of the concept of SE, by a group


of 130 participants, during an International Labour Organization (ILO) conference
in October 2009, it was agreed and stated by Watters et al. (2012: 2) that “a social
enterprise’s primary objective is to address social problems through a financially
sustainable business model where surpluses (if any) are mainly reinvested for
that purpose”. This description also supports the mission-driven business
approach described by Defourny and Nyssen (2012) and emphasises that SEs
are individuals who develop creative and innovative ideas with social purpose as
its main objective, mixed with the right business model that will generate income,
which will benefit the community.

2.8.3 Social entrepreneur


A social entrepreneur is generally understood as any individual(s) willing to take
the risk, effort and initiative to pursue a novel application that creates positive
changes and has the potential to solve community-based problems (Hayes
2021a). Although, social entrepreneurs are in many ways perceived as and
compared to commercial entrepreneurs, they differ in terms of business
motivations and spheres of operations (Steiner, Jack and Farmer 2009).
Essentially, social entrepreneurs do not merely engage in business ventures, they
do things differently and have significant social impact in society.

Increasing debate in literature has made scholars such as Littlewood and Holt
(2018) attempt to provide a distinction of the above three concepts, when they
described “SE” as the venture or entity; “social entrepreneurship” as the process;
whereas “social entrepreneur” are the founding individual(s). However, in
literature these concepts are often used indifferently and interchangeably to
describe the same idea, because there is no unifying paradigm in the field of social

42
entrepreneurship (Bacq and Janssen 2011; Peredo and Mclean 2006: 56-65).
Hence, this study follows the practice of using the terms interchangeably as done
by other researchers.

2.8.4 Sustainable development


Although many definitions abound, the most used definition of the concept of
sustainable development can be traced back to the 1987 Brundtland Commission,
which described the term as “development that meets the needs of the present
without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their needs” (Bueno
Montaldo 2013: 1; Emas 2015: 1). This means the present generation has the
responsibility of not neglecting the social and environmental aspects of society,
while pursuing economic growth.

The overall aim of sustainable development is to ensure the economy and


environment are stabilised in the long-term; this can only be achieved by
integrating and acknowledging the economic, environmental and social factors
throughout the decision-making process (Emas 2015), as well as sustained
economic growth and globalisation (Naidoo and Fisher 2020). Scholars frequently
emphasise the interrelationship and integration between economic, social and
environment as a key driver in ensuring sustainable development (Bueno
Montaldo 2013). Therefore, in order for societies to attain truly sustainable
development, there needs to be an elimination of fragmentation from the typically
organised sectorial ministries and departments in government institutions, into a
comprehensive and highly integrated economic, environmental and social
objective across sectors, territories and generations (Emas 2015).

The sustainable development concept has long been relevant and is adopted by
many countries to ensure they engage in sustainable developmental processes.
However, the relevance has increased in recent years because of global
consciousness concerns regarding increasing populations, while there is no
corresponding increase in the natural resources available to mankind (Mensah

43
2019; Theodossiou et al. 2020), These global concerns have translated from the
MDGs, a target of eight goals rolled out for 15 years (2000-2015), to the
Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), which is a 2030 development agenda
entitled “Transforming our World”, approved by the UN, to protect the
environment, eliminate poverty and improve the well-being of people (Mensah
2019; UN 2020a). The 17 SDGs were primarily developed to achieve the following
summarised objectives:

• Eradicate poverty, achieve zero level of hunger, and guarantee good health
and well-being;
• Ensure access to basic amenities such as clean water, sanitation and
affordable and clean energy;
• Provide quality education and decent work for the youths that will serve as a
medium for economic growth;
• Provide basic infrastructure and foster innovation that will ensure the
development of industries, and to create communities and cities conscious of
sustainability in their production and consumption;
• Reduce the level of inequality in the world, especially with regard to gender;
• Care and protect the environment by acting to stop climate change, keeping
the ocean clean and safeguarding the ecosystem;
• Stand up for peace, justice and strong institutions and ensure partnerships to
boost development financing.
(Mensah 2019; UN 2020; Theodossiou et al. 2020)

SA, similar to many other countries globally, has pledged its commitment to the
sustainable development concept. At the WSSD in September 2002, in
Johannesburg, SA agreed dealing with poverty was one of the greatest
challenges; the agreed negotiated outcome was known as the JPOI (DEAT 2008).

44
As part of their commitment to national strategy preparation and implementation
for sustainable development, the JPOI set out 37 targets to achieve sustainable
development, which includes the MDGs, (DEAT 2008). Although there are several
strategies and programmes that include considerations of sustainable
development in SA, a clear and all-encompassing national sustainable
development strategy does not exist (DEAT 2008).

A study conducted by Montmasson-Clair (2017) found while the country’s vision


up to 2030 is clearly defined in the NDP, there is a lack in terms of transition to
sustainable development where strategic and coherent planning are concerned;
without roadmaps providing the required steps in the medium- and long-term,
while the eventual state of SA’s economy and society is also detailed in the long-
run. This is a clear indication that SA needs to realise it cannot achieve
sustainable development in isolation, as its scope is broader and its ambition
larger than expected from the MDGs. As such, within countries effective
partnerships are a necessity throughout “all sectors, disciplines, government
agencies, and global partnerships across nations” (Haywood et al. 2018: 555-
569).

Other than SA, many developed and developing countries in the world face the
challenge of national policy alignment with expanded global development goals,
particularly where the integrated nature of the SDGs and related challenges are
concerned, which include processes of measuring, monitoring and
communicating (Fourie 2018: 765-771). Accordingly, use of existing institutional
structures and processes is one important way these challenges can be
overcome, which requires organising “existing structures to be more efficient and
improving policy coherence by government actors and all other stakeholders”
(Fourie 2018: 765-771). This will create the conducive environment for social
entrepreneurship to thrive, grow and become integrated into the multi-stakeholder

45
partnership, as this provides ways to address social issues that are creative and
innovative, assisting attainment of SA’s NDP and SDGs.

2.8.5 Townships
In SA, the term “township” refers to the underdeveloped urban living areas that
started in the early 19th century, enacted by the Group Areas Act of 1950, which
allowed for non-whites (Africans, Coloured and Indians) to be removed from
suburbs designated for ‘whites only’ during the apartheid period (COGTA 2009:
5-6). According to Manyaka-Boshielo (2017: 1-10), townships are usually
saturated by informal settlements and, in general, these areas commonly lack
adequate infrastructure and basic amenities, with most people living in these
areas having to travel outside their residential areas to find employment in order
to provide for themselves and their families.

There are roughly 532 African, Asian and coloured townships in SA, with a larger
geographic area than both the cities of Johannesburg and Durban combined
(Schwabe 2020). In addition, it is estimated that, as at 2019, approximately 21.7
million people live in townships across the country, which represents a significant
percentage of the total SA population (Schwabe 2020). This makes it critical that
focus is placed on these areas to improve and address their needs.

Manyaka-Boshielo (2017: 1-10) believes one of the challenges the apartheid


government did not adequately address, was providing and creating
developmental platforms or areas in the townships where young people could be
trained and equipped with creative skills, as well as serve as an outlet for their
energy. This negatively affected many young people in the townships and, as
such, they engaged in socially unproductive activities that ensued in social
problems, such as the high levels of crime and teenage pregnancies, dropping
out of school and substance abuse. Consequently, Littlewood and Holt (2018:
525-561) deem the inability of the South African government to address the varied
existing social problems and the institutional void created by insufficient profit-

46
making opportunities, as well as the lack of requisite functioning market
institutions, discourages participation of traditional businesses in addressing
social issues and these give rise to SEs being active in that space.

Most countries in the world have adopted traditional options to deal with some of
their social challenges and achieve sustainable development (Lubberink 2019;
Bľanda and Urbančíková 2020). There are various articles and previous studies
conducted on social entrepreneurship and how it can be used to address the
growing social issues around the world (Diab 2019; Lubberink 2019; Bľanda and
Urbančíková 2020; Iwueke and Nwaiwu 2014). Nonetheless, minimal if any
research exists that identify those factors that could potentially impede the social
entrepreneurship contribution as a sustainable development tool, especially from
the KZN township perspective. Hence, many assumptions, beliefs and confusion
exist around these factors and how they significantly affect the development of
communities such as townships.

Over the years, however, it has been argued that townships have become iconic
in SA society, with great potential, as they serve as the heart of where most of the
freedom struggles emanated (COGTA 2009). Consequently, townships are
places where there is a real sense of community, where many prominent leaders
in the country have developed, including politicians, businesspeople, as well as
sports icons and artists. Mills (1989) concurs that despite most townships
considered as overcrowded, polluted and monotonous wastelands, the underlying
aim of creating an anti-social and controlled environment was highly successful.

While these townships are characterised by strictly controlled environments,


informal spaces and activities, a significant number of small enterprises emerge
and flourish - many as a survival instinct and others as a political act (Findley and
Ogbu 2011). However, there is a significant role social entrepreneurship can play
in increasing the level of modification in homogenous township spaces. As
pointed out by Blagoycheva (2019: 488-495), social entrepreneurship can

47
adequately combine economic, environmental and social goals in one basket to
address the needs of local communities and achieve sustainable development;
nonetheless, it remains important to identify the key factors in local communities
affecting its activities and, where possible, eliminate these challenges.

2.9 A DESCRIPTION OF THE INANDA, NTUZUMA AND KWAMASHU (INK)


AREA
Inanda, Ntuzuma and KwaMashu (INK) are different areas that have been
combined, in order to integrate development between the areas. It is 20km north-
west of eThekwini (Durban) city centre and a predominantly residential area,
comprising of a mix of formal residential townships and informal settlements. The
INK area is home to approximately 580 000 residents which represents about 18
percent of the eThekwini Municipality’s total population and is the second largest
agglomeration of poor neighbourhoods and township settlement in South Africa
with an extent of 9 423 hectares (Mngadi, 2013: 76).

Figure 2.3 INK area map

48
Source: Banyambona (2013: 90)

The INK node is both a presidential poverty within the Urban Renewal Programme
(URP) as well as one of the five Area Based Management (ABM) Learning Areas
within the eThekwini Municipality. According to the Nodal Economic Development
Profile by Business Trust and Department of Provincial and local Government
(2007), the three areas may have individual differences, but they share a common
set of challenges, including low levels of internal economic activities and their
growth prospects are largely dependent on external areas (mainly Durban).

The area has a predominantly female population with figures above 50 percent
compared to males which sits below half. According to Mngadi (2013), the area
requires a significant intervention in terms of youth development and promotion
of entrepreneurship because of the high population of young people compared to
the older population. In addition, 73 percent of households are unemployed, 77
percent of households earn less than R9 600 per annum, 12 percent have no
schooling, 7 percent have completed primary school, 26 percent have matric or
high school, only 4 percent have tertiary education and 43 percent do not have
formal houses. The area comprises of predominantly informal settlements, with
high crime rates, lack of public space and recreational activities and low level of
public services (Banyambona, 2013: 3).

Many roads within the INK area remain unpaved or in disrepair, while water and
electricity are still not available to large section of the population (Banyambona,
2013: 3). This is a major challenge to the socio-economic development of the
area. In the eThekwini Municipality Spatial Development Framework (2022), it
commits that by 2030, the municipality will socially equitable, environmentally
sustainable, resilient and functionally efficient in a manner that bolsters its status
as a gateway to Africa and the world. However, the contribution of social
entrepreneurship to achieving this fate cannot be ignored and as such factors

49
affecting its effective operation in the INK area needs to be given adequate
considerations.

2.10 SOCIAL ENTREPRENEURSHIP CONTRIBUTION TO THE SOUTH


AFRICAN ECONOMY
According to a recent study conducted by Elliott (2019: 1-13), social
entrepreneurship is key in addressing the social and environmental needs of
societies neglected by governments and other agencies while, at the same time,
contributing economically. It plays a substantial role attending to serious socio-
economic problems, for example, primary healthcare, unemployment, alleviation
of poverty, and more (Visser 2011: 233-247; Manyaka-Boshielo 2017; Kajiita and
Kang’ethe 2020: 95-106; Myres 2020). In Sub-Saharan Africa (SSA), social
entrepreneurs are at the forefront in ensuring positive transformation (British
Council 2020b: 4). Even though, in SA their contribution is considered relatively
small compared to other countries, with roughly 12 percent generating income in
excess of R1 million, most only employing between one and 50 people and
serving fewer than 100 beneficiaries a month (Myres 2020).

Many SEs in SA are, however, mainly home-grown, emerging from low-income


communities, driven by local motivation to address societal and developmental
challenges and operate in tourism, manufacturing, healthcare, energy and
education sectors (World Bank 2017: 8). This is an indication that social
entrepreneurship in SA should be understood to have local focus, potentially
making a substantial contribution to address poverty, inequality and
unemployment issues in local communities such as townships (World Bank 2017;
Moloi-Motsepe 2021). Consequently, in order for social entrepreneurs to deliver
these benefits, it is important to stimulate their innovative potential to effectively
create social value and remain sustainable (Mohapeloa and Urban 2014: 1;
Barnard 2019: 1-8).

50
According to Barnard (2019: 1-8), social entrepreneurs operating in a country
such as SA, where the national unemployment level is more than 30 percent, and
even higher in local communities such as townships – the employment of people
becomes a critical part of their social mission. Kajiita and Kang’ethe (2020: 95-
106) assert that in a conducive environment this can have a strong multiplier effect
on economic value creation, and mobilisation of resources, as social
entrepreneurship is the sector that can create and leverage partnerships with
other sectors to address social problems such as poverty.

Social entrepreneurship thus contributes to job creation, as well as creating


opportunities for communities such as townships and providing solutions to their
specific social problems in order to improve their circumstances (Watters et al.
2012: 9). However, unlike a traditional business, the success of the SE is
measured and determined by the amount of social value it brings into the
community (ILO 2017: 10). Despite many challenges affecting the effective
creation of social value in SA, particularly in communities such as townships, the
opportunities ahead outgrow the challenges and communities stand to benefit
from social entrepreneurs’ interventions (Kajiita and Kang’ethe 2020: 95-106).

2.11 SOCIAL ENTREPRENEURSHIP CONTRIBUTION TO THE


INTERNATIONAL ECONOMY
In many developing countries, social entrepreneurship is considered an essential
type of entrepreneurship that can boost the economy through job creation,
innovative service and product provision, furthering an economy that is
sustainable, as well as the creation of opportunities and future hope (Kazmi et al.
2016: 1). Without doubt, social entrepreneurship has become a driving force for
economic growth and job creation, with an estimate of between 28 and 41 million
jobs created directly by SEs in Africa (British Council 2020b: 4). The social
entrepreneurship role in contributing to local economies in Africa is significant;

51
this is achieved by means of job creation, life quality improvement of local people
and ensuring valuable social service provision (Jilenga 2017: 41).

In a report on the state of SEs in Kenya by the British Council (2017: 40), an
estimate of approximately 43 933 SEs in Kenya is stipulated, expected to gain
more momentum as the economy continues to grow and levels of political
instability and insecurity are limited. One of the most critical discoveries in the
report, is that young people are at the hallmark of the SE sector in Kenya, with
approximately 79 percent of SEs led by people aged 25-44, with 37 percent of
this led by people aged 25-34, and 42 percent by people aged 35-44 (British
Council 2017: 4). Hence, by growing and sustaining social entrepreneurship, it
could contribute significantly to Kenya’s youth employment rates.

In Nigeria and Cameroon, despite their huge mineral and human resources,
poverty is a daily reality for one of every two people and 1.25 dollars a day or
much less is what most of the population survive on (Maji and Itodo 2016).
Although social entrepreneurship is not recognised by government legislation,
there is no prohibition to engage in SE activities in Nigeria and Cameroon. As
such, there has been increasing and fast emergence of social entrepreneurs in
Nigeria and Cameroon in recent years, making positive change through
innovative solutions in solving the problem of poverty and unemployment (Maji
and Itodo 2016).

In Canada, SE owners have a median age of 22 years and exist for a variety of
reasons, these include: employment development provided by 26 percent ,
training for workforce integration provided by 19 percent, with a further 19 percent
that generates income for a parent organization, and operating to achieve a social
mission indicated by 81 percent , while operating to achieve a cultural mission
was done by 45 percent, a further 27 percent operates to achieve an
environmental mission, and 43 percent operate to enhance poverty reduction
(Elson, Hall and Wamucii 2016).

52
In the European Union, an estimated 10 percent of companies and six percent of
total employment fall within the social economy (ILO 2017). The economy sectors
of both social and solidarity in France account for 10.3 percent of national
employment and almost eight percent of GDP (Summerfield 2020). Furthermore,
SEs in the UK contribute approximately £60bn to the economy, three percent of
GDP and five percent of total employment (Kah 2019; Summerfield 2020).

This means social entrepreneurship contributes significantly to total job creation


in both developing and developed countries and is increasingly responsible for a
large share of employment (United States Agency for International Development
(USAID) 2021). In addition, social entrepreneurs do not only create jobs for
vulnerable groups, they reinvest their earned profits into social projects and
promote and facilitate the idea of inclusive development (Tien et al. 2020). Thus,
the functions of a viable SE sector cannot be overemphasised, as it contributes
significantly to economic development, employment creation and GDP (Diab
2019), and it is important to ensure this sector is developed and operational.

2.12 UNDERSTANDING SOCIAL ENTREPRENEURSHIP AS A CONTEXT


PHENOMENON
Many scholars emphasised the concept of social entrepreneurship is a context
phenomenon and its practicality and effectiveness depend on the understanding
of the particular context in which it is applied (Zahra et al. 2009; Bacq and Janssen
2011; Moses and Olokundun 2014). In a study conducted by Razavi et al. (2014:
1) on the barriers of social entrepreneurship in Iran, it is stated that “social
entrepreneurship is a context-dependent phenomenon; therefore, it is essential to
better understand its processes, mechanisms, and components before
implementing it in certain culture, economic, and social contexts”.

Fernández-Laviada et al. (2020) concur with this sentiment when they emphasise
the differential behaviours of social entrepreneurs can only be explained when
relevance is given to the environment where the social entrepreneurial activity

53
takes place. Hence, to enrich the theoretical understanding of social
entrepreneurship, there needs to be ongoing interactions between social
entrepreneurs and the context in which they operate (Fernández-Laviada et al.
2020).

According to a study by Rivera-Santos et al. (2015) on social entrepreneurship in


SSA, a lingering colonial influence and strong ethical group identities set the
African context apart from various other developing countries in the world.
However, there has been limited focus on the African environment, understanding
the context social entrepreneurs operate in creates the social needs and
numerous opportunities to emerge in new and creative forms (Rivera-Santos et
al. 2015; Littlewood and Holt 2018). In other words, context with regard to social
entrepreneurship cannot be taken for granted, as it is assumed to be a central
element in how to theorise and create awareness of the connection between the
phenomenon and its surroundings (Chandra and Kerlin 2021: 135-151). In order
to better understand social entrepreneurship in any country the context, in terms
of level of economic development in that country, therefore, needs to be
considered, because the lower the economic development level of a country, the
higher the social entrepreneurial activities level might be (Fernández-Laviada et
al. 2020).

Scholars such as Bacq and Janssen (2011) believe there are numerous different
approaches concerning the phenomenon associated with the surrounding social,
economic, cultural and institutional environment. These approaches are also
different on a continental level, because government roles are viewed differently,
without a distinct transatlantic approach to have a better grasp of the social
entrepreneurship concept. Specifically, when reinterpreted from the discourses in
a South African context, the phenomenon adds more local sense to the
entrepreneurs’ social mission (Karanda and Toledano 2012: 201-215). Therefore,
from the above discussions, to understand and conceptualise the social

54
entrepreneurship concept adequately, based on the context, is imperative, in
order to fully prescribe a mechanism or approach appropriate for its success.

2.13 SOCIAL ENTREPRENEURSHIP DEVELOPMENT IN A SOUTH


AFRICAN CONTEXT
After the first democratic election in 1994, in an effort to overcome the apartheid
system of governance, SA adopted the Reconstruction and Development
Programme (RDP); a participatory, people-centred, developmental approach that
placed more emphasis on the social construct of the country’s society (Moss
2012: 9). However, the ruling government of the African National Congress
(ANC), decided to dissolve the RDP and adopt a neoliberal growth development
policy called Growth, Employment and Redistribution Program (GEAR), which
shifts the development trajectory from focusing on social integration to a
predominantly economic development mind-set that focuses on attracting Foreign
Direct Investments (FDIs) and becoming an important player in the global market
stage (Moss 2012: 9). Despite the rise in FDIs and the increase in GDP, through
the GEAR program, the social tenets of SA have been weakened over the years
- the level of income inequality has widened in society, while the level of poverty
is escalating and the rate of unemployment increasing (GIBS 2018; Kajiita and
Kang’ethe 2020).

According to Watters et al. (2012), the lauded political transformation in 1994,


expected to transform the economic and social landscape of the country, has only
benefited and improved a small segment of society’s lives. This is evident in the
affirmative action driven macro-economic policies that have not changed the lives
of most people, in addition to the lack of growth in the economy is of increasing
concern, with many young people not in training or employment (Watters et al.
2012).

The GEM is one of the world most recognised research projects aimed at ensuring
the relationship between entrepreneurship and national economic development is

55
comprehensively understood, in its 2019 report, grouped SA in the middle-income
level, as the economy remains sluggish and its real GDP per capita has
consistently declined since 2011. Furthermore, the report stated the 2019 GDP
growth forecasts for the full-year at roughly 0.8 percent, forecasts for 2020
concerning economic growth at 1.0–1.2 percent and 1.7 percent for 2021, seen
as low and less than population growth (GEM 2019).

Invariably, the result of this low growth will lead to lower job creation levels with
further unemployment and inequality. In fact, the rate of unemployment is at its
highest level since 2008 and youths between 15 to 24 years of age are the most
affected, as their unemployment rate is at 64.4 percent (Stats SA 2021). All these
indicators show why SA’s entrepreneurial activity level, in comparison to other
participating economies, is perceived as very low.

Despite there being a direct relationship between entrepreneurial activity and per
capita income, SA continues to lag other countries, as its early-stage
entrepreneurial activity is ranked 25 of 50 profiled economies, leaving it behind
countries such as Mexico, Madagascar and Latvia (GEM 2019). In addition, the
Global Innovative Index rankings (2021) shows, in terms of innovation, SA is
ranked as the 61st country in the world. Hence, the ability for SEs to step into the
vacuum created by traditional government initiatives and potentially contribute to
ensuring the South African economy grows, is noteworthy. Increasingly seen as
economic growth and a development driver in Africa, social entrepreneurship
presents new solutions for old problems and adopts business enterprises rules,
blending these to generate values with regard to social, economic and
environmental factors (Visser 2011).

In 2009, it was highlighted during the Johannesburg ILO conference that African
countries such as SA ought to adopt an alternative development approach. The
emphasis of this approach, titled the “social economy”, was on the part played by
SEs and social entrepreneurships as key components of the social economy

56
(Moss 2012: 11). Furthermore, during this conference, the importance of the
social economy as a vital economic recovery tool in Africa was acknowledged by
the then SA Minister of Economic Development, Ebrahim Patel; a commitment
was made to develop a more socially and economically equitable growth plan for
SA (Moss 2012: 12). Subsequently, the NGP was announced and specifically
highlights different existing measures to advance and motivate social
entrepreneurs and build the country’s SE sector (Moss 2012: 12). With the State
having accepted publicly to join in “the global trend of using social
entrepreneurship [activities] to develop the South African economy”, it is
acknowledged as vital to deal with numerous social issues, thus ensuring
sustainable development in society.

Table 2.1: Key events in social entrepreneurship history in SA


Year Events
1892 Founding of the Pietermaritzburg Consumers Co-Operative
1966 United Nations declares apartheid a crime against humanity. Donors begin funding local civil
society
1970s Growth of “civic” campaigning around local material issues (e.g., better service delivery) and
wider political issues (Overthrow of apartheid)
1980s Agricultural co-operatives, trade union co-operative emerge
1991 Ashoka foundation opens offices in SA
1994 First free national and local elections in SA
1997 National lotteries Act (1997) distributes proceeds to good causes. Non-Profit Organization Act
(1997) repeals restrictive Fundraising Act 1978
1999 End of transition to democracy, reduction in international donor funding
2001 PhytoTrade Africa formed
2003 Broad-Based Black Economic Empowerment (BBBEE) Act
2004 COFTA formed: Co-Operative Development Policy for SA, 2004
2005 Cooperatives Act (No. 14 of 2005)
2006 SASIX launched
2009 ASEN and UnLtd SA created. ILO SE research study commences
2010 CSESE founded at the University of Johannesburg, GIBS launches SECP; South African
Government NGP Framework
2011 Bertha Centre for Social Innovation and Entrepreneurship launched University of Cape town;
SE World Forum, Johannesburg
2012 SE Academy Africa formed
2013 COFTA – World Fair Trade Organization Africa; Amendments to Cooperative Act (2005)
2014 ImpactHub Johannesburg launches Social Impact Accelerator.

57
Source: Littlewood and Holt (2018)

2.14 DIFFERENCE BETWEEN A SOCIAL ENTERPRISE AND A


COMMERCIAL ENTERPRISE
According to Fernández-Laviada et al. (2020: 1), three main elements differentiate
the SE from the commercial enterprise and/or charity organisations. These are:

• Social mission is a predominant factor;


• Innovation is of great importance; and
• There is the role of earned income.

Even though there is commonality among many SE and business enterprise traits
and behaviours, a clear vision of a SE is found in one central characteristic;
namely, it aims to add value and improve the life quality of the less privileged
(Visser 2011). Mitra and Borza (2011) also argue in their study comparing social
entrepreneurs versus commercial entrepreneurs, that characteristics create an
idealistic profile, and most SEs might not encompass all the qualities, however,
the characteristics are important to harness the profile required that will serve as
a guide to those who want to promote SEs. Furthermore, they identified the
following vital characteristics for an organisation to be considered a SE: creating
and sustaining social value is the core mission; identifying and pursuing new
opportunities; innovation is a continuous process in its engagements and; scarce
resources are not considered to be a limitation to overcoming and learning (Mitra
and Borza 2011).

In the UK, according to the British Council (2015), SEs comprise a range of
different organisations that use various business models in different markets to
address the numerous social needs in the UK. Although their origins vary and
many might have started independently or perhaps, they have grown out of
charities and NGOs or emerged from the public sector, they are usually united by
some key characteristics. These include: making their social purpose very clear;

58
significant proportion of income generated from trading and; the majority of profits
are reinvested into their social mission (British Council 2015).

Bacq and Janssen (2011) believe attempts have been made by scholars to isolate
SEs but many of their characteristics overlap with their commercial enterprise
counterparts - they have the same focus on leadership, vision and ability to
influence and empower others to develop their ideas into reality. However, the
main distinct characteristic of a SE is the vision to solve a problem identified in
the social sector or an entrepreneurial focus or ambition motivated by a social
moral (Bacq and Janssen 2011).

Boschee and McClurg (2003), some of the scholars who support the mission-
driven business approach of SE, point out that for any organisation to be
described or classified as a social entrepreneur and act in an entrepreneurial
manner, it must be generating earned income from its activities. Furthermore, they
highlighted two distinct characteristics of a social enterprise: the earned income
strategies of a SE must be directly tied to its social mission; and every SE is
embedded on a double bottom line, an effective combination of financial and
social returns (Boschee and McClurg 2003).

From the above descriptions by various scholars on the difference between a SE


and a commercial enterprise, there are two important entrepreneurial
requirements that need to be fulfilled to attain SE status, as well as guide this
study. The first requirement is that the foremost mission of a SE is to create
sustainable social values and solve social problems neglected or ignored by
commercial enterprises or governments. The second requirement is that
profitability is a goal, and some form of commercial activity is developed to
generate income, which will be reinvested into the mission and provide financial
sustainability, rather than distributing it to shareholders (Fernández-Laviada et al.
2020; Boschee and McClurg 2003; Bacq and Janssen 2011; and Mitra and Borza
2011).

59
2.15 SOCIAL ENTERPRISE TYPES AND LEGAL FORMS IN SA
There are many organisations operating in SA that can satisfy the characteristics
identified above for them to be classified as SEs. However, the concept of SE is
relatively new in SA (GIBS 2018) and there is no legislative framework that
addresses the structure and classification of SEs in the country (Watters et al.
2012; Claeye 2016). In an attempt to bridge this gap, in 2009, a group of high
level South African government officials were taken by the ILO to Belgium and the
UK to explore and understand the legislative and other supportive frameworks
used in those countries, however, there has to date not been any outcome
(Watters et al. 2012).

According to Matsimela (2017: 14), the Non-profit Organization Act (1997) and
Companies Act (1993) are the only known legal frameworks enterprises such as
NPOs, voluntary associations, trusts and companies established for public
purposes could use to fulfil their social goals and mission. Otherwise, they are
established as co-operatives, close corporations, private companies or section 21
public companies (Matsimela 2017: 14).

It is observed by Claeye (2016) that whatever legal framework an organisation


decides to base its operation on, various factors ought to be considered; personal,
contextual and socio-economic, in order to choose one form or the other. In
addition, Claeye (2016) highlights three models under which SEs could be
incorporated in SA, discussed below:

2.15.1 Not-for-profit model


The fundamental aim and objective of a NPO is to provide social orientated
services to communities and societies. Claeye (2016) states this type of
organisation is solely dependent on donor funding for its operation; they may
sometimes engage in activities that could generate income, but are not privately
owned and, as such, cannot distribute profit.

60
Matsimela (2017: 15) finds two types of strategies used by SEs that operate within
the not-for-profit model. There is the “purely non-profit strategy” on the one hand,
which constitutes organisations that do not believe in making profit from their
social activities. However, the problem with this type of SEs is their limited
finances and the possible challenge of sustainability and scalability (Matsimela
2017: 15). On the other hand, there are those SEs that use the “non-profit with
earned income strategy”, made up of organisations that not only depend on donor
funding and government grants, but also generate income, reinvested in the
organisation to improve their social mission (Matsimela 2017: 15; Coetzee 2016).

Upon dissolution, organisations that operate the non-profit with earned income
strategy will, however, be required to donate all surplus assets and money to other
NPOs with similar objectives (Claeye 2016: 15). Organisations that may fall within
this not-for-profit model include: voluntary associations, trusts, and non-profit
companies (previously referred to as section 21 companies) (Claeye 2016: 15).

2.15.2 For-profit models


This type of SE is considered to exist primarily to make profit. Organisations in
this category are incorporated as for-profit entities and run as a business, with the
aim of generating profit and reinvesting to achieve their social objectives (Claeye
2016: 19), but cannot access philanthropic funding (Coetzee 2016). Matsimela
(2017: 15) describes these SEs as operating a “for-profit with mission-driven
strategy” with a purpose to create social impact, while receiving grants, as well as
making profits from their social services to ensure sustainability. These SEs
operate a mixed funding model, and their success is measured by the level of
achieved social impact (Matsimela 2017: 15). Nonetheless, no reliable data exist
to allow an adequate understanding of the prevalence of SEs operating these
types of organisations (Claeye 2016).

61
2.15.3 Hybrid model
To achieve the social purpose of the organisation, Claeye (2016: 24) explains this
type of SE combines the “not-for-profit” and “for-profit” models. The author
suggests when a SE diversifies it is able to spread the risks to the organisation
among various entities, either not-for and for-profit, and reinvest income
generated from the for-profit entities into the not-for-profit branches, to meet its
social objectives (Claeye 2016: 24). Matsimela (2017: 15) describes this type of
SE as a double bottom line business because boundaries between for-profit and
not-for-profit models are blurred and allow operation as a commercial business,
generating income from the sale of goods and services to the public and private
sector, as well as accepting donations and grants to achieve its social mission.
Claeye (2016: 24) however, warns that despite the luring potential of the hybrid
model to SE, it is considered very complex in terms of administration, as well as
its legal and managerial constructs.

Despite the different models described above, Visser (2011) suggests social
entrepreneurship manifests itself in different industries and forms of business and
serves as the single unifying symbol for the various venture and organisational
activities, throughout a wide range - from the private, public and the informal
sectors. In a typology that explains the continuum of social entrepreneurial
activities, Bosma and Levie (2009, cited in Visser 2011) identified the following
spectrums:

• Traditional NGO: sets high social and environmental goals but the objective is
not profit;
• Non-profit SEs: similar principles as the traditional NGO but the driving force
is innovation;
• Hybrid SE: similar principles as the above but income and profit are also an
important part of their mission;

62
• Profit-oriented SEs: significant level of social and environmental goals set, with
income strategy embedded in daily undertakings.

This continuum of social entrepreneurial activities, as Ryder and Vogeley (2017)


described, suggests SEs can be placed on a spectrum ranging from traditional
NGO, to purely commercial (Fig. 2.4).

Figure 2.4: Social enterprise spectrum

Source: Adapted from Ryder and Vogeley (2017)

2.16 TOWNSHIP SOCIAL ENTREPRENEURSHIP


In a township context, social entrepreneurship denotes the individual or
organisational ability to carry out their social value creation activities in township
areas, by identifying problems within the communities, being alert to opportunities
that could arise from those problems and developing measures, systems and
procedures to solve or address those problems (Manyaka-Boshielo 2017; Ngatse-
Ipanqui and Dassah 2019). Township social entrepreneurship consists of those
people who are socially minded, as well as entrepreneurs. In other words, they

63
focus in addressing social concerns in the townships, however, are also geared
towards generating profits and creating wealth (Manyaka-Boshielo 2017;
Littlewood and Holt 2018).

According to Mefi and Asoba (2020), social entrepreneurship has greater


relevance in the South African environment, particularly in the township
communities characterised by socioeconomic inequalities created by apartheid,
crime, violence, and protests, as well as service delivery challenges. The field of
social entrepreneurship widely acknowledges that amongst the different
dimensions that could impact social entrepreneurship and the importance to its
effective operations, the characteristics of the context in which they operate have
received very limited attention (Bacq and Janssen 2011: 373-403).

As previously discussed, as a context phenomenon, social entrepreneurship


along with the environment, significantly feature in the creation of the needed
social value (Razavi et al. 2014: 1). Hence, a richer understanding of the
phenomenon will be obtained from the social entrepreneurship and environment
interplay within a township context and close the existing gap in academic
discussion around the influence of the environment on social entrepreneurship
(Rivera-Santos et al., 2015: 72-91).

2.17 IMPORTANCE OF SOCIAL ENTERPRENEURSHIP TO SOUTH


AFRICAN TOWNSHIP ECONOMY
Social entrepreneurship is considered one of the solutions to deal with the high
poverty, unemployment, and crime levels, while it is also expected to overcome
social challenges in South African townships, by providing sustainable and
effective social innovation solutions (Ngatse-Ipanqui and Dassah 2019). The main
parameter that differentiates townships and cities in SA tend to border on socio-
economics (Bvuma and Marnewick 2020: 3), with as much as 60 percent of the
township working-age population unemployed (Serrano 2020),

64
Current forecasts estimate the COVID-19 pandemic may push 1 million more
people in the country into poverty (Bittar 2020), which means more people in the
townships will be living in poverty. However, through intervention and innovation,
social entrepreneurship can create a new, more just and stable equilibrium that
will bring about some level of relief and improve the standard of township living
(Manyaka-Boshielo 2017). Although social entrepreneurs are focused on
addressing social concerns in the townships, they are also geared towards
generating profits and creating wealth.

Littlewood and Holt (2018) state businesses are crucial to ensure areas, such as
townships in SA, are transformed and developed, specifically by means of CSR
activities. An increasing interest in social entrepreneurs in these townships and
their engagement nevertheless exists, because they provide innovative
mechanisms to address complex sustainable development problems. The socio-
economic impact of township social entrepreneurs cannot be ignored as they are
involved in various community activities, more comprehensive than education,
health and housing (Kajiita and Kang’ethe 2020).

Despite township social entrepreneurs being very innovative and dynamic, their
importance in township development is not fully understood and they are
sometimes perceived negatively (Ngatse-Ipanqui and Dassah 2019). In addition,
due to the lack or partial knowledge of the social entrepreneurship impact in the
townships, it is difficult for the field to effectively contribute to sustainable
development, improve cohesion in the townships, gain support from community
members and create institutions (Ngatse-Ipanqui and Dassah 2019). However,
social entrepreneurship in the township creates a major opportunity for individuals
or organisations to develop innovative solutions to social problems government
and charitable organisations are failing to alleviate, as some social and
environmental context tends to inspire social entrepreneurship more strongly than
others (Mefi and Asoba 2020).

65
Overall, the literature review thus shows that understanding the township context
will enable social entrepreneurs identify opportunities to initiate change and
operate at full potential, as well as present activities to proliferate in the country
and help achieve its sustainable development goals. Interestingly, even though
the context of township has an important part in social entrepreneurship
operations, the characteristics of who is classified as a social entrepreneur and
the structure of how activities are managed should not differ between townships
and other parts of the country (Manyaka-Boshielo 2017).

2.18 THE SIGNIFICANCE OF SOCIAL ENTREPRENEURSHIP DURING


COVID-19 IN SA
The swift and efficient response by social entrepreneurs to the Covid-19
pandemic and its impact highlighted their ability to support vulnerable
communities, in acting as first responders; critical to global Covid-19 response
efforts (Nezurugo, Demoulin and Pawar 2020). The systemic inequalities of the
global economic system have been exposed by the pandemic and social
entrepreneurs are solving failures by both the market and government, by serving
those populations that have been excluded and are vulnerable, most affected by
the Covid-19 impact (Bonnici 2020).

Covid-19 effects have additionally seen many across SA quickly descend into
food poverty, with many relying on soup kitchens and food parcels to survive
(Millson 2021). According to Mbunge (2020: 1809), “the closure of international
borders, global demand meltdown, supply disruption, dramatic scaling down of
human and industrial activities during lockdown” have created many socio-
economic problems in SA. Furthermore, in a country such as SA, where there are
approximately three million micro and informal businesses, the impact of Covid-
19 has left many people in this sector without a source of income or safety net
and struggling to meet their basic needs (Department of Small Business
Development 2021: 7; Adebiyi et al. 2021: 234).

66
During the 2020 second quarter lockdown in SA, adequate education was not
provided to an estimated 13 million students, which raises concerns in SA, where
learning poverty is a reality for 80 percent of students, while the decline in
economic activity further aggravates unemployment of young people (Alvarez-
Iglesias, Garman and Lund, 2021: 200). In addition, Sekyere et al, (2020: 5)
conclude the Covid-19 effects in SA have drawn attention to the systemic quality
of service delivery weaknesses, for instance, services in many communities
across SA such as water and sanitation, healthcare, housing, and infrastructure.

In response to the effects of Covid-19, many governments are looking to partner


with social entrepreneurs as they are positioned uniquely to exemplify a new
benchmark for present-day change leaders and have proven their worth as first
responders, enabling healthcare that is affordable to those in need, ensuring job
protection and providing swift emergency relief (World Economic Forum 2020). In
a country such as SA where the highest inequalities in the world are registered,
with extreme poverty a reality for an estimate of 20 percent of the population and
Covid-19 that threatens to push a further three million South Africans into poverty
(Alvarez-Iglesias et al. 2021: 200), social entrepreneurs become vital to help meet
the job challenge, reduce income inequality and use business models to provide
to social challenge solutions in the country (Kerlin and Dowsett 2021).

According to the Organization for Economic Co-operation and development


(OECD) (2020), the social economy plays a significant part in dealing with and
mitigating the economic and social short and long-term Covid-19 pandemic
impacts. Social entrepreneurs assist in the short-term recovery process through
innovative solutions, provided to strengthen public services, which round out
government actions, helping to reshape the post-crisis economy in the long-term,
through the promotion of an economy model that is inclusive and sustainable.
Although, it could be painfully difficult for social entrepreneurs to pursue and even
consider deeper changes while fighting for daily survival due to the Covid-19

67
impact (Worsham, Langsam and Martin 2020). Hence, all stakeholders need to
double down on their support to social entrepreneurs in order that they may scale
up their innovative solutions in response to the challenges Covid-19 has created
in communities (World Economic Forum 2020).

2.19 CONCLUSION
Chapter two presented the background into the concept of social
entrepreneurship, definition of the relevant concepts, types and legal forms of
social enterprises in SA, and understanding social entrepreneurship as a context
phenomenon. The chapter also provided an in-depth literature review on the
contribution of social entrepreneurship to the international economy, South
African economy, and the township economy. Furthermore, this chapter
highlighted the conceptual view and theories relevant to the study.

Chapter three discusses social entrepreneurship and factors affecting its


sustainable development contribution. This chapter should provide more insight
into the challenges that might hinder social entrepreneurs’ value creation within
the KZN township context.

68
CHAPTER THREE
SOCIAL ENTREPRENEURSHIP AND FACTORS AFFECTING ITS
SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT CONTRIBUTION

3.1 INTRODUCTION
The World Bank (2017) indicates that the SE ecosystem comprises the actors,
institutions, and networks that provide the necessary support for SEs to grow and
develop. However, in South African townships, SEs still lack a supportive
ecosystem, or enabling environment that could ensure these organisations thrive
and grow (Mefi and Asoba 2020).

Economic development of South African townships has been hindered by issues


of poverty, unemployment and health, with little or no concerted, coordinated and
committed actions by stakeholders to address these issues (Manyaka-Boshielo
2017). According to Ngatse-Ipanqui and Dassah (2019), some key problems
affecting SEs in communities such as townships, are the unsustainability of SE
outcomes and weak measures to monitor activities and outcomes. Moreover, the
universal set of measurements used to assess the impact level commercial
enterprises has in community development, might not necessarily be appropriate
to assess the level of impact affecting SE growth and development, particularly in
the townships (Ngatse-Ipanqui and Dassah 2019). Hence, an appropriate set of
measurements will help gain an understanding of the township SE impact in the
development of these communities.

Researchers such as Gorji and Rahimian (2011: 31-36) suggest that, in general,
some of the most important factors affecting entrepreneurship are financing,
physical resources, marketing and socio-cultural factors. However, social
entrepreneurship is explicitly motivated to achieve a dual mission of economic
and social value creation, which implies the factors attributed to affecting

69
commercial entrepreneurship are less than those of social entrepreneurship, as
the latter is encountered with more of an array of complex factors (Davies et al.
2019). Thus, the understanding of SEs cannot be achieved “in a purely economic
sense”, except when the social context receives adequate focus, along with the
local environment (Mair and Marti 2006: 36-44).

The significant influence of the location, in ensuring effective operation of social


entrepreneurial activities, is argued by Seda and Ismail (2019: 162-182), when
they suggest social entrepreneurship, in dealing with completely different types of
social problems, operates in a wide variety of geographical locations. This makes
it imperative to understand the factors within that location, as they are vital to
ensure the creation of social value.

Bvuma and Marnewick (2020) are of the opinion that in KZN, as in other parts of
SA, SEs and other SMMEs may generally encounter similar factors, such as lack
of access to finance. However, these enterprises also have factors uniquely
influenced by their environment and historical background where they operate,
such as in townships. Davies et al. (2019) mention some of the impediments
potentially related to the township SE, include the inability of opportunity
identification and exploitation, as well as individual, organisational and institutional
constraints.

Furthermore, Razavi et al. (2014) state specialised knowledge is one important


factor with a direct effect in motivating individuals towards social
entrepreneurship. Hence, a lack of knowledge management and understanding
of social issues by SE owners/managers could hinder the growth and
development of the sector in communities such as townships. In addition, factors
such as lack of public support and the lack of human capital, insufficient access
to infrastructure, technology, as well as market and location, along with cost of
compliance, could also affect township SE growth and development (Maphalla et
al. 2009).

70
Davies et al. (2019) find gender, race, educational level and class are some of the
factors created in the environment that could negatively affect SEs. In other
words, perceived individual’s characteristics in townships can serve as hindrance
to their ability to engage in activities that create value to grow a SE. The lack of
involvement of local people in community development, lack of synergy between
stakeholders, inadequate presentation of a viable SE plan to the community, and
lack of proper implementation of SE activities, are confirmed to be some of the
factors affecting SE development in the townships (Ngatse-Ipanqui and Dassah
2019).

Littlewood and Holt (2018) find the nature of the environment in which SA SEs
operate typified by resources and support from the state that are limited,
diminishing international donors, no dedicated SE legal status, and inadequate
government policy and legislation implementation. Further to this, SEs are unable
to access enterprise development assistance and bring their business model and
strategies into alignment with B-BBEE frameworks, in addition to the associated
reporting and auditing costs when the corporate sector is engaged. These are all
considered important factors hindering social entrepreneurship growth and
development.

Rivera-Santos et al. (2015: 72-91) add that poor infrastructure, relative cost,
bureaucracy, challenging business conditions, and weak institutional structures,
along with a high level of informality, also influence the growth and development
of SEs in communities such as townships. Hence, the growth and development
of SEs in townships greatly depend on removing all these bottle-necks to ensure
SEs effectively create social values that will improve the social entrepreneurship
contribution to sustainable development.

3.2 IMPORTANCE OF SOCIAL NETWORKING


According to Seelos and Mair (2004), during one of the largest gatherings of
heads of states in 2000, member countries adopted the UN Millennium

71
declaration, and committed to eliminate poverty, advance human dignity and
equality, and realise peace, democracy and environmental sustainability.
However, two decades later, nations are becoming poorer, life expectancy has
plummeted due to various diseases and lack of access to proper health care,
countries are torn with conflicts, and deteriorating environmental conditions are
experienced nearly everywhere (Seelos and Mair 2004).

A practical framework in a World Bank Development report (2003) suggested, for


the livelihood of people around the world to improve, there is a need for economic
growth and financial resources, yet, these might not be enough. Hence, action is
required from citizens, governments and donors to achieve the MDGs.
Furthermore, to achieve sustainable development is overwhelmingly complex,
therefore, there is an expectation of large corporate organisations not merely
comply legally but also to address social and environmental challenges by
developing proactive measures, with crucial resources and managerial
experiences to fight global developmental problems (Seelos and Mair 2004). This
shows social networking can play an important role in ensuring social
entrepreneurs create social value that will significantly contribute to sustainable
development, particularly in communities such as townships in KZN.

Even though a significant role is played by businesses and many large


organisations in the creation of social value through employment creation,
improved working conditions, creation of a competitive environment, and
providing goods and services according to people’s needs, while also potentially
engaging in CSR, the poor people nevertheless do not benefit from many of these
efforts and when they do, they are mostly ineffective and insufficient (Seelos and
Mair 2004, Littlewood and Holt 2018). Hence, businesses and organisations do
not satisfy many human needs, since their activity chain features CSR at the
bottom, without market mechanisms that pertain to companies engaged in
significant CSR related activities (Seelos and Mair 2004).

72
Smith (2003: 52-76) asserts most companies engaging in CSR do so because of
a business or normative case and are usually faced with challenges regarding the
formation and implementation of strategy, as many uncertainties are associated
with determining organisations’ societal obligations. Seelos and Mair (2004) argue
that regardless of the challenges attributed to CSR, the role of business
contributions to sustainable development cannot be ignored.

Consequently, the unique role of social entrepreneurship contributions to


sustainable development cannot be ignored, as the issues targeted in the
development goals are not limited to high priority issues; rather, there are various
problems and human needs that can be addressed by small-scale, flexible and
local efforts (Bansal et al. 2019). This includes social entrepreneurs who can
provide solutions, in small ways, to some of the pressing issues in, for example,
township communities and contribute to the end goal of sustainable development.
This, alongside the efforts and contributions by businesses in their CSR
programmes, as well as public and private organisations – government,
International Organisations (IOs), religious organisations and NGOs.

73
Figure 3.1: Social networks and sustainable development
Source: Seelos and Mair (2004)

Seelos and Mair (2004) identified three main complementary contributors to


achieving sustainable development: 1) Government, NGOs, and IOs; 2) CSR; and
3) Social Entrepreneurship. Figure 2.3 shows the important interface between the
various contributors through social networks such as the UN Global Compact, as
well as through a multitude of instruments, including philanthropic foundations,
development grants, and so on. It also creates a bridge that encourages social
intrapreneurship between social entrepreneurship and CSR.

In another study titled “Social Entrepreneurship: Creating new business models


to serve the poor” by Seelos and Mair (2005: 241-246), it is mentioned that the
common areas of social entrepreneurship convergence with CSR programmes
and public institutions, for instance governments and IOs, offer opportunities to
develop different means to collaborate that will produce social value for
sustainable development. However, in SA, the limited number of existing
networks and social entrepreneurship communities operate under uncoordinated
efforts (World Bank 2017).

Similarly, a study by the British Council (2020a: 5) finds limited access among 50
percent of SEs in SA with regard to investors as these enterprises do not have
the relevant contacts and their network is limited. It is therefore important to
understand the relationships between social entrepreneurship and other
cooperative actions, as they all play different roles, but can also collaborate in
achieving sustainable development in the townships of KZN.

3.2.1 Corporate Social Responsibility and Social Entrepreneurship


According to Niño (2015), the common point between CSR and social
entrepreneurship is that, in line with their financial sustainability, both initiatives
aim at creating social value as the centre of their business survival. However,

74
CSR requires businesses to continuously commit to ethical behaviour and play a
part in economic development, while also improving employees and their families’
quality of life, as well as the community they operate in, and society at large (Niño
2015).

On the one hand, as part of its commitment, a socially responsible business is


expected to communicate the results of its interdependence and reciprocity to
different stakeholders and take stakeholder expectations into account during
decision-making. On the other hand, the potential of social entrepreneurship is
believed to be limitless, as the systemic, cyclical and structural nature enables
overcoming social problems that require more than one initiative (Niño 2015).
However, little or no research exists that highlights the role a partnership between
CSR and social entrepreneurship could play, which could help to ensure
sustainable development in communities such as townships, particularly in KZN.

Seelos and Mair (2005: 241-246) are of the opinion that creating a link between
social entrepreneurship and CSR programmes could provide a promising model,
with regard to achieving sustainable development. In addition, they believe
forming working relationships with local social entrepreneurs will help companies
participate in actual projects that address appropriate needs, as local social
entrepreneurs are usually better in scanning and identifying opportunities in their
local communities and building up grassroots efforts with very limited resources
(Seelos and Mair 2005: 241-246).

Furthermore, building these partnerships creates an interface where companies


can offer mentorship and professional services that will enable SEs to become
more financially sustainable, whilst increasing their social impact (Millson 2018).
Seelos and Mair (2004) refer to this interface as social intrapreneurship, where
instead of social entrepreneurs depending solely on philanthropic sources of
funding, they could tap from the corporate knowledge resource pool, skills and

75
capacities of management, in their efforts to contribute to sustainable
development in communities such as the KZN townships.

3.2.2 Public Institutions and Social Entrepreneurship


An increasing overlap and collaborations were found by Seelos and Mair (2005:
241-246) between social entrepreneurs, IOs, NGOs, and development
institutions. For example, more than US$6 million was provided as seed money
by World Bank President, James Wolfensohn, in 2003, to be distributed to 47
small-scale enterprises in 27 countries engaged in innovative developmental
projects. This system of early seed funding is used by the World Bank as a way
of promoting innovative development ideas, by introducing social entrepreneurs
who have poverty fighting ideas to partners able to provide the resources to help
achieve their desired goal (Seelos and Mair 2005: 241-246).

Such collaborations or social networking between institutions and social


entrepreneurs can, therefore, be critical in addressing complex and persistent
societal issues, as well as deepening trust-based partnerships that could
accelerate the institutionalisation of social innovation (McKinsey and Company
2021). In other words, the lack of such social networks can limit SEs’ ability to
develop innovative ways to create social value; thus, impacting their sustainable
development contribution, specifically in local communities such as townships
(Littlewood and Holt 2018; Soni 2016).

Furthermore, IOs such as the Ashoka or Schwab foundations, are well-known for
their direct support to social entrepreneurs by providing funding and creating
platforms for access to crucial support networks (Seelos and Mair 2005: 241-246).
When support is provided by public institutions, for example the government, in
addition to stimulating innovation through funding and subsidies, while
entrepreneurial solutions are encouraged through public policies directed towards
innovative causes, Bansal et al. (2019) suggest the social and environmental
impact of social entrepreneurs can be improved. This makes it important to

76
comprehend the partnership level between SEs and public institutions
(international and local), as well as its effects on their contribution to sustainable
development in the KZN townships.

3.3 IMPORTANCE OF SOCIETY’S PERCEPTION


“The need to develop innovative ways to address social and environmental
problems in our society is increasingly moving from the public sphere to include
private initiatives; personal attitude, subjective norms and perceived behavioural
control” are considered to play a significant part in the development of social
entrepreneurial intentions (Ruiz-Rosa, Gutiérrez-Taño, García-Rodríguez 2020:
1-17). The GEM (2019) report submits that individual perceptions, attitudes and
intentions significantly influence social entrepreneurship, where the decision
could be supported or constrained in the social, cultural and political context it is
situated in.

Despite policymakers in developing countries, such as SA, understanding social


entrepreneurship’s importance in ensuring sustainable development, the
necessary support systems have not been strengthened so that individuals may
develop entrepreneurial attitude and perception and to build strategies and
policies that aid their growth (GIBS 2018). A positive relationship is shown in the
literature to exist between attitude and development of an entrepreneurial project
(Ruiz-Rosa et al. 2020: 1-17; Ashrafi et al. 2020: 88-104; Choi, Kim, Kim and Choi
2020: 1-10). However, where entrepreneurial attitude and perception indicators
are concerned, relative to other countries, SA’s performance is below average
(GEM 2019). For example, in the GEM 2021-22 report, the country’s
“entrepreneurial intentions” was ranked 20 of the 47 countries ranked. Factors
considered on the GEM ranking ratings include SME access to finance, business
training, and research and development, along with regulatory support,
bureaucratic red tape, and taxes (GEM 2022: 172)

77
Razavi et al. (2014) assert when individuals in a society are sensitive to social
problems and have a social attitude, they will be able to identify social demands
more easily, which will help in the development of promising ideas in society.
Perceived desirability of society is shown to be positively and significantly
correlated with social entrepreneurial intention in a study Urban and Kujinga
(2017) conducted in SA. Hence, opportunities to increase the youth’s self-esteem
and confidence to participate in the social and economic spheres more actively,
will be provided through improved perceptions and by nurturing societal norms
towards social entrepreneurship. A similar study in Bangladesh by Ashrafi et al.
(2020: 88-104) reveals 51 percent of respondents perceived social
entrepreneurship is a respectable career, its activities provide individuals with the
ability to be more independent, and enable them to create jobs for the
communities. For the concept to have a significant positive impact in contributing
to sustainable development in SA, particularly in local communities, societies
have the right perception and desirability of social entrepreneurship, it will provide
a platform and serve as a critical support system. According to the GEM (2019)
report, entrepreneurs rely on a wide range of support from stakeholders in society,
which comprise family, friends, customers, and suppliers, to be successful. This
makes it important to understand how they are perceived in society, from the
social entrepreneur’s perspective, and its effects on their contribution to
sustainable development, especially in KZN townships.

3.4 ROLE OF RESOURCES


The growth of a social entrepreneur is mentioned as a function of the resources
and use made of the bundle of valuable –resources at their disposal, whether
tangible or intangible, -, as explained by Day and Jean-Denis (2016: 59-69).
These bundled valuable resources are further described as capital – finance,
human, social and political capital, where each form of capital can create social
value by means of investment, ensuring scaled up social impact, therefore,
resource constraints are mitigated, while opportunities for social innovation are

78
increased (Day and Jean-Denis 2016: 59-69). This is echoed by recent authors
(Littlewood and Holt 2018; Moriggi 2020: 437-453; Choi and Chang 2020: 1-18),
who add the necessary capacity is required by social entrepreneurs for enabling
resources to be mobilised and created, in addition to stimulating innovative
initiatives in acknowledgement of unmet issues of sustainability, thus contributing
to processes of socio-economic transformation. Thus, social entrepreneurs
operating in communities such as townships need to demonstrate these
capacities, in order to generate social values that will enhance their sustainable
development contribution.

Islam (2016), however, indicates the inability of SE owners/managers to


investigate self-sustainability funding, in a more commercial style, considered
easier to grow resources than depend more on philanthropic funding, which
remains a major challenge for their social value creation. Maphalla et al. (2009)
are of the opinion the lack of resources, such as access to infrastructure,
technology, market and location, as well as the lack of human capital, could also
limit SE capacity to create social value in communities such as townships.

In SA, the environment in which SEs operate is generally typified by limited


resources and support from the state, diminishing international donors,
insufficient enterprise development assistance access, and high reporting and
auditing costs when the corporate sector is engaged. These are some of the
critical obstacles SE owners/managers need to consider when strategies for
social value creation are developed (Littlewood and Holt 2018).

Bvuma and Marnewick (2020) draw attention to SMMEs, including SEs


operating in South African townships, as characterised by many challenges.
These include: limited resources and because they do not grow, their
development is basically slow, mainly just surviving and usually with only enough
resources to meet their immediate daily needs, in comparison to those in the
inner cities. In addition, township enterprises are faced with factors such as not

79
receiving relevant government support information, crime, non-existing
infrastructure; and lack of support from stakeholders, lack of legal knowledge,
as well as inadequate business acumen, along with insufficient technological
skills (Bvuma and Marnewick 2020). This means it is important to highlight these
factors, because they may be critical in influencing social entrepreneurship
contributions in KZN townships.

3.4.1 Financial capital


In a news article by Dietrich, published 12 March 2019, it is highlighted that more
than 70 percent of SMMEs in SA close their doors within the first 5-7 years of
inception and one factor attributed to this - inadequate access to finance as a
support mechanism for the growth of formal and informal businesses. Most
financial institutions in developing countries such as SA are not keeping up with
the fast-growing pace of small businesses, where a fund-base required for
financing start-ups remains limited and, as such, reduces the number of
enterprises that can gain access (Daoui 2017). Furthermore, enterprises such as
social entrepreneurs, who do not have a proper business plan and other relevant
documentation required for funding, are considered extremely informal and high
risk, which reduces their chances of accessing funding (Daoui 2017).

The GEM (2016) revealed that in SSA, money to start their operation is required
by 90 percent of social entrepreneurs with own money invested by 82 percent.
Funding from family is, furthermore, relied on by 67 percent, whereas 42 percent
are reliant on banks or other financial institutions, with government programmes,
donations or grants relied on by only 38 percent. In SA, social entrepreneurs
continue to be confronted by grant funding access, which remains a major
challenge that limits their social value creation capacity to, which in turn, impacts
their sustainable development contribution, particularly in local communities
(Maphalla et al. 2009).

80
British Council (2020a: 34) findings in SA support this sentiment, revealing that
70 percent of SEs indicated a key barrier to their growth as access to grant
funding. social entrepreneurs in SA have, in recent years, been subjected to
limited state resource and support access, in addition to diminishing
international donors (Littlewood and Holt 2018). Owners/managers of SEs are
affected by these critical factors when social value creation strategies are
developed, as this frustrates their growth and development, offering little
reassurance to participate in social entrepreneurship.

3.4.2 Human capital within the SE sector


Bakar et al. (2017: 5) mention the importance of understanding the development
of human capital in SE explicitly, as they could be maintained as long-term assets
and their qualities could become a major contributor to the organisation and
society at large. In social entrepreneurship, human capital is described as
individuals’ knowledge and skills brought to an organisation, typically developed
by means of education and previous experience, thus, contributing to the explicit
and tacit knowledge of the organisation (Choi, Chang, and Foroudi 2020).

Researchers such as Mustapha, Zapata and Jung-Kim (2008: 61-79) believe


other soft skills such as social and communication training are required by social
entrepreneurs, in addition to the knowledge and skills developed through
education and experience, to enable them to alleviate social conditions in their
locality. Estrin, Mickiewicz and Stephan (2016: 449-467) echo this sentiment of
the need for social entrepreneurs to have different and additional abilities, as
opposed to merely “general human capital”. The broader and more complex
scope of their objectives and activities requires their actions to be ingrained in
local communities so that resources may be mobilised that will contribute to a
broader social impact.

In research conducted in India, Satar (2018: 23-25) finds the lack of awareness
by SE owners/managers, where managing people strategically is concerned,

81
obscures the organisation from realising its potential human capital in driving the
bigger goals of social value creation. In addition, little or no role clarity for
employees working in such organisations was found, as job descriptions are not
laid down properly, which gives rise to role ambiguity among employees (Satar
2018: 23-25). In support of these findings, Satar (2018: 23-25) suggests because
social entrepreneurs mainly drive results through people, the owners/managers
of such organisations must work towards establishing formal human resource
management practices that will enable them to benefit from their optimisation.

According to Khaustova et al. (2019), SE owners/managers can further develop


the economically active population in productive labour and contribute to the
increase in competitive human capital through using the latest forms,
technologies, methods, and means of work and life. Human capital is a variable
with strong impact for people who make the decision to be entrepreneurs in
today’s economy, including social entrepreneurs operating in townships (Madriz,
Leiva and Henn 2018: 29-42). A study by Bvuma and Marnewick (2020) highlights
that township SMMEs show some level of ICT knowledge and skills, however,
there was a generally poor level of ICT awareness. Hence, owners/managers of
SEs must be able to properly manage their human capital and enable them to
acquire the relevant skills, so they may create social values that add to
sustainable development, particularly in township communities.

3.5 IMPORTANT CHARACTERISTICS


Characteristics, of the social entrepreneur, both in developed and developing
countries such as SA, are considered important enhancing factors; these include
age, gender and educational level, in relation to effectively creating social value
that will contribute to sustainable development (GIBS 2018; Pangriya 2019; Elliot
2019). A study conducted in Korea by Choi (2020) stresses financial and
marketing resource acquisitions that increase effective operations of social
entrepreneurs are positively impacted, depending on the age of the social

82
entrepreneur, their level of education, and whether they graduated from a
prestigious university. This shows age and gender (Loarne, Maalaoui and Dana
2017: 363-381; Nicolás and Rubio 2016: 56-62) and level of education (Marín,
Nicolás and Rubio 2019) are considered important characteristics of social
entrepreneurs that cannot be ignored, as they significantly influence their social
value creation and activities in general.

3.5.1 Educational level


According to Peinelt (2017), entrepreneurial skills and knowledge provided by
education are generally considerably undervalued, since they are perceived as
innate skills. However, Peinelt suggests business behaviour and future intentions
of individuals are significantly influenced by entrepreneurship education, while
their personal skills and ability to identify business opportunities are also
enhanced. Estrin et al. (2013: 479-504) are of the opinion a more pronounced
effect may be produced by a higher level of education on social as opposed to
commercial entrepreneurs, specifically as a higher level of education is needed to
identify and exploit social entrepreneurship opportunities.

A GEM (2016) report states in SSA there is a tendency by operational social


entrepreneurs to have attained a higher education level (15 percent) than that
achieved by operational commercial entrepreneurs (eight percent). Attributed to
investment in education likely generating higher returns for social
entrepreneurship; with returns broadly defined to encompass overall SE
generated value (Estrin et al. 2013: 479-504). A higher education level of the SE
founder is highlighted by Choi (2020: 1-18) as critical, due to the complexity of the
social venture company business environment, with uncertain changes. To
survive and grow in this kind of environment, therefore, largely depends on the
“high information processing ability and innovative propensity of the founder”
(Choi 2020: 1-18). Nonetheless, these views do not include communities such as
townships, particularly in KZN.

83
Marín et al. (2019: 1-16) furthermore indicate the individual’s social commitment
is increased through a higher level of education. In other words, a higher level of
education provides knowledge and greater skills to an individual making them
more socially oriented, with social problems perceived as business opportunities.
Additionally, a positive relationship is concluded by the authors to exist between
higher level of education and social value generation. Individuals can, therefore,
“start a business not primarily conditioned for own economic benefits but for the
creation of social value to benefit others” (Marín et al. 2019: 1-16).

Choi (2020: 1-18), moreover, concludes financial acquisition is positively


impacted in Korea when a social venture founder is highly educated,
nevertheless, this is not linked to the support from management and marketing.
GEM (2009, cited by GIBS 2018) highlighted that in SA social entrepreneurs attain
high-school level, nevertheless, factors that tertiary education could develop
effectively shape the idea to start a SE. Gaining the necessary expertise, skills
and capacity challenges social entrepreneurs in creating opportunities from social
problems, in-turn, limiting social value creation that contributes to sustainable
development.

A study by the British Council (2020a: 33) determined the highest level of
education attained by SE managers in SA as: 34 percent achieved a post-
secondary diploma/certificate or vocational qualification, with 27 percent
indicating Bachelor and 21 percent Masters degrees. It is therefore important to
investigate these viewpoints and establish whether a higher level of education is
an important characteristic that significantly affects the contribution made by
social entrepreneurs to sustainable development in KZN townships.

3.5.2 Age
According to Le´vesque and Minniti (2006: 177-194), age is an inherent factor that
triggers entrepreneurship and a negative relationship is found between
entrepreneurial attitude and age. They also suggest a threshold age exists that is

84
critical for individual distribution of working time between entrepreneurship and
waged labour. Hence, when this threshold is reached, the willingness of
individuals to invest time in starting new enterprises begins to decline (Le´vesque
and Minniti 2006: 177-194).

In support, Marín et al. (2019: 1-18) highlight a key factor when detecting social
problems, is time. Furthermore, the age and social orientation relationship shows
older people, because they have been able to observe and analyse these
problems over the years, identify more social problems in the environment.
Nevertheless, age is argued as “not the only condition required to detect social
problems, there is also the need for the social entrepreneur to feel capable to
undertake the task” (Marín et al. 2019: 1-18).

The chance of entrepreneurs older than 54 years focusing on SEs was observed
to be approximately two times higher, while Fernández-Laviada et al. (2020: 1-
15) add that these entrepreneurs “show a greater propensity to start a SE when
they perceive the need for more development of the sector in their countries”. In
a study in six local communities of five European countries, Socci, Clarke and
Principi (2020: 1-19) concur, highlighting that the social contexts, past
experiences of individuals, their knowledge, and motivation, shows older people
are seen, more and more, as useful resources with which to appropriately
“address and build the pathway towards social solutions for unmet social
problems detected within local communities”.

Stypinska, Franke and Myrczik (2019), in addition, highlight the advantages older
social entrepreneurs bring, such as more work and industry experience, social
networks that are better developed, and higher technical and managerial skills,
while their financial position is also stronger than that of younger social
entrepreneurs. According to GIBS (2018: 8), however, in SA social
entrepreneurship seems to be most appropriate for young people between the
ages of 25 and 44 years, are mainly unemployed and are drawn by this appealing

85
means to enter the working world. Findings in the GEM (2016) report support a
greater representation (52 percent) of the SSA younger generation in operational
social entrepreneurship, in comparison to the 46 percent operational commercial
entrepreneurship representation. Decision-making of social venture resource
providers, in a Korean context, furthermore seeks younger, high-energy
entrepreneurs, with learning skills and a risk-taking propensity. These human
capital abilities are considered appropriate to a business environment that is
highly uncertain, thus, obtaining resources such as financial and marketing,
becomes more of a reality for SEs (Choi 2020: 1-18).

Social value creation, as argued by Brieger et al. (2020), is more likely to be


prioritised by younger and older entrepreneurs, as opposed to middle-aged
entrepreneurs, because of its contribution to community and societal wealth.
Therefore, a relationship is hypothesised between age, as a characteristic of
social entrepreneurship, and the contribution by sustainable development.
However, how social entrepreneurship in the township is affected by this is not
known, neither are the effects on its social value creation.

3.5.3 Gender
As explained by McKague and Harrison (2019), gender is described as what
society holds around being female or male in terms of their roles, responsibilities,
rights, expectations and power. The discrepancies between men and women with
regard to salaries, position and growth opportunities, tend to show persistent
gender inequality in traditional entrepreneurship, more so than in social
entrepreneurship (Winter 2014). This view is supported by Nicolás and Rubio
(2016: 56-62), who emphasise the gender gap in social entrepreneurship is less,
compared to that of traditional entrepreneurship, because the roles and
stereotypes that influence women’s behaviours usually leads them to associate
with values promulgated by SEs. However, the GEM (2016) study suggests either

86
a non-existent or less of a gender gap for operational social entrepreneurship in
SSA, as opposed to operational commercial entrepreneurship.

Nicolás and Rubio (2016: 56-62) explain that the level of a country’s development
determines the starting-up of businesses by women – the percentage of
enterprises created by women decreases as the development of the country they
live in increases. However, Marín et al. (2019: 1-16) point out this viewpoint is
motivated by women becoming self-employed, due to the necessity to escape
poverty, as a result of weak economic systems in their countries. In addition,
reduced entry barriers due to low efficiency levels encourage women to start new
enterprises and establish businesses in underdeveloped countries.

Pines, Lerner and Schwartz (2012) are of the opinion that, irrespective of the
economic level of the country, there is a gender gap between both the early
entrepreneurial participation stage and established business ownership. In SA,
social entrepreneurs are highlighted by GEM (2009, cited in GIBS 2018: 8), as
most likely to be male. Hence, it is important to investigate and understand
whether the social entrepreneurship contribution to sustainable development in
the township context, especially in KZN, is affected by gender as a characteristic.

Social orientation is found by Marín et al. (2019: 1-16) to be affected according to


the role attributed to both genders in a patriarchal society, where men are
seemingly more focused on money and their careers, with women apparently
inclined more socially through relationship maintenance, assisting others and
nature. In a gender and sustainability orientation study, Dickel and Eckardt (2020:
196-218) show women as having “more potential to translate positive desirability
into social entrepreneurial intention”. Mannion (2017) conducted a study in five
countries that nevertheless highlights several barriers inhibiting women to engage
in socially entrepreneurial activities, amongst which time management,
insufficient finance or access thereto, as well as fewer female role models, along
with discrimination and prejudice feature most prominently.

87
Women social entrepreneurs may also be impacted in communities such as
townships, particularly in KZN. Ultimately, should these issues be addressed, it
will empower more women to be social entrepreneurs (Mannion 2017). Hence,
Carty (2020) stresses that for the social sector to effectively tackle the biggest
systemic problems in any society, its patriarchal inclination has to be abandoned
and funding, support and practice require a more gender-balanced approach.
Consequently, this will lead to more systemic approaches in social
entrepreneurship, where instead of it being about approaches or attributes that
are either male and female, solving social issues are developed from the full
spectrum of human strengths and capabilities (Carty 2020).

3.6 SOCIAL IMPACT MEASUREMENT INFLUENCE


Rawhouser, Cummings and Newbert (2019: 82-115) describe social impact as
“the beneficial outcomes of a pro-social behaviour that should be enjoyed by who
the behaviour is targeted at and/or by the broader community of individuals,
organisations, and/or environment”. This is in line with the description by the
European Commission (2014), which states social impact is the extent to which
SEs address societal and social needs, changing the lives of those it touches, as
well as the direct and indirect impact on other organisations and people within its
ecosystem, through undertaking its activities in a socially inclusive and democratic
way.

According to a report by the OECD (2015), while achieving a social impact is


possible for any business, every SE aims at social value creation, simultaneously
dealing with social challenges anticipated to generate a social impact. Hence, one
of the most important conditions that enables an organisation to be identified as
a SE is their ability to produce a social impact (OECD 2015). This indicates
limitations in adequately assessing social value and the impact of the operations
of a SE, which may limit comprehension of its level of contribution in addressing
social problems in society.

88
Maas and Liket (2011: 171-202), nevertheless, emphasise the challenge for
organisations, including SEs, is to optimise impact in several dimensions, rather
than maximising impact against a single dimension. Hadad and Gauca (2014:
119-136) advocate social impact should be individualised and assessed based on
the nature of each social initiative, ensuring it correlates with the objectives of the
process, and considering the soft outcomes (skills, competencies, psychological
improvements) developed from the activities of the specific entity.

According to All Answers Ltd. (2018), there is an increasing need for social impact
measurement, as pressure mounts on social organisations to be held more
answerable to investors and other resource providers, while also undertaking a
systematic evaluation of their performance. In addition, the identification of
measuring tools that would enable SEs detect their impact in society will assure
investors whether their resources are being used in the most efficient way – in a
manner that ensures favourable returns in terms of the value created socially,
economically and environmentally (All Answers Ltd. 2018).

This view is supported by Gonul and Senyuva (2020), in stating that social
ventures must plan for and assess their social impact, because the sustainable
impact and change they create measures the success of their activity, while also
attracting social impact investors in securing activity funding and resources.
Furthermore, the European Commission (2014) suggests funders and investors
desire to channel their scarce resources to initiatives where impact can be
demonstrated. Therefore, a clear measurement of impact ensures service
providers and commissioners can effectively improve delivery and better focus
their effort to meet SE objectives. This makes it important to understand how SEs
in the townships in KZN measure their social impact and whether it affects their
resources, as well as their contribution to sustainable development.

A report by SEFORIS (2013) highlights a lack of an impact measurement system


in China, leading to insufficient information, with many SEs not knowing the

89
number of targeted beneficiaries that benefited from their social mission; making
it difficult to establish a compelling case for social impact. This resonates with
findings from Buckland and Hehenberger (2021), who point out that impact
measurement underinvestment means there is none of the evidence SEs need to
secure funding from government, grant makers and impact investors, thus
resulting in a vicious cynicism and distrust cycle.

Agreement is revealed by a GEM (2016) study, where roughly 50 percent of


individuals, broadly defined as social entrepreneurs, indicated substantial effort
by their organisation to measure the social and environmental effect from their
activities. Furthermore, in Germany, measurement of social innovation is a major
issue and closely connected with investment problems, where it is difficult for
social investors to effectively evaluate the potential social and ecological impact
of their investment, resulting in many SEs developing their own measurement
scale (SEFORIS 2013).

A study by Hojnik and Crnogaj (2020) finds social impact is measured by a larger
proportion of SEs in north-western European countries, in comparison to south-
eastern countries. Attributed to the internal environment of the SE, these relatively
low social impact measurements include (lack of resources, size of the SE, and
lack of knowledge, however, in the external environment examples include the
requirement to access funding as legislative or a social impact measurement. In
addition, the study highlights SEs in north-western countries measure their social
impact more during the operational than in the start-up phase, while SEs in south-
eastern countries measure their social impact more in the start-up than in the
operational phase. A study conducted by Methvin (2019) in SA highlighted that
impact actually measured is less than 10 percent of SEs, with most measuring
only outputs and outcomes; which creates concern.

90
3.6.1 Benefits
A report by the OECD (2015) states the mission of SEs affects multiple
stakeholders (public authorities, private investors, internal stakeholders and
external beneficiaries). Therefore, traditional performance measurement may not
be adequate, while a multidimensional accountability system is more suitable, as
it focuses on both the economic bottom line, as well as social outcomes. In other
words, this system will ensure SEs are accountable to their stakeholders and
manage these relationships, while satisfying their set objectives.

The Australian Social Value Bank (ASVB) (2018) supports this view and asserts
organisations that pursue social purpose are under pressure not only to create
social value and contribute to positive change in the world, but must also prove it.
The only way to prove the social value created, is to measure it. In addition, the
bank highlights some social impact measurements, important to organisations
such as SEs, include assisting to: achieve their social mission, attract additional
funding, provide effective communication of impact to stakeholders, and use
impact to inform programme improvement, as well as help to demonstrate value
for money (ASVB 2018).

Ayala (2019) explains the benefits of social impact measurement using three
perspectives:

• The investor’s perspective, which emphasises that investors consider


measuring impact as a critical aspect of SEs looking for investment. By clearly
displaying the SE impact, investors can see the positive impact their money is
creating, which also makes it easier for investment managers to obtain ‘the
green light’; they can also recommend the opportunities to other investors;
• The customer’s perspective highlights that measuring social impact helps the
customer to easily understand the company’s aim, while effective
communication of the social impact creates an engagement with clients;

91
• The employee’s perspective shows employees becoming more motivated
when they can directly see the social impact their activity is having, relative to
when they are only assuming their work has a positive impact.

In addition, Buckland and Hehenberger (2021) highlight that social impact


measurement is a powerful tool, assisting SEs to: set realistic objectives; monitor,
learn from, and improve their activities; prioritise decisions; and access funding.
They further mention that, in a collective manner, social impact measurement
could help provide improved comprehension of the aggregate SE impact that
engages similar social issues or in similar geographical areas to achieve greater
results (Buckland and Hehenberger 2021). The benefits highlighted above show
social impact measurement cannot be ignored and needs to be a significant part
of every social entrepreneur’s strategy to create value that will contribute to
sustainable development.

3.6.2 Challenges
Buckland and Hehenberger (2021) highlight social impact measurement has its
challenges, as it is believed the long-term effects of interventions, from
organisations such as SEs, involve multiple stakeholders and addressing complex
challenges, which makes it difficult to measure and this is easily overlooked.
According to Gonul and Senyuva (2020), the most common challenges faced by
SEs in developing an efficient social impact measurement are the difficulties to
quantify their effect, difficulties concerned with the long-term social impact
predictions and, resource limitations necessary to quantify their social impacts.
These could also be the challenges faced by SEs in township communities.
Furthermore, the OECD (2015) asserts some of the practical challenges social
impact measurement might create include SEs possibly being overburdened with
social impact measurement requirements. In addition, SEs may not have the

92
resources and capacity to measure their impact, and may find it difficult to align
their needs with those of their investors (OECD 2015).

Methvin (2019) states the primary reasons why few SEs are measuring their
impact in SA is because of: lack of information and the inability to differentiate
between an output, an outcome and impact; scarcity of resources required to
measure impact; longitudinal requirements where actual impact only occurs many
years after intervention; and the feeling derived from emotional knowledge of their
intervention, as well as the witness of positive changes make impact
measurement seem unnecessary; along with the fear of knowing their intervention
did not have the positive changes envisaged. This supports findings of Ngatse-
Ipangui and Dassah (2019) that SEs operating in communities such as townships
do not provide community members with clear impact measurement, to create
awareness of the impact of their activities. Measurement would also ensure the
perception is eliminated that what SEs generally attempt to achieve is
immeasurable and clarify that the impact may not be visible or appear in future.

The weak monitoring and unclear impact measurement of their activities creates
the perception that the outcomes of SE activities are, furthermore, not sustainable
enough to trigger development and community members, thus give up quickly on
their operations (Ngatse-Ipangui and Dassah 2019). However, very little or no
research has been conducted on social impact measurement challenges from the
SE perspective, of those entrepreneurs operating in KZN townships. Hence, this
study attempts an understanding of the social impact measurement effect on the
SE contribution to sustainable development, particularly in KZN townships.

3.7 INTERNAL/EXTERNAL ENVIRONMENT AND SOCIAL


ENTREPRENEURSHIP CONTRIBUTION TO SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT
The literature review of this study also examines environmental factors that could
affect using social entrepreneurship as a sustainable development tool. In
management, the term “environment” does not necessarily mean the physical

93
surroundings, but is used to mean anything that surrounds the business
organisation (Eruemegbe 2015: 479), in addition to factors that play a role in
promoting or restraining its growth (Ayyagari, Kunt and Maksimovic 2008: 483-
516). These environmental factors consist of internal and external factors. Petrus
(2019: 28-36) describes these environmental factors as environmental dynamism
and refers to them as the rate of changes, unpredictability, volatility, and instability
in an environment.

This is in line with the opinion of Seo, Kim and Kim (2020), who explain the rate
of change in the environment over time, in terms of its speed and strength, is
referred to as environmental dynamism. These changes in the competitive
environment influence the way businesses compete and how they respond to
customer demands and the development of the business (Drnevich and
Kriauciunas 2011: 254-279). In other words, the environmental factors within a
particular society create some level of dynamism in the unpredictability, instability
and changes social entrepreneurs need to be aware of, and develop strategies to
overcome their effects on their activities and contribution to sustainable
development.

Garcia-Sanchez, Garcia-Morales, and Martin-Rojas (2018) affirm multiple


variables that constitute each environmental condition, serving as key
determinants that affect new company emergence and growth, while their values
vary among different countries. This means the environment directly impacts
social entrepreneurship activities in any country (Abdul-rahama 2017; Mendez-
Picazo et al. 2021: 69-77). Therefore, having a better comprehension of how
significantly social entrepreneurship is affected by the internal/external
environment, as a sustainable development tool, in a country such as SA,
particularly in the KZN townships.

According to Islam (2016), internal factors are those within the organisation and
external factors are those factors outside the organisation that affect its social

94
activities. Internal factors include management efficiency, leadership quality,
knowledge and education, along with skills and experience, social innovation
capacities, entrepreneurial abilities, and human capital. In addition, other internal
factors include a high propensity for risk-taking, opportunity identification
competence and motivations, impact growth/performance, and the how effective
social value creation of social entrepreneurship is (Islam 2016; Gray et al. 2018;
Griffiths, Gundry and Kickul 2013: 341-357). External factors, for instance, include
legal, political and regulatory frameworks, cultural values in society, together with
economic and technological factors (Dobele 2011: 101-107).

The success of an organisation to improve its performance over time is indicated


by Indris and Primiana (2015) to depend on the ability to manage and analyse
these internal and external environmental factors effectively, thus ensuring
conformity, as along with business strategy establishment and implementation.
This sentiment is echoed by Onodugo and Onodugo (2015: 246-254), when they
state the critical issue to consider for entrepreneurial development and growth, is
the ability of an organisation to adapt and develop strategies that correspond to
the rapidly changing internal and external environment, which is critical to the
success or failure of the organisation. This premise, as reported by Mahadea
(2008), shows internal environment factors constitute as much burden as external
environmental factors, to the development and growth of any entrepreneurial
setup, including SEs; there may be variations in the intensity of the effects these
factors may have on the organisation. This means a correlational relationship
exists between entrepreneurship, such as social entrepreneurship, and factors in
the internal and external environment that may affect their contributions to
sustainable development. It is thus important that these variables are tested in the
environment such as the township.

Dobele (2011: 101-107) states environmental factors that influence SEs were
found by a study in Latvia to potentially occur “at different stages of the

95
organisation’s life cycle – from courtship to the organisation’s death”. In addition,
external environmental factors are associated with the threats and opportunities
outside of the business that it cannot control directly, while internal environmental
factors are the threats and opportunities within the business it has to compete with
(Dobele 2011: 101-107). SEs, particularly in communities such as townships, face
unique environmental factors that impact their development and growth, inhibiting
their effective contribution to sustainable township development (Findley and
Ogbu 2011).

These unique environmental factors range from the lack of effective mechanisms
to stimulate their creation and development, inability to access external sources
of funds, and the lack of appropriate legal form, to lack of business support, and
the poor understanding of the “entrepreneurship with a social objective” concept
(Pacut 2020). Mitchel (2009) mentioned the ability for entrepreneurs to perceive
and recognise opportunities in these unique environments depends on both
external factors (institutions and structures that create opportunities) and internal
factors (heterogeneous motivations, personal traits, and individual motivations to
participate and create social value). This makes it imperative to identify and
understand these environmental factors, since they enormously impact the social
entrepreneur’s ability, particularly in addressing individual, societal and future
generations’ needs in the townships of KZN.

3.7.1 External factors


An influence on the individual is indicated in the literature by the external
environment, which also impacts the process and the organisation. To ensure a
conducive environment for social entrepreneurs to create adequate social value,
it is important to understand these factors, nonetheless, little or no attention has
been paid to external factors (Bacq and Janssen 2011: 387). External
environmental factors are the opportunities and threats outside the SE it cannot
control directly (Dobele 2011: 101-107). A study conducted by Rapando (2016)

96
highlights how social entrepreneurs are affected by external environmental
factors, such as the overall conditions in the political, economic and cultural
environment, as well as the surrounding cultures and degree of government
support in entrepreneurial motivation.

Social entrepreneurs need all the support the external environment can provide,
to help take their innovative social ideas from conceptualisation to actual
execution, which will serve to accelerate and facilitate their successful
development and create a more effective social sector (Poon 2011). These factors
may not, but can directly touch on the short-term activities of a social
entrepreneur, and often influence its long-term decisions (Onodugo and Onodugo
2015: 246-254). However, it is not clear how social entrepreneurs in communities
such as townships, especially in KZN, are affected by factors in their external
environment.

A comparative study conducted on North America, Latin America, India and SSA
by Bewayo and Vicente Portes (2016: 39-56), reveals external environmental
factors such as economic and political institutions, significantly influence and
determine any country ‘s social entrepreneurship nature. Moreover, Africa has the
biggest gap with regard to the difference in economic, political and socio-cultural
environment, compared to the other three regions. This means, for social
entrepreneurship to effectively create social value in the African context, there
needs to be an adequate understanding of the external factors that would affect
its activities and hinder its contribution to sustainable township development
(Carriles-Alberdi, Lopez-Gutierrez and Fernandez-Laviada 2021).

3.7.1.1 Institutional factors


The institutional environment is considered to encompass the regulative,
normative and cognitive pillars that shape organisations and their behaviours
within a particular context (Littlewood and Holt 2018). Stephan, Uhlaner and
Stride (2015: 308-331) indicate human behaviours are jointly shaped by formal

97
and informal institutional limitations, incentives, reserves and resources that are
potentially compatible. Furthermore, they assert individual behaviour may be
impacted by institutions, as both a stimulant of motivation and as tangible and
intangible resource support providers to social entrepreneurs.

As highlighted by Popov, Veretennikova and Kozinskaya (2018: 45-56), every


social entrepreneur thus needs an institutional environment with proper quality to
enable them operate and function efficiently. The institutions develop the rules of
the game by which entrepreneurial activities are carried out and when there are
no clear rules or delays in decision-making, due to excessive bureaucracy, social
entrepreneurial operations and activities will be impacted negatively (Mendez-
Picazo et al. 2020).

According to Pacut (2020), SEs are significantly impacted by, on the one hand,
informal institutions, in other words, social values, models of conducts and beliefs
and, on the other hand, formal institutions, for example, rules, laws and
regulations, also play a significant role in their operations. However, a study
conducted in Spain by Ferri (2014), highlights informal institutional factors more
significantly impact social entrepreneurial activities than formal institutional
factors, with both institutional factors mutually dependent. Nevertheless, for some
economies, such as in Africa, the ability to adequately identify the perfect policy
mix can be very tasking.

Social entrepreneurs operate in an institutional context where they identify


problems and are motivated to develop an entrepreneurial solution to address
these problems. Such institutional changes may require decisive policy-making to
enable social entrepreneurs attain their social mission, strengthen their
legitimacy, as well as contribute to sustainable development (Lubberink 2019: 1-
11). Bansal et al. (2019) conclude social entrepreneurship may aid the
sustainable development course, nonetheless, government needs to remove
hindrances from its path through policy-making and reducing the institutional

98
impact on its operations. A further suggestion is for governments to set the
example, leading through their role of social incubator creation, potentially
developing social change.

Policy and regulation


Authors such as Lavisius (2016) and Jiatong et al. (2021: 1-15) point out how
important social entrepreneurship is to a country’s economy, illustrating the
suitability of government policies and regulations in support of the development
of social entrepreneurships, assisting them to successfully fulfil their part in the
country. Over the years, policy uncertainty has risen and made forward economic
planning and opportunity searches for entrepreneurs and business strategist
more inscrutable, even for the most skilled in addressing business challenges
(Bryan 2013).

Dobele (2011: 101-107) concluded, in a study undertaken in Latvia, one of the


main external factors that hinders extension of SEs in the country is the lack of
legislation that recognises it as a legal entity. Thus, it is important for the South
African government to develop social entrepreneurship policies and regulations
that are SE friendly and create a platform that encourages participation, as well
as growth and survival (Dzomonda 2021: 1-17). At present, no suitable legal
framework exists in SA for social entrepreneurship that specifically deals with the
operations and activities in township communities, including KZN (GIBS 2018).

Littlewood and Holt (2018) indicate neither “a limited explicit engagement” in


either policy or regulation with social entrepreneurship by the South African
government, nor any specific legal form for SEs, in comparison to other countries,
which create impediments and obstacles for these enterprises to operate
effectively and development of the sector. Even though some organisations have,
according to the ILO (2013), succeeded irrespective of all the limitations, the
sector cannot grow while there is no dedicated legal form and regulatory
framework, or fulfil its potential of furthering economic growth, the creation of jobs

99
and delivery of services. It is therefore important for SA to have a defined legal
form for SEs that will allow their effective operations, particularly in township
communities, without unnecessary red-tape and restrictions.

Political instability
According to Doumit (2015), when there is a settled and secured political situation
in any country, the innovative elements social entrepreneurs set in motion will
enable the government to realise their full socio-political capacity and create a
reciprocally innovative system. Political instability has a significant negative effect
on the ability of any entrepreneur, including social entrepreneurs, to be innovative
and create value in a country (Shumetie and Watabaji 2019). In addition, any
politically unstable country with frequent social unrest, civil war, and violence,
deters foreign direct investment and capital inflow, which is key for enterprise
innovativeness (Shumetie and Watabaji 2019; Hammed 2018). Hence, a
politically stable environment is critical to ensure social entrepreneurs are
effective in using their innovativeness to create social value that will enhance
community development.

As stated by Dutta, Sobel and Roy (2013: 130-143), any politically stable country
will significantly lower risk and transaction/contracting cost, and increase the level
of government transparency, predictability and accountability, which will, in turn,
increase the rate of entrepreneurship and wealth creation. This principle may also
apply to social entrepreneurship in communities such as townships. Although
SA’s percentile rank on political stability in 2019 is considered reasonable (40 of
100), the July 2021 violence in parts of the country highlights the risk of increasing
income inequality and high unemployment levels, which could jeopardise social
and political stability over the medium- to long-term (Fitch Ratings 2021).

Evidently, for the country’s economy to recover from the effects of its latest
recession, violence, and COVID-19 impact, there needs to be huge compromises
to prioritise political stability in SA, where political parties put the interest of society

100
over their ideologies and leadership preferences to improve governance and
accountability (Mkhabela 2020). This would create an enabling environment for
entrepreneurs such as social entrepreneurs to flourish.

Corruption
Corruption is an institutional factor that hinders development in many countries
around the world. It can be described as the dishonest or illegal behaviour,
especially by government officials (Hammed 2018). According to Maretich (2019),
corruption is bad for business and demonstrates the danger of social investors
unwittingly putting resources behind programmes and enterprises controlled by
bad institutional systems that support corruption and its oppressive effects on
local people. Corruption plays a significant role as an economic catalyst in
countries characterised by numerous barriers to entrepreneurial activity, such as
excessively strict norms and regulations or obstacles to obtaining credit (Ceresia
and Mendola 2019). Apart from corruption being harmful to the growth and
institutional quality of a country, it is also a deterrent for both entrepreneurial spirit
and activities (Afridi 2016).

Social entrepreneurs seek to use a business lens to improve the lives of


vulnerable individuals and communities, with many operating in resource-poor
informal settings where the need is obvious, but institutional safeguards are lax
and navigating through the systemic corruption is difficult (Seo 2020). This could
be a similar challenge for social entrepreneurs in townships, particularly in KZN.
In a study by Durably (2015), a positive relationship between the level of
corruption and commercial entrepreneurship is revealed, while the level of social
entrepreneurship lowers as corruption levels rise.

According to Shumetie and Watabaji (2019), the problem of corruption in Africa


will persist, as long as the governance system in the continent is perpetrated by
dictators and there are weak systems without institutional checks and balances.
Thus, the sustainable development impact in the African continent will only be felt

101
when the necessary governmental structures and policies are in place to minimise
or eliminate the rate of corruption. The Corruption Perception Index (CPI) of
Transparency International (2020) reveals SA is ranked 69th of 180 countries, with
a score of 44 points out of 100. The failure to move above the 50-point mark for
nearly 10 years shows the extent of corruption and its damaging effects in the
country (Mabuza 2021).

In a recent study by the Afro barometer team in SA (Business Tech 2021), 64


percent of South Africans believes corruption has increased in the past year, with
49 percent saying it has increased considerably. This shows the significance of
this institutional challenge and, should it not be addressed, it might have a
negative effect on the social entrepreneurship contribution to sustainable
development, especially in communities such as townships.

3.7.1.2 Socio-cultural factors


The socio-cultural environment in terms of entrepreneurship, according to Maziku,
Majenga and Mashenene (2014: 51-62), is described as an environment that
consists of everything not contained within the economy or political system. The
environment is thus made up of activities and relationships that guide individual’s
personal and private lives, including age, education, ethnicity, and religion, as well
as values and attitude. Hopp and Stephan (2012: 917-945) argue that socio-
cultural norms have an impact on entrepreneurial start-up success and culture, in
particular, importantly impacts individual beliefs, which directly or indirectly
influences an entrepreneur’s ability to successfully create an operational venture.

Kro (2018: 39-43) explains that entrepreneurship, including social


entrepreneurship, does not operate in a vacuum, with factors such as socio-
cultural factors, for example where someone has been raised, playing an
important role to influence, encourage or motivate a person or any group of people
to participate in entrepreneurship or not. Thus, social entrepreneurs need to
consider specific socio-cultural factors evident within their geographical area as a

102
distinct competitive advantage, which may have a significant influence on the
business or activity they start (Ratten 2020).

In a study on female social entrepreneurship and socio-cultural context, Urbano,


Ferri and Noguera (2014) found the socio-cultural environment to have a relevant
impact on social entrepreneurial activities and socio-cultural factors, where
altruistic attitudes and being a member of a social organisation have the most
impact on female social entrepreneurship. However, the study concludes the rate
of both female and male social entrepreneurial activity is generally impacted by
the same factors in the same direction.

Mendez-Picazo et al. (2020), furthermore, suggest education and skills


improvement are critical aspects of the socio-cultural environment that could
significantly affect the social entrepreneurship contribution to sustainable
development. This could be attributed to a higher educational level enabling
individuals to appreciate the introduction of and desire for innovation and they will,
therefore, efficiently utilise the different instruments and tools to improve their
activities. In countries such as Egypt, one of the biggest challenges facing social
entrepreneurship is the concept not being widely recognised among common
citizens, let alone understood (Seda and Ismail 2019: 162-182). They mainly
attribute this to the weak local media role in displaying social entrepreneurs’
successes and the almost complete non-inclusion of the subject in school and
university education.

The above literature review suggests the socio-cultural environment is very


important to social entrepreneurship and its contribution to sustainable
development. Hence, social entrepreneurs operating in the townships of KZN
must understand the significance of socio-cultural factors such as societal norms,
beliefs, culture and attitude, which will enable them to identify more opportunities
in society and enhance their entrepreneurial activities to, in turn, contribute to
sustainable development.

103
Socio-demographics
Socio-demographics has a significant effect on social entrepreneurship, as its
factors generally guide and motivate the decision for social welfare and social
value creation through the display of innovations, leadership and risk
management of the enterprise (Islam 2016). Marín et al. (2019: 1-16) highlight
socio-demographic factors, such as the critical role of women in social
entrepreneurship, because they are more affected by social and environmental
benefits and give more importance to providing socially stable communities
through maintaining relationships, helping others and nature. Nonetheless, more
importance is seemingly afforded by men to their money and career, which shows
“a more prominent ethics of justice”. This view is supported by Onyshchenko and
Shyshkin (2019), who mention that women have proved to be more trusted social
entrepreneurs with counterparties, than men. They further highlight individuals
with socially oriented businesses believe there was more accommodation,
understanding and solidarity in former times than at present, while younger social
entrepreneurs believe the opposite.

In previous studies, such as in Nga and Shamuganathan (2010: 259-282),


requirements expected from social entrepreneurs are shown to comprise certain
personality characteristics that guide their behaviour/actions, with innate
nurturing, socialisation and education mostly developing these personality traits.
In addition, these tacit personality traits usually formed the values/beliefs held that
help drive the intentions and social entrepreneurial decision-making. Hence,
business and management education need to be used to develop these personal
traits, in order to create effective and impactful social entrepreneurship.
Furthermore, Mafukata, Dhlandhlara and Kancheya (2015: 70-79) mention socio-
demographic factors in Zimbabwe, such as ethical identity, marital status, social
status in the community, political affiliation and religiosity, significantly impact
social capital development. It is thus important to investigate these factors in a

104
South African township context to understand whether SEs and their contribution
to sustainable development are affected.

Culture
A difficult concept to describe, culture is without fixed boundaries with different
situational meanings attributed to it (Causadias 2020: 310-320). However, Dlabay
and Scott (2011, cited in Masovic 2018: 1-6) describe culture as the accepted
behaviours, customs and values of a given society or environment. There are
many elements that make up a culture and these elements are components
derived and related to the beliefs and behaviour of a group of people (Masovic
2018: 1-16). This means cultural dimension and societal changes influence the
type of SE activities started in society (Ratten 2020; Pounder 2021: 344-357).

This makes it imperative that social entrepreneurs adequately consider culture to


understand the linkages required in ensuring they produce the beneficial
outcomes that will contribute to sustainable development in communities such as
townships. A social entrepreneur who understands and efficiently incorporates
cultural values into its activities, will maximise their contribution towards solving
social problems (Jaén et al. 2017: 31-51).

Bisbelle (2006) argues a rich diversity of cultural background and histories is a


resource and when creatively tapped, will generate capital of both a human and
a social nature, enhance innovativeness, while also fostering social community
cohesion. A study in SA conducted by Elliott (2018) concludes culture (defined as
individualism and collectivism) moderately affects the intent of becoming a social
entrepreneur and policy makers need to take this into consideration. This is
because SA is a diverse and dynamic country with multiple cultures, languages
and heritages (Goga 2013). The lack of incorporating cultural factors into
community development plans negatively affects the outcome of the development
(Ngatse-Ipangui and Dassah 2018). Hence, knowledge of cultural traits may also
equip policy-makers and all other stakeholders to provide the necessary support

105
for social entrepreneurship emergence and development in different cultural
contexts (Canestrino et al. 2020: 133).

Crime
According to Dzomonda (2021: 5), the growth and performance of social
entrepreneurs in SA are significantly retarded by the high level of crime in the
country, as many entrepreneurs spend their income on improving their business
security instead of increasing operational capacity. The total property-related
crime, which includes burglary at non-residential (business) premises and stock
theft, increased by six percent in 2020/2021, compared to -21 percent in
2019/2020 (South African Police Service 2021).

Consideration of this factor is needed, as it affects the social entrepreneur’s


contribution to sustainable development in local communities such as townships.
In addition, economic crime in SA remains significantly high at 77 percent,
compared to the global average rate of 49 percent (PWC 2018). In a study on
SMEs in KZN by Sitaharam and Hoque (2016: 277-288), it was revealed that this
type of economic crime and corruption is viewed by 88.89 percent of SME
owners/managers as an important factor that affects the performance of their
business. The reason is that they are unable to identify illegal employee actions,
the activities of professional thieves and the crime prevention processes.

3.7.1.3 Economic factors


As highlighted by Mendez-Picazo et al. (2020), one of the incentives that stimulate
entrepreneurship, including social entrepreneurship, is an adequate economic
climate. It is argued that to stimulate entrepreneurship, government must consider
factors such as fiscal policy, which will increase government spending and
address problems of income distribution, as well as correct market failures that
may occur as a result of either external shock or misallocation of resources. In
addition, Mark and Putzschel (2014: 29) mention economic factors have a
significant impact on entrepreneurship in general, as the market situation mostly

106
dictates product sales and services levels, with the demand size and growth, as
well as the country’s economic well-being, being influenced overall.

A study conducted in Romania by Lancu, Popescu and Popescu (2021),


highlights the lack of necessary funds as one of the economic factors that has
affected social entrepreneurship negatively, as seeking to raise and distribute
funds to create social benefits by SEs are not a sustainable solution, due to a
large amount of their resources used to raise funds, while they are faced with
financial issues. Hence, Ferri and Urbano (2010: 10) highlight the need for SEs to
develop ways to reduce their dependence on charitable donations and grants to
carry out their social mission. They further suggested a reduction in this barrier,
with greater availability of credit, will create a positive economic environment that
promotes the growth and development of new SE projects, which will, in turn,
reduce the risks of budget uncertainty and dependence on public grants or aid
(Ferri and Urbano 2010: 10). Mark and Putzschel (2014: 29) believe
entrepreneurs, including social entrepreneurs, require financial resources to
enable them to diversify their start-up risks, obtain the start-up capital, and finance
their growth and expansion.

Bansal et al. (2019) state that in developing countries such as SA, government
has a bigger role to play, as there are limited and scarce resources, while financial
institutions are unwilling to offer SMEs financial support, including SEs, by
providing finance sources for such entrepreneurs to ensure they function
effectively as sustainable development engines. Furthermore, they highlight while
insufficient resources are a key economic factor that could impact social
entrepreneur’s contribution to sustainable development, there are resource-poor
entrepreneurs seeking innovative business models to enable becoming self-
sustainable (Bansal et al. 2019). In addition, Bewayo and Vicente Portes (2016:
39-56) conclude a weak banking system significantly impacts the commercial

107
sector, with high levels of unemployment and poverty, which are some of the
sustainable development issues social entrepreneurship attempts to address.

Socio-economics
LaMarco (2018) describes socio-economic factors as the social and economic
factors that shape and determine the dynamics of a society, highlighting that an
understanding of these factors helps businesses make better decisions, with
regard to their future and the direction the business may take. These factors affect
the behaviour of the different socio-economic classes, in relation to their different
priorities and how they spend their money (LaMarco 2018). Kassa (2021) and
Rotich, Cheruiyot and Yegon (2014: 263-267) identified owner gender and age,
access to finance, experience of the owner, and the age of the business, as well
as business area/location, family business background, and tax, inflation and
interest rates, to be some of the socio-economic factors that could affect SMEs,
including SEs.

As previously discussed, social entrepreneurs exist within environments that are


most often unique and dynamic that may, therefore, require a unique set of
strategies to adapt and navigate through the socio-economic environment where
they operate (Griffiths et al. 2013: 341-357). Hence, for sustainable development
to be positively impacted by social entrepreneurship, it needs to create an intimate
relationship between economic and social behaviour, thereby increasing the
aggregate demand of the economy which will, in turn, stimulate economic growth
(Mendez-Picazo et al. 2020).

Understanding the entrepreneurship, socio-economic factor interplay and effects


will influence and help the SE to develop strategies that will improve its social
value creation, as well as stimulate economic growth (LaMarco 2018). SEs are
usually caught up in “the trap” of various socio-economic factors, which also limits
their ability to access public and private resources, invariably impacting their
operations (Nicolaescu 2011).

108
Taxation
Many SEs in SA find the taxation associated with the choices of their legal forms
quite confusing and are usually misinformed on how to formally register their
organisation (Coetzee 2016). According to the Bertha Centre for Social Innovation
and Entrepreneurship (2016: 3), SEs who choose the for-profit legal form have
flexibility regarding sources of finance and private ownership, however, they will
not have easy access to charitable donations and grants. Nevertheless, the SE
with the non-profit legal form could engage fully in business activities, while also
having access to grant funding; this choice has the consequence of taxation.

The South African Revenue Services (SARS) provides accreditation to SEs


providing them tax advantages that make them attractive to Corporate Social
Investment (CSI) departments. These accreditations are the Public Benefit
Organisation (PBO) and Donor Deductible Status (DDO) (Coetzee 2016).
However, the misunderstanding and fear of losing their accreditation status
deprive SEs from engaging in business activities that will improve their financial
sustainability and increase their social value creation (Claeye, Shumba and
Steinman 2014). This has resulted in many SEs adopting the currently
fashionable hybrid model, which combines a non-profit legal form and a for-profit
legal form (Coetzee 2016). Thus, it is imperative for SE owners/managers to
understand the required guidelines from SARS in terms of finances and business
activities, as this will ensure they operate effectively and fulfil their objective of
developing communities.

Interest rate
According to a discussion paper by the Danish Technological Institute (2016),
many SEs are reluctant to use traditional commercial finance products because
of the fear of not being able to pay back the loan due to high interest rates.
Although, SEs might provide goods and services to customers willing to pay a
premium for a socially beneficial product or they might sell an essential service to

109
a poor customer at a decent profit, they do not make enough profit to match the
high interest rates of traditional financial markets (Bugg-Levine, Kogut, and
Kulatilaka 2012). These high interest rates contribute to the challenge of funding
or access to finance faced by SEs.

Lyon and Baldok (2014) highlight that since the global financial crisis in
2007/2008, access to both debt and equity business finance for all enterprises,
including SEs in the UK, has become considerably more difficult and expensive,
with an average four percent increase in the interest rate on bank loans between
2008 and 2012. Many traditional finance sources, such as banks, believe SEs are
higher-risk and less profitable than other businesses, and higher-risk requires
higher interest rates (European Commission 2016), as a result of the various
constraints associated with the redistribution of their profit, and the gaps created
in the financial market. This is a critical economic factor that could discourage
social entrepreneurship participation in addition to affecting its sustainable
development contribution.

Competitive environment
One of the significant effects of globalisation is the demand for enhanced
competitiveness from SMEs, including SEs (Mathew 2008: 22-24).
Competitiveness is considered a very crucial aspect of any business environment
and is helpful to humankind, as it ensures businesses provide superior products
and services to remain highly competitive (Ullah 2020). Markets where many SEs
exist and compete are not solely impact-focused (Ross 2018). The extent of value
creation and impact of a SE thus relies on the ability of the enterprise to make
effective use of the available resources and continue to be competitive. Seferian
(2020) argues that for SEs to be successful, they need to view competition the
same way as a commercial enterprise and leverage their social impact, while
providing products and services, not inferior in terms of quality, design, or the
customer experience in general.

110
A recent study by Lin-Hi et al. (2020: 58-84) finds no difference in customer
willingness to buy and willingness to pay for sustainable products offered by SEs
and commercial enterprises, indicating it is a difficult undertaking for SEs to
compete successfully with commercial enterprises eventually. However, Yalcintas
(2019) suggests SEs possess unique characteristics that do not exist in
commercial enterprises and these resources can be exploited to develop
strategies that will ensure competitive advantage.

SEs can thus survive in a competitive environment, but will need to generate a
balanced combination of excess financial returns and excess social value,
through identifying relevant resources that represent a potential source of
sustained competitive advantage over the commercial enterprise (Walkenhorst,
Damaske and Sturm 2021). In addition, SEs have the tendency to increasingly
cooperate with each other, more so when they offer similar goods or services, but
a healthy competition among them is also essential (Arenas 2020).

COVID-19
COVID-19, a strain of the coronavirus, has had devastating economic effects on
millions of people around the world, as many governments close ‘non-essential’
businesses and institutions in an effort to limit the spread of the virus (Weaver
2020: 1). These closures have affected revenue generation of small businesses
such as social entrepreneurs, requiring a profound shift and alteration in the
fundamentals of their business models or running the risk of disappearing (British
Council 2020c: 2; Weaver 2020: 1; Kang and Seidl 2021). Furthermore, social-
distancing guidelines requiring prescribed physical distance be maintained
between everybody, taken to contain the virus once it was declared a pandemic,
have affected many micro and small businesses in the service sector, where
physical proximity often matters (Belitski et al. 2021: 2).

In a special report by COMESA Monetary Institute (2020), both supply and


demand are highlighted to be included in the economic effects of COVID-19 on

111
SMMEs. Where the supply side is concerned, reduction in the supply of labour is
experienced by many companies as a result of movement restriction, while loss
of demand and revenue is dramatic and sudden on the demand side, due to
customer loss of income and reduced purchasing power (COMESA Monetary
Institute 2020: 2). These challenges may also cause a severe drop in social
entrepreneurs’ capacity to effectively contribute to sustainable development.

In the United States of America (USA), the number of active business owners
plummeted by 3.3 million or 22 percent over the crucial two-month window from
February to April 2020, and may remain closed permanently because of the
inability to finance ongoing expenses (Fairlie 2020: 1). However, in the UK, only
approximately one percent of SEs are expected to close because of strict
government lockdown regulations, compared to the 11 percent for businesses
(Social enterprise UK 2021: 2). This is attributed to the incredible resilience SEs
have shown throughout the pandemic and their creative entrepreneurial mind-set,
which enables them to adapt to rapidly evolving circumstances (Investec 2021).

Despite the economic effects of the pandemic on the operations of SEs, they are
still considered the shining light and real innovators for social community impact
(Oberoi, Halsall and Snowden 2021: 2; Bonnici 2020). According to Roan and
Udayakumar (2021), this moment of crisis provides an opportunity for social
entrepreneurs committed to creating positive social impact and contributing to the
sustainable development of local communities. Nonetheless, COVID-19 has
caused a major economic shock (Bartik et al. 2020: 17656), with significant effects
on many social entrepreneurs. Furthermore, it is important for this study to
understand how they are adapting and the impact COVID-19 has on their
sustainable development contribution in local communities.

Russia-Ukraine conflict
According to Kammer et al. (2022) and Naidoo-McCarthy (2022), Russia and
Ukraine are major community producers and the conflict between the two

112
countries is a major blow to the global economy, as global prices have soared as
a result, especially for oil and natural gas. SA, as with many other SSA countries,
is still gradually recovering from the COVID-19 pandemic and are as such,
particularly open to the conflict consequences, more so due to increased energy
and food prices, diminished tourism, and possible challenges to access capital
markets internationally (Kammer et al. 2022). A press release by the World Bank
(2022) highlights that the conflict has given rise to increasing apprehension
regarding a definitive global slowdown, with inflation and debt surging, and an
unprecedented poverty level increase. In addition, with organisations such as SEs
moving quickly to alleviate interruptive impacts on their business to maintain the
flow of goods, funds, and information across the supply chain, the global supply
chain is being tested (Kilpatrick 2022). These could negatively affect social
entrepreneurs and their operations in SA.

In a recent parliamentary debate on the economic effects of the conflict, the South
African Deputy Minister of Finance, Mr David Masondo, admitted to the significant
risks the conflict poses to the country’s economic outlook, particularly as an
increase in prices of household stables such as maize, wheat and oil supplies,
will add to inflation and reduce disposable income of consumers (Mputing 2022).
In 2021, Russia imported R1.3 billion worth of products from SA and exported
products to SA to the value of approximately R458 million, furthermore, the
volume of trade between South African and Ukraine accounts for roughly 0.2
percent of exports and 0.05 percent of imports (Davis 2022). This shows the
economic grounds when it comes to trade between the three nations.

However, Moffat (2022) argues that despite the negative economic impact of the
conflict on African countries such as SA, it also provides an opportunity to act on
the possibility to strengthen policy formulation and implementation that will benefit
and grow SMEs, including social entrepreneurs. Except for Russia, SA is the
second biggest palladium producer in the world, with the precious metal being

113
critical to automobiles and electronics, while it is also a major gold exporter;
therefore, the country could benefit from growing demand (Resnick 2022).
Furthermore, the Finance Minister, Enoch Godongwana, mentioned that while the
conflict offset other reactions, SA’s economy may be spared from the effects of
the conflict and instead, could see positive economic activity (Mahlakoana 2022).
Hence, the economic sanctions on Russia could be an unseen benefit for South
African SMEs such as social entrepreneurs, as this may lead to increased
demand for goods and services both locally and internationally (Business Tech
2022)

3.7.1.4 Infrastructural factors


According to Lancu et al. (2021), understanding the factors, including
infrastructural factors that influence social entrepreneurship is a lever to stimulate
creative potential and ability to alter the progression of social inequalities. In a
study conducted on emerging SE ecosystems in the Eastern and Southern parts
of Africa by the World Bank (2017: 42), it was revealed that the ability of social
entrepreneurs is either enabled or constrained by infrastructure, to operate
effectively in their local communities. Generally, all the countries studied are
impacted by noteworthy infrastructural challenges including power cuts, as well
as poor transportation as well as information and communication technology
(ICT).

SA was identified by the World Bank (2017), as having better forms of


transportation such as roads and railways, in comparison with other countries,
nevertheless, service delivery to communities such as townships in SA, is
generally poor. Furthermore, the World Bank (2017: 42) highlights that despite
ICT infrastructure in SA being more advanced and developed, this comes with
high prices, and slow implementation and acceptance of mobile money solutions.
It is thus important to understand the effect infrastructural factors have on social

114
entrepreneurship’s contribution to sustainable development in communities such
as townships, particularly in KZN.

Technology
Infrastructure such as technology has an important significance for any
entrepreneur, even those without technological focus or products (Mark and
Putzschel 2014). Entrepreneurs need to adjust their business practises to
technological changes and the introduction of new technologies and products in
a market, in order to be competitively relevant (Mark and Putzschel 2014).
Galvanauskaite (2014) is of the opinion technology increases transparency for
social entrepreneurship and equips people for social cause, as well as
encouraging individuals to make a social impact.

The innovative approaches applied by social entrepreneurs to address social


problems requires the use of technology, not only because it is inherently
innovative but increasingly, technology has become a cost-effective way to solve
social issues (Juneja 2015). This means it is important for social entrepreneurs
operating in communities such as townships, to have access to new forms of
technology and acquire the knowledge to use this technology in the creation of
social value and social innovation, to address the lingering social problems in their
communities.

In a study conducted by Adeyemi (2019), it is suggested that depending on the


contextual factors, the availability of technology, either through technology
transfer or development of new technology, the implications of technology cannot
be overemphasised, as it could lead to increased productivity and employment,
resulting in economic growth of a nation or firm. Adeyemi (2019) adds that
strategic use of technology by social entrepreneurs will provide various benefits,
which include; improved performance and organisational culture, increased
access to useful information and improved customer reach, optimised internal

115
efficiencies, as well as reduced process and product cost, and higher
differentiation of products.

According to Mihda (2017), technology serves as a driving force for society and
business, and organisations such as SEs can use the power of technology to
better understand and quantify the problem to be solved, as well as help to move
quickly from proof of concept, to proof of application. Hence, lack of proper
technological infrastructure and easy accessibility to new technology could hinder
the effective operations of social entrepreneurs to create social value.

Electricity
Power-cuts or blackouts, well-known as load shedding, have become more
frequent in SA as a result of the low supply and high demand of electricity
(Coetzee and Els 2016: 268). The main provider of electricity in SA and also the
largest, Eskom, has not met the country’s electricity demand because of
insufficient existing power station maintenance, inability to introduce new
infrastructure successfully, poor management and corruption allegations (Laher
et al. 2019: 899). Eskom performance is considered vital for the South African
economy grow, because unless generation capacity is improved, new industry
such as social entrepreneurship cannot develop and grow to overcome social
problems including unemployment and poverty (Colling 2021). In addition,
businesses are subjected to widespread disruption as a result of insufficient
energy security and predictability in SA, particularly for small businesses such as
SEs, who are negatively impacted and many are closing (Liedtke 2021). The
South African Chamber of Commerce and Industry (SACCI) estimate that load
shedding costs the country R17 million loss per hour (Mkhabela 2022). This
means load shedding is an important structural challenge that needs to be
urgently addressed.

According to Mbomvu et al. (2021: 3), South African SMMEs, including social
entrepreneurs, depend on electricity to conduct their business and load shedding

116
may, as such, adversely influence their profitability, solvency, efficiency and
liquidity. Many small businesses such as SEs cannot afford to buy generators to
keep the power on during rolling blackouts, which makes them lose thousands of
rands and leaves their security systems compromised, exposing the businesses
to theft and other forms of crime (IOL 2022a). Furthermore, some of the worst and
most commonly felt effects of load shedding on SMMEs such as SEs are
highlighted as failed wireless connectivity, negatively impacted staff morale,
planning deficiencies, and being unable to trade, as well as inoperative equipment
and bad traffic (Alumo Energy 2020). Hence, adequate electricity supply is a
critical factor that could enhance social entrepreneurs’ growth, thus improving
their sustainable development contribution in SA.

Climate change
AS stated by Sulcas (2022), time is running out for humanity to save the planet
and people from catastrophic global warming. Jackson (2021) and Rosen (2021)
describe climate change as the cyclic climate changes due to atmospheric
fluctuations and interactions, between the atmosphere and a variety of factors
within the earth’s systems; geologic, chemical, biological and geographical. The
severe KZN flooding of 12 April 2022 that left hundreds dead, with houses,
businesses, roads, and bridges damaged extensively, in addition to water,
electricity, rail and telecommunication infrastructure, was attributed to climate
change by President Cyril Ramaphosa (SA Government 2022). However, many
local residents living in townships and informal settlements have blamed poor
infrastructure for the scale of the flooding, as they are the hardest hit, because
they lack resilience and options (Mwai 2022; Du Plessis 2022; Galvin and Bond
2022). Omarjee (2022) highlights the KZN floods are just the start of many more
extreme weather events to come, and the rebuilding of infrastructure needs to be
resilient to such climate risks. In other words, businesses such as SEs may
continue to experience the effects of climate change should proper infrastructures
not be in place.

117
Mwai (2022) points out the weather system that triggered the floods on 11 April,
resulted in more than 300mm rainfall within a 24-hour period. In comparison to
previous flooding, the latest figures are significantly more than, for example 2019,
with 165mm recorded on 22 April and in 2017, rainfall measured 108mm on 10
October. This shows an upward trajectory in the weather system. SA cane
growers reveal that damage to cane fields and farm infrastructure as a result of
the floods, stood at R222.9 million (Daily News 2022). Furthermore, an estimated
cost for road infrastructure damage is preliminarily at R5.6 billion; this includes 1
369 infrastructure projects across the KZN province (Mbhele and Molapo 2022).
Mahlaka (2022) explains the damage caused by the floods will have long-term
repercussions on infrastructure and many small businesses such as SEs, may
not be adequately insured to recover losses, thus putting their existence and
sustainability at risk. Karaoulanis (2022: 1) asserts the impact of climate change
on small businesses, including SEs, are multidimensional and could negatively
affect supply change, production, and resource acquisition, while it can also cause
infrastructural damages.

Mavuso (2022) argues the crisis should trigger the conversation of how the
government is preparing for climate change as extreme weather system are
becoming a reality. Naidoo (2022) is of the opinion that investing in smart early-
warning systems is an urgent way for government to adapt to this changing
environment, as it will ensure rapid disaster risk analysis and ensure quick
communication with decision makers and communities. Hence, social
entrepreneurs identifying ways to adapt to the extreme weather system and
climate change may be crucial, if they are to contribute to sustainable
development in KZN townships.

Internet connectivity
The internet has, over the years, transformed the way small businesses such as
SEs operate, communicate with employees and interact with customers

118
(Columbia Telecommunication Corporation 2010: 1). The internet is fast, efficient
and filled with resources that can help small businesses, including SEs, to build
or develop an online presence that will offer prestige to the business, improve
brand visibility, and increase the confidence of potential customers in the business
offer (Apăvăloaie 2014: 956; Barhatov, Campa and Pletnev 2018: 555). As the
globe moves towards a digital economy, small businesses such as SEs require
fast and stable internet connectivity to enable them to remain connected, even
while they are on the go (West 2012). In other words, adequate internet
connectivity to create social values effectively and efficiently, is crucial for social
entrepreneurs in order that these may contribute to sustainable development.

Queen (2021) argues that slow and unreliable internet connectivity can cost small
businesses such as SEs, money, time and reputation, and can also impact
everything from employee productivity to customer service, to the ability to
develop new business and reach new customers. According to Mzekandaba
(2021), the average national broadband speed in SA has improved from 14.04
Mbps in 2020 to 19.94 Mbps in 2021, and the country has improved from 97th, to
rank 90th in the world, indicating significant improvement. However, more needs
to be done, as telecommunication investment in the country decreased by six
percent in 2020 (Briggs 2021).

Mkansi (2021: 2) highlights that SMEs in Africa constitute only two percent of
enterprises in e-commerce, attributed to the direct costs from internet
connectivity, access to telecommunication, and network facilities. As at 2021, 36
percent of South Africans remain unconnected to the internet and major mobile
network providers offer a per gigabyte average cost at R38.93, placing SA 136th
worldwide, where data affordability is concerned, while the cheapest data cost
average in the world is 22 times less that SA (Briggs 2021). In addition to the issue
of affordability, there is also the problem of lack of digital skill and literacy, and the

119
lack of content in local languages (Richard 2019). These factors may significantly
limit social entrepreneur’s value creation.

3.7.2 Internal factors


Described as those factors within the organisation, internal factors are under
control of the managers/owners of the organisation, whether tangible or intangible
(Sitharam and Hoque 2016: 278). Nonetheless, Kraja and Osmani (2015: 123)
mention it is not easy to manage the internal environment of a business, as it
involves the ability to effectively manage resources such as all assets, capacities,
organisational processes, and information, as well as knowledge that will help
improve efficiency and effectiveness.

According to Islam (2016), key internal factors that could influence the activities
of social entrepreneurs include uncertainty and risk, funding and resources, and
management efficiency. In addition, Sitharam and Hoque (2016: 278) identify
internal environmental factors such as “management competency and skills,
financial knowledge, business management training, and technological
capabilities” to have a significant influence on any business enterprise. In a study
conducted in Latvia by Dobele (2011: 101-107), internal factors are described as
the opportunities and threats that exist within a SE the owner/manager has to
compete with.

These internal factors include access to finances, staffing problem and personal
issues. One of the internal challenges faced by SEs is their inability to compete
with traditional businesses, with regard to level of salary offered, however, SEs
provide meaningful jobs and great experience (Dobele 2011: 101-107). This
makes it crucial to comprehend which internal factors impact SEs and how they
can be addressed to enable effective social value creation that will contribute to
sustainable development.

3.7.2.1 Management competence and skills

120
In a study conducted by Amini, Arasti and Bagheri (2018), managerial
competence is revealed as one of those general entrepreneurial competencies all
managers require to ensure the effectiveness and efficiency of the enterprise,
including SEs. In addition, these managerial competencies are referred to as the
knowledge, skills and abilities relating to management knowledge that will help
the owner/manager to realise organisational objectives (Amini et al. 2018).
Consequently, it is important for owners/managers of SEs to have management
skills and competencies to run their enterprises effectively and efficiently,
including those operating in KZN townships.

According to Wranka-Pospiech (2016: 40-57), the volatility and dynamic changes


occurring in an environment requires owners/managers of SEs enter relationships
with different groups of stakeholders. In addition, it is important to manage these
relationships properly to ensure legitimacy and accountability in delivering
organisational objectives. Furthermore, Wranka-Pospiech (2016) highlights any
form of mismanagement can cause many problems, which could infringe on
organisational performance, therefore, a SE should be run by a competent
manager with the personality, charisma and leadership skills to drive the
development of such an organisation. Mthembu and Barnard (2019) propose that
with a given budget, SEs can be more efficient and when they apply successful
management skills focused on the most effective programmes, provide higher
impact through the use of strategic mechanisms for planning and control.

In literature, a study regarding the distinction between management skills and


leadership skills reveals both cannot be clearly separated, as every manager has
a leadership role, with every leader similarly engaged in functions of management
(Heinecke, Kloibhofer and Krzeminska 2014). The owner/manager of a SE should
also have management skills that provide functions such as organisation,
integration, planning, and measurement along with budgeting, and development

121
of people, because lack of any of these functions may lead to the SE not achieving
its full potential.

3.7.2.2 Technical skills


Today’s complex and complicated entrepreneurial environment requires
entrepreneurs, including social entrepreneurs, to possess the technical savvy that
will enable them to grow their business and operate to their full potential in this
digital age (Patel 2016). These technical skills include; Conversion Rate
Optimisation (CRO), Search Engine Optimisation (SEO), content marketing, and
user experience, as well as email marketing, social media, writing, and
outsourcing or delegation (Patel 2016). All these technical skills are crucial for
entrepreneurs, including social entrepreneurs, to help them have a significant
impact in their communities.

Rattner (2014) highlights the need for social entrepreneurs to have a deep
understanding of the value ICT can contribute to their social mission, especially
when offered in context, with appropriate training and the intent of empowering
the user. Furthermore, technical skills can empower social entrepreneurship
initiatives through democratising access to information, creating business value,
and enabling new capacities (Rattner 2014). According to Galvanauskaite (2014),
having the appropriate technical skills will help social entrepreneurs fill the gap
neglected by other sectors and contribute positively to their impact on economic
and social conditions, as well as breaking several barriers and enabling people in
communities to escape from the vicious cycle of ongoing social problems.

3.7.2.3 Education and training development


One of the key drivers with the potential to enhance economic and social
development in historically disadvantaged communities, including in SA, is social
entrepreneurship education (Waghid and Oliver 2017: 76-100). In addition, the
provision of entrepreneurship education and training can strengthen the

122
entrepreneurial capacity of individuals to develop new ventures, which Waghid
and Oliver (2017) assert could have positive economic implications for society.

As Roslan et al. (2019) explain, entrepreneurial education and training can help
equip individuals with all the necessary knowledge, skills, and personal well-
being, and develop their abilities to explore and identify new opportunities, as well
as create innovative solutions to address social problems in society. However,
entrepreneurs operating in the townships, including social entrepreneurs, are
usually faced with challenges that differ from well-developed urban areas. Hence,
it is suggested such entrepreneurs need to have education and training
programmes specific to their context (Lekhanya 2017).

Social environment factors are considered top of the list of factors affecting social
entrepreneurship education and training and makes it important for individuals to
be informed of these social environment factors that could affect their success
and development (Sarikaya and Coskun 2015: 888-894). However, Sarikaya and
Coskun (2015: 888-894) mention that regardless of these factors, social
entrepreneurship education and training will significantly increase the level of
social awareness, and the sensitivity to problems in the environment, create
innovative solutions to the problems, and provide support in the ability to provide
an opinion to the solutions created.

In SA, it is believed low-level education and training development limits the


effectiveness of social entrepreneurs’ contribution to community development, as
education and training development are regarded as important mechanisms that
could address some of the wide-ranging social challenges in the country, such as
exclusion from economic activities, joblessness and unemployment, as well as
law-breaking and corruption (Littlewood and Holt 2018).

3.7.2.4 Marketing strategy

123
Marketing strategy comprises a bundle of decisions that identify the specific
marketing action and involves the planning and executing of a targeted strategy
to ensure goods and services reach customers, as well as satisfy their needs
(Rasmussen 2012). According to the International Management Institute (2019),
for a SE to achieve its objective of social value creation and desired social impact,
it needs to clarify its vision, mission and values, analyse potential users and
competitors, elaborate the market determinants, and manage effective a
distribution system, as well as promotion and communication. Moreover, because
most SEs operate in resource constrained environments and are projected to be
competing for resources with commercial enterprises, it becomes necessary to
embrace some innovative entrepreneurial approaches to their marketing, in order
to create social value and contribute to sustainable development (Satar, Siraj and
Chesti 2016: 16-24).

The emphasis of SEs existing within a double bottom line of social and financial
returns requires they continually make difficult decisions regarding the goods and
services to offer and which market segment to pursue (Boschee 2006). Hence,
SEs cannot shy away from developing marketing strategies and it will be
delusional for them to believe the purpose of their business and the good-will
around their mission will market themselves (Punia 2013). In other words, not
having the necessary marketing skills and strategies will affect SEs social impact,
sustainability and the capacity to scale (Punia 2013). Furthermore, in recent
years, there is an increasing call for SEs to start exploring digital marketing as a
key part of their business strategy; not having an online presence could mean the
enterprise does not exist (Ricard 2019).

The use of various social media platforms to market products and services, build
awareness and gain recognition, has become a relatively new practice for
businesses (Urban and Maphathe 2021: 52; van Scheers 2016: 640). The
evolution of social media has made it easy to use technically, cost effective and

124
accessible to a diverse customer base, opening opportunities for SMEs such as
social enterprises, that may not have access to resources, both financial and
technical, to undertake conventional marketing programmes (dos Santos and
Duffett 2021: 2; Tlapana and Dike 2020: 1). Oji, Iwu and Haydam (2017: 2)
highlight that in SA, lack of proper marketing strategies and skills contribute to
business failures on an ongoing basis; the use of social media integrated
marketing systems could allow for a two-way communication pattern, which builds
customers communication as well as loyalty over a broader range of products and
services. Bierman (2021) mentions that not using social media to effectively
market your business meant missing opportunities within a significant segment of
an engaged population, because 40 percent of the South African population are
active social media users. It is therefore imperative for social entrepreneurs to
embrace the use of social media in marketing their products or services.

3.8 CONCLUSION
This chapter provided insight into the factors affecting social entrepreneurship
contribution to sustainable development. The chapter amongst other elements
reviewed literature on important characteristics, the influence of social networking,
society’s perception, resources, social impact measurement, as well as the
internal/external environment that could affect social entrepreneurship
contribution to sustainable development.

The next chapter deals with the research methodology employed in this study.

125
CHAPTER FOUR
RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

4.1 INTRODUCTION
The preceding chapter discussed and analysed literature on critical factors
affecting the social entrepreneurship contribution to sustainable development.
The purpose of this chapter is to discuss and provide an overview of the
approaches and techniques used to conduct the research. Research is a search
for knowledge and an art of scientific investigation for pertinent information on a
specific topic/area (Kabir 2016). Patel and Patel (2019: 48) describe methodology
as a “systematic, theoretical analysis of the methods [and principles] applied to a
field of study”. The purpose and function of research methodology are to address
the research questions (Williams 2007: 65). Therefore, this chapter will explain
and discuss the design of the research and the method, in addition to the study
population, data collection instruments, and various data analysis types
employed, validity and reliability, as well as ethical consideration.

4.2 RESEARCH DESIGN


Although a research design provides the appropriate framework or plan for
obtaining relevant information for the study, it also brings the research questions
and study execution together (Blanche, Durrheim and Painter 2006: 34; Sileyew
2019). This means a research design is the glue that holds the research project
together and ensures all the major research project parts (samples, measures,
and methods of analyses) work together in order to address the central research
question (Jongbo 2014: 90).

A good research design ensures it delivers the evidence necessary to address


the research problem in a manner that is accurate, clear and as unequivocal as
possible (Ganeshpurkar et al. 2018). Similarly, Wu and Little (2011) and Akthar

126
(2016: 68) claim a research design ensures any potential threat to the validity of
the scientific research conclusion is minimised. De Vaus (2001: 9) adds that
research design entails obtaining evidence relevant for answering a research
question, testing a theory, evaluating a programme or describing some
phenomenon accurately. This makes it important that the researcher ensures data
collection, organising and analysing techniques, as well as interpretation of results
and subsequent findings, are consistent with the research questions and meet
relevant norms and standards for validity and reliability (Asenahabi 2019: 77).

For this research study, the research design was adopted because it facilitates
efficient collection of relevant data and the technique for their analyses, which
addresses the research questions and ensures reliability of the results (Kothari
2004: 32). According to Maxwell (2012: 4), research questions are the hub that
holds all other components in a design together and should, as such, inform and
be sensitive to these components.

4.2.1 Research approach


The study followed a positivist research approach elaborated by Park, Konge and
Artino (2020: 690) as an approach that “generate exploratory associations or
casual relationships that ultimately lead prediction and control of the phenomena
in question”. In positivist research approach, there is usually a particular ontology
and epistemology which Antwi and Hamza (2015) suggest that people’s objective
experiences are real and should be taken into consideration (ontology), and
researchers can investigate and deduct logic with precise empirical observations
of individual behaviour in order to discover and possibly get the closest
approximation of reality (epistemology). This approach helps to objectively
enquire the opinions and desires of people to ensure a better understanding of
the nature and dynamics of the social world, free from any bias stemming from
the researcher’s values and beliefs (Ryan, 2018).

127
It is for this reasons that the positivist research approach was used in this study
because it helps the researcher to objectively understand the host/research
townships’ ontology and epistemology, while also analysing the factors affecting
social entrepreneurship contribution to sustainable development. This approach
is different from the interpretive school of thought (Antwi and Hamza, 2015), which
prefer to understand the world as it is from subjective experiences of individuals,
rely on a subjective relationship between the researcher and subjects, and do not
predefine dependent and independent variables.

4.3 RESEARCH METHOD


The reason for adopting this research method was to determine the relationship
between two variables (social entrepreneurship and sustainable development)
and to reach specific conclusions as to the critical factors that impact the
contribution social entrepreneurship makes to sustainable development (Apuke
2017: 42). The research method ensured the scientific inquiry was practically
implemented regarding the collection of data, their analysis, interpretation and
conclusion (Queiros, Faria and Almeida 2017: 370). It is therefore crucial the
method is followed and used appropriately to achieve the objective for which it
was adopted (Antwi and Hamza 2015: 220). Grover (2015: 5) stated there are
three methods used to answer the research questions in social research namely;
quantitative, qualitative and mixed research method.

A quantitative research method was used for this study, considered appropriate
because of its fundamental ability to effectively examine the relationship among
variables, while the interpretation of research findings need not be seen as mere
coincidence (Daniel 2016: 94). A questionnaire was used to measure these
variables, which were statistically analysed to determine the factors affecting the
sustainable development contribution of social entrepreneurship. To explore a
sample size of 90 social entrepreneurs in KZN townships, this method was also
considered appropriate, deemed necessary to establish valid findings; a

128
qualitative method would not have been practically adequate. In addition, a
qualitative research method would not have been appropriate for this study,
because of its inability to adequately test relationships between particular study
variables and conduct statistical tests to prove the study hypotheses. Moreover,
using a different approach would have been time-consuming, with high financial
implications, and not feasible to target the study sample size.

4.3.1 Quantitative research


According to Bhandari (2021a) and Frey (2018), a quantitative research method
is a process that involves collecting and analysing numerical data. It focuses on
collection of data and then using statistical tests to better understand the
relationship between two or more phenomena or variables, detect hidden patterns
in the research data, and interpret what such patterns reflect (Kamga 2018;
Ahmed et al. 2019: 2; Sukamolson 2007: 2). From a broader perspective, a
quantitative research approach is “social research that employs empirical
methods and empirical statements” – for this research, it concerns those factors
that affect the contribution of social entrepreneurship to sustainable development.
This involves determining “the strength of association or correlation between
variables”, generalisation and to “broaden or clarify the findings of the quantitative
evaluation through a sample for inference in a population” (Cadena-Iniguez et al.
2017: 1608).

Williams (2021) asserts a quantitative research approach is an important and


crucial tool that can help the researcher to form hypotheses for a study, use
deductive reasoning to test the hypotheses, and analyse it to confirm or reject the
hypotheses. This follows the pattern of accepted theory, where hypotheses are
developed and then tested in order to prove or disprove a correlation or
relationship exists or not (Nenty 2009: 21; Meyer, Witteloostuijn and Beugelsdijk
2017: 536). In this instance, the design of the approach was intended to have a
clear understanding of the reasons behind the ability, or more often, inability of

129
social entrepreneurs in KZN townships to be innovative and creative in order to
contribute to sustainable development (Stochemer 2019: 18). A quantitative
research method, as with any other approach, requires the collection of data, that
must then be analysed and interpreted, with conclusions then drawn to the study
(Albers 2017: ix). Based on its scientific objectivity and highly systematic
procedures (Creswell 2014), this approach was identified and considered
appropriate for this study, as it proved effective in answering the study objectives.
This approach was also used to test the literature review identified variables that
formed the base of the questionnaire.

4.4 POPULATION
The population is described as the total individuals, groups, organisations or
entities a researcher “seeks to understand and to which the study results may be
generalised or transferred; it is the [main] group the research is concerned with”
(Casteel and Bridier 2021: 343). The group of individuals or participants referred
to as the target population, concerns all that take part who have the specific
attributes a researcher wants to understand (Asiamah, Mensah and Oteng-Abayie
2017: 1612; Banerjee and Chaudhury 2010: 61). Accordingly, as claimed by Davis
(2021), the identification of the population is critical to the research study, because
it provides clearly explained directions on the scope of the research, its objectives
and data types, while also defining characteristic participant variables of those
individuals who meet the study requirements. providing the total population or
universe range to determine the size of the sample. The study population
consisted of social entrepreneurs operating within the selected townships in the
province of KZN.

4.5 SAMPLING
According to Taherdoost (2016: 20), sampling begins by clearly defining the target
population, as researchers neither have time or resources to analyse the entire
population. It is a selection process whereby a population of interest subset is

130
selected to be representative of the entire population (Tuner 2020: 8), expecting
the sample data and information to, as much as possible, represent the entire
population, with the least possible error, distortion of data and without substitution
or incompleteness (Elfil and Negida 2017: 1; Adwok 2015: 95; Bhardwaj 2019:
157). Sampling is defined by Hammersley and Mairs (2004: 4) as a practical
means to collect data, where the study population is frequently huge, thus the
larger the population, the greater the risk of the sample drawn from that population
being unrepresentative. However, a ‘sampling frame’ is explained to comprise all
units the sample is drawn from and should preferably be identical to the population
or at least closely resemble it (Stochemer 2019: 57). A questionable sampling or
sampling technique can significantly affect the data integrity, which drives the
credibility of the findings (Asiamah et al. 2017: 1607).

Two main types of sampling design exist: probability and non-probability


(Stochemer 2019: 57; Taherdoost 2016: 20). Probability sampling is a scientific
technique, where every element has an equal opportunity to be selected for the
sample (Abubakar, Etikan and Alkassim 2015: 1; Alvi 2016: 12). It is also known
as random sampling, where the probability of selecting each element is known
and can be readjusted mathematically (Sharma 2017: 749).

Conversely, non-probability sampling is a sampling technique that denotes those


elements that are part of the sample but have unknown probabilities, or known to,
alternatively, be zero (Vehovar, Toepoel and Steinmetz 2016: 327, McCombes
2019). This type of sampling is usually applied when the researcher has limited
resources or there is no population list readily available and complete, with the
selection totally dependent on researcher subjectivity (Galloway 2005: 859; Anello
2021). Based on this background, this study adopted a nonprobability, snowball,
convenience sampling technique.

As explained by Frey (2018), this method is used by the researcher to generate a


“pool of participants” for a research study, accomplished with individual referrals

131
by those with a particular shared research interest characteristic as per the target
population. This process is generally initiated by the researcher “with a small
number of initial contacts that fit the research criteria and are invited to become
participants within the research” (Parker, Scott and Geddes 2019: 4). The sample
group in this sampling technique grows much as a rolling snowball does, as one
participant introduces the researcher to another participant who fits the research
criteria, who in turn introduces the researcher to a third participant, and so on
(Cohen and Arieli 2011: 424). In building the sample, sufficient data are gathered
to be of practical use in the study (Sharma 2017: 752). Access to potential
informants by the researcher was facilitated through snowball sampling with other
informants across the three KZN townships selected for this study providing the
needed contact information (Noy 2008: 330). This sampling method was
necessary, since gaining access to subjects that have the target characteristics is
challenging (Naderifar, Goli and Ghaljaie 2017: 2).

The researcher began by establishing the inclusion and exclusion criteria for
participant selection. Inclusion criteria: the social entrepreneur has been operating
for the past one year, the social entrepreneur is only pursuing a social issue that
is not for personal gain, the social entrepreneur is registered with the Department
of Social Development or intents to soon comply, and the social entrepreneur is
involved in an income generating venture. Exclusion criteria include: social
entrepreneurs operating for less than a year, social entrepreneurs who only
pursue social issues for personal gain, and social entrepreneurs not involved in
any income generating venture. This was closely done with the procedure of
snowball sampling. These criteria were developed and formulated with the
literature review as basis. This analysis enabled the researcher to precisely
determine the participants to be considered for the sample size.

Convenience sampling enabled the researcher to identify social entrepreneurs,


managers and owners of SEs in the three KZN townships who were available,

132
accessible and willing to participate by answering the questionnaire (Stratton
2021: 373; Etikan, Musa and Alkassim 2016: 2; Acharya, et al. 2013: 332; Farrokhi
and Mahmoudi-Hamidabad, 2012: 785). A thorough coverage of representation
of social entrepreneurs within the KZN townships being studied was achieved
through the distribution of a questionnaire. This ensures limited bias or
misrepresentation of any of the townships being studied (Speak et al. 2018: 2333).
In addition, it is important to state a probability sampling technique would not be
adequate for this kind of study, since many social entrepreneurs in these
townships are not legally registered and, as such, they do not appear in the list of
registered social entrepreneurs.

4.6 DATA COLLECTION INSTRUMENTS


The design of instruments to collect data can be either qualitative or quantitative
or a combination of both (Zohrabi 2013: 254). To ensure adequate data are
collected, the design of the instrument for data collection is crucial so the results
may be explainable (Thomas, Oenning and Goulart 2018: 658). The research
questions and objectives are, to a large extent, determined by the data gathering
methods used (Canals 2017: 390). Information that guided the formulation of the
questionnaire was sourced from a review of relevant literature, and a quantitative
research method was considered as the best technique to test the identified
variables.

It is held by Cappa, Petrowski and Njelesani (2015: 319) that the data collection
method chosen is crucial, as are the data collecting procedures, which should be
clearly defined, since this is, to some extent, dictated by the context of the country
where the research is undertaken. As this study deals with understanding the
prevailing conditions and identifying those factors that affect social
entrepreneurship as a sustainable development tool in the KZN townships, a
descriptive approach was adopted (Nassaji 2015: 129). Sileyew (2019) refers to
the two primary data collection instruments types in quantitative research, namely:

133
questionnaires and interviews. Hence, based on the research approach adopted
for this study, a questionnaire was employed for data collection from participants.

4.6.1 Questionnaire
According to Acharya (2010: 2), the design of a questionnaire is important and
crucial to the research, where a questionnaire that is inappropriate will mislead
not only the research, but also academics and policymaking; as such, an
adequate and appropriate set of sequentially ordered questions, is required. As
described by Bhandari (2021b), a questionnaire is a list of questions or statements
used to collect respondent data relating to their attitudes, experiences or points of
view, and is typically used in market research, while also featuring in social and
health sciences.

Boparai, Singh and Kathuria (2018: 210) indicate the design of a questionnaire as
daunting, with data from the questionnaire clearly having to deal with the research
questions, and the study aims and objectives; otherwise, wrong interpretation or
bias may result, the power of the study decreased, and not being able to
generalise the results of the study. Roopa and Rani (2012: 277) warn that, failing
to construct a questionnaire carefully and properly, with suitable questions,
correct question ordering and scaling, or good format can affect reliability of
information significantly. The researcher needs to, therefore, design a
questionnaire that is valid, reliable, clear, and interesting, as well as succinct
(Jenn 2006: 32).

The questionnaire is the heart of any survey research project (Price, Jhangiani
and Chiang 2015a). It is quite an expedient means to collect data from a large
number of individuals that are useful, comparable and potentially produce results
that are valid and meaningful, with clear and concise questions consistently asked
from all participants (Mathers, Fox and Hunn 2009: 19). Thus, the researcher was
able to access a large sample using a questionnaire for this study, while it also

134
helped in bias reduction, which may be difficult to achieve with interviews (Phellas,
Bloch and Seale 2011: 182).

The term “questionnaire” is used in this study to signify a device for securing
answers to questions or statements by using a form that the respondents
complete, in order to gather information or data that are statistically analysed
(Kabir 2016: 208). Therefore, the questionnaire is used in correlation to the
adopted research method and because of its intrinsic ability to reach many
respondents, which can generate standardised, quantifiable and empirical data
(Quad 2016). Primary data comprise the original, unique data and may be
gathered through various means, such as observations, surveys, questionnaires,
and case studies or interviews, as per researcher requirements (Ajayi 2017: 2).

4.6.2 Design of the questionnaire


The complex nature of designing a questionnaire requires the researcher to note
certain considerations (Colosi 2006: 1). These considerations must be in context
of the study and capture variables that are of interest according to the study
hypothesis (Kazi and Khalid 2012: 514). Hence, it is the researcher’s
responsibility to ensure appropriate questionnaire design that is correctly and
easily understood by subjects/participants (Jain, Dubey and Jain 2016: 2).

According to Nemoto and Beglar (2014: 7), a Likert-scale (five-point related


option) questionnaire design is not an easy undertaking, since it “involves the
measurement of abstract psychological constructs and inferences made
[regarding] the respondents based on data elicited by the items”; as such, items
ought to be carefully designed. However, as indicated above, the format of the
questionnaire was deemed most appropriate technique for data collection in this
study (Appendix 1). Formulation of the questionnaire was done by reviewing
relevant literature, specifically on social entrepreneurship and sustainable
development. Design of the questionnaire was focused on enabling the
researcher to gather relatable, critical factors shown to affect the contribution of

135
social entrepreneurship to sustainable development. Therefore, both internal and
external environmental factors were considered and covered.

The questionnaire comprised two sections, A and B. The first section sought
demographical information and was designed to understand the nature of the
population and enable the researcher to make statistical inferences that answer
the hypothesis and study objectives. For instance, the section enabled the
researcher to identify whether the respondents understand whether level of
education influences an individual’s participation in social entrepreneurship.

Section B focused fully on the study variables. This section was designed based
on the reviewed literature underpinning the study and in line with aims and
objectives, as well as the research questions. The fundamental purpose of this
section was to understand and critically evaluate the factors affecting and
hindering social entrepreneurship use as a sustainable development tool in KZN
townships. Furthermore, this section enabled the researcher to identify patterns
that provide a better understanding of the dynamic challenges affecting social
entrepreneurs operating in the townships, while also developing practical ways to
address these challenges. This section was presented in Likert-scale form. The
sample of the questionnaire is provided below (See Appendix 1).

4.7 DISSEMINATION OF THE QUESTIONNAIRE


The best questionnaire may not obtain adequate results when it is not well
distributed and administered (Boynton 2004: 1372). According to Verma (2021),
one of the best ways for a questionnaire to reach enough (or the right)
respondents for the researcher to obtain the required responses, is by in-person
distribution. This method proved to be effective and efficient, as all the
respondents voluntarily agreed to participate and complete the questionnaire and,
where any issues or questions were raised, the researcher provided assistance.
However, it is important to state that this method was demanding for the
researcher in terms of financial cost, as many respondents required constant

136
visits and reminders in order to obtain feedback. This development affected the
time-frame initially allocated for distributing and administering the questionnaire
to change from two to five months. This extension was due to the unavailability of
the respondents as a result of their busy schedules and their initial reluctance to
participate.

4.8 PILOT TESTING THE QUESTIONNAIRE


In conducting a sound, fully-fledged study, a vital step is represented by a pilot
study and when conducted thoroughly, it will enable design of a clear road map
for a researcher through which to achieve study objectives (Hazzi and Maldaon
2015: 53; Doody and Doody 2015). Pilot studies often enable the researcher to
identify or refine a research question, specify clearly stated aims and objectives
within an official framework, fostering methodological exactitude, and provide an
estimation of the time and resources needed to complete the bigger, finalised
study version (Ismail, Kinchin and Edwards 2018: 1; Malmqvist et al. 2019: 2).
Van Teijlingen and Hundley (2002) claim that a pilot study will help the researcher
to discard all unnecessary, difficult or ambiguous questions in the questionnaire.

The researcher piloted the questionnaire under the same conditions planned for
the formal administration (Sincero 2012). This provides the researcher the
opportunity to observe whether respondents experience difficulty in completing
the research instrument, such as problems with item wordings and instrument
format, or with the question order and time it takes to complete (Fraser et al.2018:
263). The pilot study could potentially reveal areas of improvements, allowing the
researcher a better understanding of how to continue to ensure the success of
the study (Crossman 2019).

A total of nine social entrepreneurs across the three selected KZN townships were
involved in the pilot study. These social entrepreneurs were approached across
the three KZN townships, based on snowball characteristics. Prior to the collection
of the primary data, research experts such as, experienced researchers and

137
statisticians within the field were consulted to improve the quality of the research
instrument. The pilot study provided the researcher with insightful and
constructive feedback and all suggestions made were incorporated in the
questionnaire. It was suggested that “the statements within the questionnaire
need to be short, specific and straight to the point” and also “some of the
statements seems repetitive”. However, the general flow of the questionnaire and
its simplicity were highly commended. This process enhanced the quality of the
questionnaire, ensuring it was not unnecessarily long and time-consuming to
complete, while it also minimised any potential ambiguity in the statements. The
duration for the pilot study was set for two weeks and it went smoothly as planned.
It is also important to state that the nine pilot study respondents were not included
with the 90 respondents who participated in the main study.

4.9 DATA ANALYSIS


After the field survey and data collection process, the researcher was able to
identify data analysis techniques that were conducive to understanding the
findings of the study through different analytical tests. As stated by Disman, Ali
and Barliana (2017: 51), the processing and analysing of data is an important
aspect in quantitative research with regard to answering the research problem
and testing the hypothesis that will lead to proper conclusions. According to
Gunter (2002: 238), the analysis and measurement of quantitative data is usually
conducted through numbers and the quality of a study is crucially affected by the
effectiveness of data processing, analysis and interpretation. Use of the Chi
Square (X²) was to determine variable independence to observe the degree of
data frequency (Sharpe 2015: 1). Descriptive statistics such as bivariate analysis
and correlation were used to provide observations and summaries of the data,
which helped to identify patterns (Conner and Johnson 2017: 52). The research
hypothesis was tested using inferential statistics in the form of a t-test.

138
4.9.1 Frequency analysis
Frequency analysis was used in this study to determine the associated number of
times each respondent identified with a particular statement and to help the
researcher categorise the data so it can be interpreted in a visual way (Cherry
2021). Furthermore, the frequency analysis provided the researcher with a fair
idea of the number of cases that were part of various categories set in the
research questionnaire, in addition to supplying the snapshots required for a
detailed analysis of the study (Shreffler and Huecker 2022)

4.9.2 Descriptive Analysis


This type of analysis is critical in understanding the nature of the phenomenon
being studied. While this analysis provides the basis for the comparison of
variables with inferential statistics tests, reporting the most appropriate descriptive
statistics is important, as this reduces the probability of presenting results that
could be misleading (Kaur, Stoltzfus and Yellapu 2018: 63). This study used
descriptive statistics for two major purposes. First, they were used in summarising
the data set in a valid and meaningful way. Second, they were used to numerically
describe the different variables of interest (Mishra et al. 2019: 72; Kaliyanda and
Kulkarni 2019: 83).

4.9.3 Inferential statistics and Chi-square test


In order to make inferences with regard to the population where the data are
sampled, inferential statistics are used (Larson 2006: 76). In inferential statistics,
the researcher needs to make certain assumptions in using the z test and t-test
in relation to population characteristics estimates, or parameters. However, the
Chi-square (X²) test neither incorporates any population parameters nor does it
require normal distribution (Abebe 2019: 33). Rana and Singhal (2015: 69) and
Howell (2011) explain use of a Chi-Square (X²) test is to establish any existing
association between the contingency table rows and columns. Therefore, the size
of any discrepancies between the expected and the actual results are compared

139
by this test, considering the sample size and number of variables in the
relationship (Hayes 2021b).

In this study, the researcher used the Chi-square (X²) test to determine the
goodness of fit and to test the relationships between the variables being studied
(Onchiri 2013: 1235). The objectives of the study guided the variables that were
tested. Thus, conducting the inferential statistics and Chi-square test were to
determine whether there were relationships between all the variables that are
significant, which were then used in determining and proving the research
hypothesis. Furthermore, due to the fact that the sample data consisted of
numerical scores, it was much easier to use a Chi-square test to determine
different relationships between the tested variables.

4.9.4 Correlations
Correlation statistical analysis is employed in assessing the degree of association
that exists between the two measured quantitative variables in individual group
members (Aggarwal and Ranganathan 2016: 187; Nickolas 2021). The strength
of the relationship between two quantifiable variables is represented by +5 and -
5 (Yang et al. 2019: 4605). Schober, Boer and Schwarte (2018: 1763) explain that
correlation analysis does not only provide the researcher with the information
about the strength but also the direction of a relationship between variables. For
the purpose of this study, correlation analysis was used to determine and identify
the critical factors that impact the contribution made by social entrepreneurship to
sustainable township development in KZN.

4.9.5 Factor analysis


What is the importance of factor analysis?

Factor analysis is used to summarise and regroup data “into a limited set of
clusters based on shared variance so that relationships and patterns can be easily
interpreted and understood” (Yong and Pearce 2013: 79). A researcher can use

140
statistical procedures to simplify a set of complex variables or items, typically
through factor analysis, allowing enhanced comprehension of the relationships
items in a scale have and those of “the underlying factors the items may have in
common” (Tavakol and Wetzel 2020: 245). For instance, as part of a national
service delivery survey, four separate questions related to load shedding may be
asked of participants that address issues at the three levels of government - local,
state and national. On its own, each question is not enough to measure
perceptions concerning load shedding, however, they may offer a better measure
the perception, together. Factor analysis aids in understanding whether the same
thing was adequately measured by the four measures. Should this be the case,
combining them will create a new variable, a factor score variable containing a
score for each factor, per respondent. The researcher is also able to identify which
factors have more weight than others.

According to Tavakol and Wetzel (2020: 245) there are two important types of
factor analysis: Exploratory Factor Analysis (EFA) and Confirmatory Factor
Analysis (CFA). EFA is usually used to uncover complex patterns by exploring the
dataset and testing predictions, whereas CFA is used to confirm hypotheses and
develop path analysis diagrams to represent variables and factors (Yong and
Pearce 2013: 79). For this study, the EFA helps the researcher to build evidence
based on internal structure by retaining only those items with appropriately high
factor loading, as the factor loading determines the correlation between the item
and the factor (Tavakol and Wetzel, 2020: 245). In addition, the CFA is used to
create the proposed model to show the theoretical and hypothesized relationships
between the social entrepreneurships and the factors affecting its contribution to
sustainable development.

4.10 RELIABILITY
There are two central concepts crucial to developing useful research
measurement instruments, namely, reliability and validity – to demonstrate the

141
rigour and trustworthiness of the research (Bannigan and Watson 2009: 3237;
Roberts and Priest 2006: 41). Reliability refers to the error-free degree of
measurement and the measuring device or procedure “consistently assigns the
same score to individuals or objects with equal value” (Lakshmi and Mohideen
2013: 2753; Golafshani 2003: 599). LoBiondo-Wood and Haber (2014: 298) and
Price, Jhangiani, and Chiang (2015b) describe a reliable measure as one that can
produce the same results when the behaviour is measured again by the same
scale – it measures the proportion of consistency to inconsistency. Consistency
is a key element when reliability is measured. Reliability allows a researcher to
make interpretations and predict with confidence that given repeated
administrations with the same or similar group of people, the results should be
consistent, assuming the accessed conditions have not changed (Salmond 2008:
28).

Measuring instrument dependability in quantitative research is essential for


healthy study results (Sürücü and Maslakçı 2020: 2707). A high reliability score
indicates a strong relationship between the items on the test and a reliability
estimate at or above .70 can be accepted for research purposes (Mohamed et al.
2015: 166). Reliability estimates depend chiefly on the number of test items, the
magnitude of the covariance, and the number of participants in the test (Brannick
2005: 7). In other words, the reliability estimates become more precise as the
number of test items, the size of the covariance, and the size of the sample size
increases. Therefore, it is important to have high levels of reliability in quantitative
research, as it evaluates the solidity and correctness of the collected results, thus
increasing the opportunity to make correct decisions (Haradhan 2017: 68). In this
study, a reliability test (Cronbach Alpha Test) was conducted as it increases
researcher confidence that the measure’s observed score reflects the true
measure score (Eldridge 2020: 344). Whenever a measurement has a potential
for error, reliability is required for the soundness of that measurement (Schnell
2020).

142
4.11 VALIDITY
Validity is described as the degree of accurate measurement through a method
measuring what it planned to measure (Middleton 2019). Considered very
important in quantitative research, validity is used to check whether the results,
when measuring a property in a particular set of objects, are in keeping with those
objects and their ensuing behaviour (Hammersley 2008: 43). Sürücü and
Maslakçı (2020: 2696) add that validity depends on the meaningful and
appropriate interpretation of the data obtained from the measuring instrument as
a result of the analysis. Therefore, a data collection instrument is believed to be
valid when it accurately measures what it claims to measure (Da Costa and
Schneider 2016: 182). Morgan and Hodge (2015: 295) advise that for validity of
an instrument to be established, the researcher must carefully and thoughtfully
develop studies likely to yield trustworthy information about the relevant
population, construct(s), and relationship(s) of interest, or, differently stated, the
applicable research question.

A pilot test on the questionnaire, before being administered to participants,


ensured questions were simple to understand and unambiguous (Van Teijlingen
and Hundley 2001). As previously stated, the literature review was used in
gathering information to develop the questions and ensure they represent those
factors that impact social entrepreneurship as a sustainable development tool. In
addition, validity of the instrument was improved through the involvement of a
professional editor, who conducted a check for any misprints and incorrect
wording or phrases.

4.12 ETHICAL CONSIDERATIONS


Ethics in research embraces moral issues arising from research conduct and
respecting participants throughout the research study, partly by using agreed
standards (Gregory 2003: 2; Alderson and Morrow 2020: 6). Pittaway, Bartolomei
and Hugman (2010: 232) add that ethics in research “embraces the principles of

143
respect and dignity, justice and beneficence, alongside that of non-maleficence”
(seeking to do no harm). This means the researcher needs to adopt ethical
principles that help “to protect individuals, communities and environments, and
offer the potential to increase the sum of good in the world” (Israel and Hay 2006:
2).

As ethical consideration in research continues to change and evolve, it is the


responsibility of the researcher to be up-to-date and ensure compliance with the
latest research ethics. This involves submitting the research proposal to the ethics
committee to determine suitability of the research aims and design, whether
ethically acceptable, and adhere to the code of conduct of the institution (Bhandari
2021c). It is fundamentally important that a researcher obtains the ethics
committee’s approval prior to commencing data gathering (Fleming and
Zegwaard 2018: 210). Most significantly, ethics consideration helps promote the
general research aims, as well as values such as trust, respect and accountability
(Boyland 2020).

The researcher ensured participants were given adequate information regarding


the nature of the study and their informed consent (Verbal and written) was
obtained in order to participate in the study (Akaranga and Makau 2016: 7). Each
respondent was provided with a Letter of information and a Consent form
(Appendix 2), accompanied by the questionnaire (Appendix 1). The letter provided
detailed information of the study nature, as along with any potential participation
risks and benefits. These documents are confirmation that the study met the
ethical compliance standards set by the DUT Faculty of Management Sciences
Research Ethics Committee. The study was passed under ethical category 2
(minimal research ethics compliance required) and ensured participants were
protected during the research, either by protecting them from harm, or by
protecting their autonomy (Hunter 2007: 24).

144
4.12.1 Anonymity and Confidentiality
Anonymity, confidentiality, and protecting participant rights and welfare were
guaranteed in a letter supplying information and obtaining consent (Appendix 2).
As advised by Kaiser (2009: 1636), to maintain confidentiality in a study,
researchers must ensure no participant identifying information in the data set, for
example, respondents’ names or addresses. Thus, participant names were not
required and, as such, they all remained anonymous throughout the study. The
assurance of anonymity and confidentiality given to the participants enabled them
to freely engage with the study and provide honest and truthful information
regarding factors affecting the contribution to sustainable development made by
social entrepreneurs.

4.13 CONCLUSION
This chapter discussed the methodology adopted during the study as well as the
reliability and validity of data. Research steps, instruments used in data gathering,
sampling method and data analysis were also explained. The chapter further
provided the ethical considerations for the study.

The subsequent chapter will provide and in-depth presentation, analysis, and
summation of the research results.

145
CHAPTER FIVE
DATA ANALYSIS, INTERPRETATION AND DISCUSSION

5.1 INTRODUCTION
The research design adopted for this study was presented and discussed in the
previous chapter. In this chapter, the main purpose is to provide a thorough
analysis report of the collected quantitative primary data, interpreted and
discussed in relation to the research objectives. Therefore, the results from the
questionnaire findings are presented and discussed in this chapter. As the
previous chapter highlighted, distribution of the questionnaire as the primary tool
used to collect data, was to 90 participants. Analyses of the data collected from
respondents was achieved using SPSS version 27.0. To illustrate the results of
the quantitative data collected, descriptive statistics is applied, using graphs,
cross-tabulation, and other figures. “Inferential techniques include the use of Chi-
square test values; which are interpreted using p-values” (Howell 2011; Onchiri

146
2013: 1238). The literature review formed a strong foundation for this study,
providing a wide overview of those factors and challenges that affect social
entrepreneurship as a sustainable development tool in the KZN province
townships. Thus, the literature aided in the development of the objectives and
research questionnaire.

5.2 THE SAMPLE


A 100 percent response rate was achieved from the 90 questionnaires distributed.
Achieving a 100 percent response rate meant a significant number was achieved
for statistical purposes.

5.3 THE RESEARCH INSTRUMENT


Comprising 45 items, the research instrument presented a nominal or ordinal level
of measurement. The questionnaire consisted of two sections and 13 questions,
measuring various themes as follows:

A1-7 Biographical data

8 Characteristics of social entrepreneurs in KZN townships;


9 Society’s perception of social entrepreneurs in KZN townships;
10 Social networking as it relates to social entrepreneurs in KZN townships;
11 Social impact measurement as it relates to social entrepreneurs in KZN
townships;
12 Financial resources as it relates to social entrepreneurs in KZN townships;
13 The environmental factors (internal and external) that affect social
entrepreneur’s contribution to sustainable development.

The questionnaire adopted a Likert scale format, with closed-ended questions. To


determine respondent experience and knowledge of factors they deemed
significantly affected social entrepreneurs’ contribution to sustainable
development, respondents were expected to select their responses based on
predetermined statements. The effects of the study variables were tested using

147
Chi-square, with a reliability test also conducted, based on the questionnaire
sections.

5.4 RELIABILITY STATISTICS


The two most important aspects of precision are considered to be reliability and
validity. Computing reliability is achieved from several measurements taken on
the same subject, with an acceptable reliability coefficient at 0.70 or higher (Taber
2018; Eldridge 2020). The Cronbach’s alpha score for all questionnaire items is
tabled below.

Table 5.1: Reliability Scores

N of Cronbach's
items Alpha
B8 The characteristics of social entrepreneurs in the KZN townships 5 0.759
Society's perception as it relates of social entrepreneurs in the KZN
B9 4 0.886
townships
Social networking as it relates to social entrepreneurs in the KZN
B10 4 0.808
townships
Social impact measurement as it relates to social entrepreneurs in the
B11 4 0.895
KZN townships
Financial resources as it relates to social entrepreneurs in the KZN
B12 4 0.726
townships
The environmental factor (internal and external) that affects social
B13 14 0.906
entrepreneurs' contribution to sustainable development

The reliability test was conducted on all statements in the questionnaire, which
was designed and divided into research themes in accordance with the research
aim. Table 5.1 above shows the reliability scores for all sections exceeded the
acceptable Cronbach’s alpha value for a newly constructed construct. This
therefore indicates a degree of acceptance, with consistent scoring for this section
of the research, in its entirety.

5.5 FACTOR ANALYSIS


This section reports on the results that emerged from the data obtained from the
Likert scale items. The survey elicited respondents’ perception on factors affecting
social entrepreneurship sustainable development contribution in the townships in

148
KZN on seven main critical variables, namely; characteristics of social
entrepreneurs, society’s perception of social entrepreneurs, social networking,
social impact measurement, financial resources, internal and external
environment. Prior to the matrix tables, a summarised table is presented that
shows the Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin (KMO) Measure and Bartlett’s Test results. “The
requirement is that the KMO Measure of Sampling Adequacy should be greater
than 0.500 and Bartlett’s Test of Sphericity less than 0.05” (Levine 2016; Traynor
and Andrews 2015: 479). When these conditions are satisfied, a factor analysis
procedure is allowed.

Factor analysis is only done for the Likert-scaled items. Selected components,
illustrated in the rotated component matrix below, are divided into finer
components.

5.5.1 KMO and Bartlett’s Test

Table 5.2: KMO and Bartlett’s Test


Bartlett's Test of
Sphericity
Kaiser-Meyer-
Olkin Measure
Approx.
of Sampling
Chi- df Sig.
Adequacy
Square

The characteristics of social entrepreneurs


B8 0.727 124.212 10 0.000
in KZN townships
Society's perception as it relates to social
B9 0.816 194.090 6 0.000
entrepreneurs in KZN townships
Social networking as it relates to social
B10 0.724 130.414 6 0.000
entrepreneurs in KZN townships
Social impact measurement as it relates to
B11 0.826 218.760 6 0.000
social entrepreneurs in KZN townships
Financial resources as it relates to social
B12 0.709 76.010 6 0.000
entrepreneurs in the KZN townships
B13 Internal environment 0.794 220.156 6 0.000
B13 External environment 0.809 737.582 91 0.000

149
As shown in table 5.2, all conditions have been satisfied to allow factor analysis.
This means a greater than 0.500 KMO Measure of Sampling Adequacy and a less
than 0.05 significance value for Bartlett’s Test of Sphericity (Levine 2016). The
results show “sampling, and all the variables under the [category] themes, are
adequate and statistically significant in measuring the same thing” (Traynor and
Andrews 2015: 479). The test, furthermore, indicates a 0.826 KMO measure of
sampling adequacy indicating, for example, there is a very strong significant
impact (0.000) by social networking on social entrepreneurship’s contribution to
sustainable development in the KZN townships.

5.6 BIOGRAPHICAL DATA


The questionnaire consisted of two sections, as indicated above, namely
biographical information and factors that affect social entrepreneurship as a
sustainable development tool. Section A comprised seven statements based on
respondents’ highest qualification, age group, gender, which KZN township the
SE is situated, type of SE, how the SE is owned, and years the SE has been
operating. The demonstration of data is achieved through frequencies and
percentages.

5.6.1 Highest qualification

Table 5.3: Highest qualification

Please indicate your highest qualification


Cumulative
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent
Valid Matric 10 11.1 11.1 11.1
Diploma/Certificate 31 34.4 34.4 45.6
Degree 19 21.1 21.1 66.7
Honours 17 18.9 18.9 85.6
Masters 10 11.1 11.1 96.7
PhD 2 2.2 2.2 98.9

150
Others 1 1.1 1.1 100.0
Total 90 100.0 100.0

Highest qualification
40 34.4
35 31
30
25 19 21.1 17 18.9
20
15 10 11.1 10 11.1
10
5 2 2.2 1 1.1
0

Frequency Percentage

Figure 5.1: Highest qualification

The highest qualifications of the majority of the respondents (31 or 34.4 percent)
are shown to be a diploma/certificate, followed by 19 (21.1 percent) with degrees.
In addition, 17 (18.9 percent) of the respondents have honours, with 10 (11.1
percent) having masters, while 10 (11.1 percent) of the respondents have a matric
certificate, with two (2.2 percent) having PhD and one (1.1 percent) did not have
any form of educational qualification. Interestingly, these figures illustrate that a
significant number of social entrepreneurs are educated (Table 5.3 and figure
5.1).

5.6.2 Age group

Table 5.4: Age group

Please indicate your age group

151
Cumulative
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent
Valid 18 - 25 16 17.8 17.8 17.8
26 - 32 33 36.7 36.7 54.4
33 - 39 25 27.8 27.8 82.2
40 - 49 9 10.0 10.0 92.2
50+ 7 7.8 7.8 100.0
Total 90 100.0 100.0

Age group
40 36.7
35 33

30 27.8
25
25
20 17.8
16
15
9 10
10 7 7.8

5
0
18 - 25 26 - 32 33 - 39 40 - 49 50+

Frequency Percentage

Figure 5.2: Age group

It is indicated in table 5.4 and figure 5.2 that most respondents (33 or 36.7 percent)
were aged between 26-32 years, with 25 (27.8 percent) respondents between 33-
39 years of age. The ages of 16 (17.8 percent) respondents were between 18-25
years, with nine (10.0 percent) between 40-49, while seven (7.8 percent percent)
were 50 years and above. Remarkably, this figure shows a significant number of
young social entrepreneurs operating within the social sector.

5.6.3 Gender

Table 5.5: Gender

152
Please indicate your gender
Cumulative
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent
Valid Male 39 43.3 43.3 43.3
Female 51 56.7 56.7 100.0
Total 90 100.0 100.0

Gender
60 56.7
51
50 43.3
39
40

30

20

10

0
Male Female

Frequency Percentage

Figure 5.3: Gender

As shown in table 5.5 and figure 5.3, the majority of the respondents 51 (56.7
percent) were females, while 39 (43.3 percent) were males. This indicates that
many SEs are owned or managed by females. This is supported by many studies
(for example, Dickel and Eckardt, 2020: 196-218; Marín et al. 2019: 1-16), women
tend to show more desire for social entrepreneurial intention and are motivated
by being self-employed in order to escape weak economic systems in their
countries.

5.6.4 Location of SE

Table 5.6: Which township is your social enterprise situated?


Please indicate where your social enterprise is situated

153
Cumulative
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent
Valid Inanda 30 33.3 33.3 33.3
Ntuzuma 30 33.3 33.3 66.7
KwaMashu 30 33.3 33.3 100.0
Total 90 100.0 100.0

Which townships is your social enterprise situated


34
33.3 33.3 33.3
33

32

31
30 30 30
30

29

28
Inanda Ntuzuma KwaMashu

Frequency Percentage

Figure 5.4: Which township is your social enterprise situated?

Table 5-6 and figure 5-3 illustrate where the SEs surveyed where situated, which
as previously stated, has the focus area of this study as basis, with 30 (33.3
percent) of the respondents from Inanda, 30 (33.3percent) from Ntuzuma, and 30
(33.3percent) from KwaMashu.

5.6.5 Type of social enterprise

Table 5.7: Type of social enterprise


Please indicate type of social enterprise
Cumulative
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent

154
Valid Non-Governmental 16 17.8 17.8 17.8
Organisation (NGO)
Not-for-Profit Organisation 26 28.9 28.9 46.7
(NPO)
Hybrid 13 14.4 14.4 61.1
Profit oriented 33 36.7 36.7 97.8
Others 2 2.2 2.2 100.0
Total 90 100.0 100.0

Type of social enterprise


40 36.7
35 33
28.9
30
26
25

20 17.8
16
14.4
15 13

10

5 2 2.2
0
Non-Governmental Not-for-Profit Hybrid Profit oriented Others
Organisation (NGO) Organisation (NPO)

Frequency Percentage

Figure 5.5: Type of social enterprise

The majority of the respondents 33 (36.7 percent) are shown to operate a profit
oriented social enterprise, followed by 26 (28.9 percent) who were NPOs. 16 (17.8
percent) of the respondents operated as NGOs, while 13 (14.4 percent) operated
as hybrid, and two (2.2 percent) are in the ‘others’ category (Table 5.7 and figure
5.4).

5.6.6 Type of ownership

155
Table 5.8: Type of ownership
Please indicate type of ownership
Cumulative
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent
Valid Partnership 16 17.8 17.8 17.8
Manager and sole owner 42 46.7 46.7 64.4
Manager and jointly owned 19 21.1 21.1 85.6
Others 13 14.4 14.4 100.0
Total 90 100.0 100.0

Type of ownership
50 46.7
45 42
40
35
30
25 21.1
17.8 19
20 16 14.4
13
15
10
5
0
Partnership Manager and sole owner Manager and jointly Others
owned

Frequency Percentage

Figure 5.6: Type of ownership

Table 5.8 and figure 5.6 show that 42 (46.7 percent) of the respondents were
managers and sole owners of the SEs, while 19 (21.1 percent) were managers
and the SE was jointly owned. A total of 16 (17.8 percent) of the enterprises were
owned in the form of partnership and 13 (14.4 percent) are in the ‘others’ category,
indicating corporations. This indicates that many social entrepreneurs believe in
managing and being sole owners of their SE, as it enables them to have control
of the business and there is no need to obtain consensus before making
decisions.

156
5.6.7 Years of operation

Table 5.9: Years of operation


Please indicate years of operation
Cumulative
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent
Valid 1-2 14 15.6 15.6 15.6
3-5 35 38.9 38.9 54.4
6-8 28 31.1 31.1 85.6
9 - 11 4 4.4 4.4 90.0
> 11 9 10.0 10.0 100.0
Total 90 100.0 100.0

Years of operation
45
38.9
40
35
35 31.1
30 28
25
20 15.6
14
15
9 10.0
10
4 4.4
5
0
1 - 2 years 3 - 5 years 6 - 8 years 9 - 11 years > 11 years

Frequency Percentage

Figure 5.7: Years of operation

It is illustrated in Table 5.9 and figure 5.7 that the majority social entrepreneurs
targeted (35 or 38.9 percent) had been operating for three to five years, while 28
(31.1 percent) had been operating for six to eight years with 14 (15.6 percent)
being in their easiest stage of one to two years. Nine (10.0 percent) had been
operating for more than 11 years, while only four (4.4 percent) had been operating

157
for nine to 11 years. Evidently, from the findings above, many of the social
entrepreneurs have identified their target market and have sufficiently developed
strategies that are sustainable. However as indicated by many studies (for
example Worku 2013: 67; Choto, Tengeh and Iwu 2014: 94; Msomi and Olarewaju
2021: 103) many SMEs in SA, including SEs, do not survive for more than five
years because of numerous factors that affect their operations.

FACTORS IMPACTING SOCIAL ENTREPRENEURSHIP AS A SUSTAINABLE


DEVELOPMENT TOOL

The primary aim in this section, is the dissection and understanding of various
critical factors affecting the contribution made by social entrepreneurship to
sustainable development. These factors were categorised into six themes, with
theme one consisting of five statements; theme two comprises four statements;
theme three consists of four statements; theme four is made up of four
statements; theme five consists of four statements; and theme six comprises 14
statements.

As previously stated above, rigorous literature searches were used to identify


these factors and in the formation of the study aims and objectives, as well as the
questionnaire development. The section below presents the findings regarding
society’s perception, as it affects social entrepreneurs’ activities in the townships
in KZN. As with the biographical information, frequencies and percentages were
used to present the findings in the form of tables and figures.

THE FOLLOWING VARIABLES CONCERN THE CHARACTERISTICS THAT


INFLUENCE SOCIAL ENTREPRENEURS’ ACTIVITIES IN KZN TOWNSHIPS.

5.6.8 Social entrepreneurs’ activities are influenced by age

Table 5.10: Social entrepreneurs’ activities are influenced by age

158
Cumulative
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent
Valid Strongly agree 13 14.4 14.4 14.4
Agree 31 34.4 34.4 48.9
Neutral 24 26.7 26.7 75.6
Disagree 15 16.7 16.7 92.2
Strongly disagree 7 7.8 7.8 100.0
Total 90 100.0 100.0

Social entrepreneurs' activities are influenced by age


40
34.4
35 31
30 26.7
24
25
20 16.7
15
15 13 14.4
10 7 7.8
5
0
Strongly agree Agree Neutral Disagree Strongly disagree

Frequency Percentage

Figure 5.8: Social entrepreneurs’ activities are influenced by age

As stated by Ip et al. (2022: 1), highlighting and recognition of the values of social
entrepreneurs is important, as well as educating the society about social
entrepreneurs to attract more young people to engage in social entrepreneurship.
Young people are usually bombarded with information regarding social and
environmental issues, making them more likely to develop a passion for providing
solutions to many of the challenges threatening their future (Bouronikos 2021).
Furthermore, young people have the attitudinal and behavioral qualities that
situate them in the best position to assist in addressing issues regarding
development that impact their fellow youths and other community members with
less access to opportunities (United Nations 2020b). Engaging young people in

159
social entrepreneurship leads to a positive identity development that will impact
the founder, employees, volunteers and recipients of SE offered products and
services (Abdullah et al. 2022: 189). Hence, young people involvement in social
entrepreneurship is considered an important characteristic that could enhance
change in communities.

As table 5.10 and figure 5.8 show, many respondents (31 or 34.4 percent) agreed
social entrepreneurs’ activities are influenced by age while 13 (14.4 percent)
strongly agreed with the statement. Neutral was indicated by 24 (26.7 percent) of
the respondents, while 15 (16.7 percent) disagreed and strong disagreement was
indicated by only seven (7.8 percent) of the respondents. A Chi-square test was
conducted, to establish whether the observed findings were those expected. The
result shows (χ2 = 20.000; df = 4; P =0.000) for this variable, this shows that age
influences social entrepreneurs’ activities in the KZN townships. These findings
are in line with the study conducted by GIBS (2018), which found that young
people are more influenced by social entrepreneurship in SA.

5.6.9 Social entrepreneurs’ activities are influenced by unemployment

Table 5.11: Social entrepreneurs’ activities are influenced by unemployment


Cumulative
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent
Valid Strongly agree 16 17.8 17.8 17.8
Agree 28 31.1 31.1 48.9
Neutral 16 17.8 17.8 66.7
Disagree 27 30.0 30.0 96.7
Strongly disagree 3 3.3 3.3 100.0
Total 90 100.0 100.0

160
Social entrepreneurs' activities are influenced by
unemployment
40
31.1 30.0
28 27
30

20 16 17.8 16 17.8

10
3 3.3
0
Strongly agree Agree Neutral Disagree Strongly disagree

Frequency Percentage

Figure 5.9: Social entrepreneurs’ activities are influenced by unemployment

The Quarterly Labour Force Survey (QLFS) presented by Stats SA (2022), for the
first quarter of 2022, showed an unemployment rate for those aged 15-24 of 63.9
percent and for those aged 25-34 years at 42.1 percent, while the official national
rate is currently at 34.5 percent. Consequently, social entrepreneurship is a
necessary alternative for many who are able and willing to work, but cannot find
any employment (Raudsaar and Kaseorg 2013: 120).

As reflected in table 5.11 and figure 5.9, many respondents (28 or 31.1 percent)
were in agreement and 16 (17.8 percent) were in strong agreement that
unemployment is one of the characteristics that makes most people to start a
social enterprise. A total of 16 (17.8 percent) of the respondents remained neutral,
with 27 (30.0 percent) that disagreed, while three (3.3 percent) indicated strong
disagreement with the statement. To determine the closeness of the fit between
this variable and the expected findings, a Chi-square test was conducted showing
results that (χ2 = 23.000; df = 4; P =0.000), showing the hypothesis is valid.
Furthermore, according to the findings, for the development of society and gainful
employment of as many people as possible to be reached, social

161
entrepreneurship provides economic coping, possibility to utilise one’s skills and
talent to feel involved in society (Raudsaar and Kaseorg 2013:124).

5.6.10 Social entrepreneurs’ activities are influenced by gender

Table 5.12: Social entrepreneurs’ activities are influenced by gender


Cumulative
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent
Valid Strongly agree 12 13.3 13.3 13.3
Agree 17 18.9 18.9 32.2
Neutral 15 16.7 16.7 48.9
Disagree 39 43.3 43.3 92.2
Strongly disagree 7 7.8 7.8 100.0
Total 90 100.0 100.0

Social entrepreneurs' activities are influenced by gender


50 43.3
39
40

30

20 17 18.9 15 16.7
12 13.3
7 7.8
10

0
Strongly agree Agree Neutral Disagree Strongly disagree

Frequency Percentage

Figure 5.10: Social entrepreneurs’ activities are influenced by gender

According to Bernardino, Freitas Santos and Cadima Ribeiro (2018: 61), both
male and female social entrepreneurs have personalities characterised by high
levels of openness to experience, conscientiousness, extraversion and emotional
stability. A study conducted by Nicolas and Rubio (2016: 61) reveals that the

162
gender gap in the case of SE is considerably smaller than in the commercial
enterprise. Hence, the difference in gender is not an important characteristic when
considering the number of people that should be involved in creating social value
that will contribute to sustainable development.

The findings in table 5.12 and figure 5.10 also confirm that respondents believed
this, as 39 (43.3 percent) disagreed and seven (7.8 percent) strongly disagreed
that social entrepreneurs’ activities are influenced by gender. Of the respondents,
15 (16.7 percent) were neutral while 17 (18.9 percent) agreed and 12 (13.3
percent) strongly agreed with the statement. A Chi-square test determined the
goodness of fit of this variable, where results illustrate (χ2 = 33.778; df = 4; P
=0.000).

5.6.11 Social entrepreneurs’ activities involves more females than males

Table 5.13: Social entrepreneurs’ activities involves more females than


males
Cumulative
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent
Valid Strongly agree 9 10.0 10.0 10.0
Agree 22 24.4 24.4 34.4
Neutral 22 24.4 24.4 58.9
Disagree 31 34.4 34.4 93.3
Strongly disagree 6 6.7 6.7 100.0
Total 90 100.0 100.0

163
Social entrepreneurs' activities involves more females than
males
40 34.4
31
30 24.4 24.4
22 22
20
9 10.0
10 6 6.7

0
Strongly agree Agree Neutral Disagree Strongly disagree

Frequency Percentage

Figure 5.11: Social entrepreneurs’ activities involves more females than


males

As shown in table 5.13 and figure 5.11, some respondents (31 or 34.4 percent)
disagreed and six (6.7 percent) strongly disagreed that there are more women
social entrepreneurs than men social entrepreneurs. Whereas 22 (24.4 percent)
respondents remained neutral, a further 22 (24.4 percent) agreed, while nine
(10.0 percent) strongly agreed with the statement. To determine the significance
of this variable a Chi-square test was conducted and once again a good fit was
established. The results indicate that (χ2 = 23.667; df = 4; P =0.000), which means
it contradicts the findings highlighted by GIBS (2018:8) of the likelihood that males
are more likely to be social entrepreneurs in SA. However, this finding supports
GEM (2016) that found less of a gender gap in SSA, with some areas reflecting
its non-existence for operational social entrepreneurship. Hence, a crucial
characteristic that will enable social entrepreneurs to address social problems
collectively and effectively in communities should comprise a more gender
balanced approach to funding, support and practice (Carty 2020).

5.6.12 Social entrepreneurs’ activities are influenced by level of education

164
Table 5.14: Social entrepreneurs’ activities are influenced by level of
education
Cumulative
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent
Valid Strongly agree 22 24.4 24.4 24.4
Agree 34 37.8 37.8 62.2
Neutral 12 13.3 13.3 75.6
Disagree 14 15.6 15.6 91.1
Strongly disagree 8 8.9 8.9 100.0
Total 90 100.0 100.0

Social entrepreneurs' activities are influenced by level of


education
40 37.8
34
35
30 24.4
25 22
20
14 15.6
15 12 13.3
8 8.9
10
5
0
Strongly agree Agree Neutral Disagree Strongly disagree

Frequency Percentage

Figure 5.12: Social entrepreneurs’ activities are influenced by level of


education

According to Ndou (2021: 1), the “creation of an entrepreneurship mind-set and


competencies is an evolutionary process that combines dynamic knowledge
exploitation and exploration mechanism which level of education provides”. Level
of education is significant for entrepreneurship development as it helps to guide
the social entrepreneur through the stages of creating awareness, recognising, or
creating an opportunity for social value creation, to the ultimate creation of

165
capacities for effectively and practically engaging in a social business venture
(Shahid and Alarifi 2021).

In view of this, the findings illustrate by table 5.14 and figure 5.12, are a clear
indication that respondents agreed education level is an important characteristic
that will enable effective social value creation by social entrepreneurs and making
a sustainable development contribution. Agreement was indicated by the largest
group of respondents (34 or 37.8 percent) with 22 (24.4 percent) that indicated
strong agreement with the statement. In addition, while 12 (13.3 percent)
respondents remained neutral, 14 (15.6 percent) disagreed and eight (8.9
percent) indicated strong disagreement with the statement. To determine whether
social entrepreneurs’ activities are influenced by level of education, a Chi-square
test was conducted. As indicated by the results, (χ2 = 23.556; df = 4; P =0.000) for
this variable, which shows level of education is an important characteristic for
social entrepreneurship. These findings similarly corroborate GEM (2016)
research findings that highlighted level of education tends to be more significant
in operational social entrepreneurs in SSA than in commercial social
entrepreneurs.

Component matrix: Characteristics of social entrepreneurs in KZN townships

Table 5.15: Component matrix: The characteristics of social entrepreneurs


in the KZN townships
Component Matrixa
Component
B8 1
Social entrepreneurs’ activities are influenced by age .625
Social entrepreneurs’ activities are influenced by unemployment .651
Social entrepreneurs’ activities are influenced by gender .866
Social entrepreneurs’ activities involve more females than males .819
Social entrepreneurs’ activities are influenced by level of education .603
Extraction Method: Principal Component Analysis.

166
a. 1 components extracted.

These components are a further statistical analysis of the figures (figure 5.8 to
5.12) as mentioned above. A component test was performed on important
characteristics that influence social entrepreneurship in KZN townships. One
category of component was responded to, where the statement whether gender
has an influence on who becomes a social entrepreneur shows a strong positive
significance of 0.866. Respondents who indicated no gender gaps for social
entrepreneurs in the KZN townships, a figure of 0.819 is reflected. With regard to
the variable regarding most people starting a SE because they could not find
employment, a positive significance 0.651 is shown by the component test, which
indicates the unemployment situation in SA requires an entrepreneurship
alternative be explored. The other variables, on whether the age group and the
level of education are significant characteristics that influence social
entrepreneurship in the KZN townships showed, respectively, 0.625 and 0.603.
The tested variables above, therefore, indicated a strong significance on the
characteristics that influence social entrepreneurship and enhance their
contribution to sustainable development in KZN townships. This also means that
the high component measured in the aforementioned table further supports the
reliability of the research instrument.

THE FOLLOWING VARIABLES ARE ON SOCIETY’S PERCEPTION AS IT


AFFECTS SOCIAL ENTREPRENEURS’ ACTIVITIES IN KZN TOWNSHIPS

5.6.13 Social entrepreneurs’ activities are affected by society’s lack of


understanding of the role of social entrepreneurs

Table 5.16: Social entrepreneurs’ activities are affected by society’s lack of


understanding of the role of social entrepreneurs

167
Cumulative
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent
Valid Strongly agree 25 27.8 27.8 27.8
Agree 31 34.4 34.4 62.2
Neutral 17 18.9 18.9 81.1
Disagree 11 12.2 12.2 93.3
Strongly disagree 6 6.7 6.7 100.0
Total 90 100.0 100.0

Social entrepreneurs' activities are affected by society's lack of


understanding of the role of social entrepreneurs
40 34.4
31
30 27.8
25

20 17 18.9
11 12.2
10 6 6.7

0
Strongly agree Agree Neutral Disagree Strongly disagree

Frequency Percentage

Figure 5.13: Social entrepreneurs’ activities are affected by society’s lack of


understanding of the role of social entrepreneurs

According to Omorede (2014: 239), local conditions such as widespread


ignorance, lack of knowledge and unscientific beliefs towards social
entrepreneurship are contributing factors affecting social entrepreneur’s activities.
Moorty and Annamalah (2014: 263) mention that the perception of social
entrepreneurs is dependent on social context, and varies across societies, but
understanding it builds the motivational intention that could promote social
entrepreneurship. This lack of understanding also makes society believe only
those people who are unable to find or obtain the desired job are suited to social

168
entrepreneurship, as such affecting their motivational intention (Ashrafi et al.
(2020: 88).

In view of this, the findings in table 5.16 and figure 5.13 indicate clear agreement
by respondents that social entrepreneurs’ activities are affected by society not
comprehending the social entrepreneur’s role. The largest group of respondents
(31 or 34.4 percent) agreed or strongly agreed (25 or 28.7 percent) with this. A
further 17 (18.9 percent) respondents remained neutral regarding the statement,
with only 11 (12.2 percent) that disagreed and six (6.7 percent) that indicated they
strongly disagreed. Thus, most (63,1 percent) respondents perceived society’s
lack of understanding of the role of social entrepreneurs as a determinant of their
activities. A Chi-square test, which was conducted to determine whether society’s
lack of understanding the social entrepreneur’s role affects their activities,
supported these findings. Result indicated that for this variable (χ2 = 28.889; df =
4; P = 0.000), showing society’s understanding of the social entrepreneur’s role is
an important component to these entrepreneurs contributing to sustainable
development in the KZN townships. These findings align with those by GEM
(2019), which concluded that social entrepreneurship supports or constraints are
influenced by the attitudes, perceptions and intentions set within a context.

5.6.14 Social entrepreneurs’ activities are affected by society’s inadequate


information about their activities

Table 5.17: Social entrepreneurs’ activities are affected by society’s


inadequate information about their activities
Cumulative
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent
Valid Strongly agree 20 22.2 22.2 22.2
Agree 32 35.6 35.6 57.8
Neutral 14 15.6 15.6 73.3
Disagree 12 13.3 13.3 86.7

169
Strongly disagree 12 13.3 13.3 100.0
Total 90 100.0 100.0

Social entreprenuers' activities are affected by society's inadequate


information about their activities
40 35.6
35 32
30
25 22.2
20
20 15.6
14
15 12 13.3 12 13.3
10
5
0
Strongly agree Agree Neutral Disagree Strongly disagree

Frequency Percentage

Figure 5.14: Social entrepreneurs’ activities are affected by society’s


inadequate information about their activities

As depicted in table 5.17 and 5.14 many (58.8 percent) of the respondents either
agreed (32 or 35.6 percent) or strongly agreed (20 or 22.2 percent that inadequate
information about social entrepreneurs’ activities influences society’s perception
of them. A Chi-square test supported these findings, with the test conducted to
determine whether society’s inadequate information of their activities affects
social entrepreneurs’ activities. The results show that for this variable (χ2 = 16.000;
df = 4; P =0.003), which indicates social entrepreneurs’ activities are affected by
society’s inadequate information about their activities.

There were some respondents 14 (15.6 percent) who were neutral, while 12 (13.3
percent) disagreed with the statement and 12 (13.3 percent) indicated strong
disagreement. The literature endorsed these findings, as Ngatse-Ipangui and
Dassah (2019) show quite conclusively that social entrepreneurs can improve and

170
generate society’s support when local people are well informed of their
programmes, through means such as door-to-door distribution of flyers, social
media or through events. İlter (2017: 117) mentions that SEs are considered very
important for the formation of social transformation, but cannot be successful by
underestimating public relations and adequately informing the target audience of
their activities. However, Littlewood and Holt (2018) argue that having a varied
legislation will significantly help in assisting social entrepreneurs to provide
adequate information about their activities in SA. Therefore, providing adequate
information of social entrepreneurs’ activities can be seen as a significant means
of enhancing society’s perception and generating support to improve their
activities.

5.6.15 Social entrepreneurs’ activities are influenced by society’s poor


awareness of their contributions

Table 5.18: Social entrepreneurs’ activities are influenced by society’s poor


awareness of their contributions
Cumulative
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent
Valid Strongly Agree 23 25.6 25.6 25.6
Agree 30 33.3 33.3 58.9
Neutral 13 14.4 14.4 73.3
Disagree 13 14.4 14.4 87.8
Strongly disagree 11 12.2 12.2 100.0
Total 90 100.0 100.0

171
Social entrepreneurs' activities are influenced by society's
poor awareness of their contributions
35 33.3
30
30 25.6
25 23

20
13 14.4 13 14.4
15 11 12.2
10
5
0
Strongly agree Agree Neutral Disagree Strongly disagree

Frequency Percentage

Figure 5.15: Social entrepreneurs’ activities are influenced by society’s poor


awareness of their contributions

A significant number of respondents (30 or 33.3 percent and 23 or 25.6 percent)


agreed and strongly agreed that social entrepreneurs’ activities are influenced by
society’s poor awareness of their contributions (Table 5.18 and figure 5.15). A
Chi-square test supports findings that determined whether society’s poor
awareness of social entrepreneurs’ activities is influenced by these entrepreneurs’
contributions. For this variable, the results indicate that (χ2 = 14.889; df = 4; P
=0.005), which shows society’s poor awareness of their contributions influences
social entrepreneurs’ activities. A small number of the respondents (13 or 14.4
percent) were neutral whilst 13 (14.4 percent) disagreed with 11 (12.2 percent)
that strongly disagreed. This means most of these respondents see the need to
create more awareness of the contributions of social entrepreneurs’ activities to
society so that they are more appreciated and encouraged.

Ignoring this, according to Andriyansah and Zahra (2017; 461), creates a setback,
as it discourages stakeholders in society to educate and socialise social
entrepreneurship to the younger generation. As a result of the newness of the
field in SA, less is known about social entrepreneurs and their activities and how

172
they can positively impact communities (Dzomonda 2021: 5). Hence, more
awareness of social entrepreneurs’ contributions in the communities where they
operate is needed to change society’s perception about them and generate more
support.

5.6.16 Social entrepreneurs’ activities are affected by inadequate


involvement of the society in their activities

Table 5.19: Social entrepreneurs' activities are affected by inadequate


involvement of the society in their activities

Cumulative
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent
Valid Strongly Agree 14 15.6 15.6 15.6
Agree 33 36.7 36.7 52.2
Neutral 16 17.8 17.8 70.0
Disagree 15 16.7 16.7 86.7
Strongly disagree 12 13.3 13.3 100.0
Total 90 100.0 100.0

Social entrepreneurs' activities are affected by inadequate


involvement of the society in their activities
40 36.7
33
30

20 14 15.6 16 17.8 15 16.7


12 13.3
10

0
Strongly agree Agree Neutral Disagree Strongly disagree

Frequency Percentage

Figure 5.16: Social entrepreneurs' activities are affected by inadequate


involvement of the society in their activities

173
As table 5.19 and figure 5.16 illustrate, many respondents (33 or 36.7 percent and
14 or 15.6 percent) agreed or strongly agreed, respectively, that social
entrepreneurs’ activities are affected by inadequate involvement of the society in
their activities. These findings are supported by a Chi-square test that was
conducted to establish whether social entrepreneurs’ activities are affected by
inadequate involvement of the society in their activities. The results for this
variable show that (χ2 = 16.111; df = 4; P =0.003), illustrating this understanding
as valid. This means respondents viewed involving members of society in their
activities as very important in order for society members to have a better
understanding of social entrepreneurs and what exactly their operations entail.
This is also crucial in generating positive society perceptions concerning social
entrepreneurs that will help them contribute to sustainable development (Ngatse-
Ipangui and Dassah 2019). However, 16 (17.8 percent) respondents remained
neutral to the statement, whilst disagreement was indicated by 15 (16.7 percent)
with the statement and 12 (13.3 percent) respondents strongly disagreed.

Component matrix: Society’s perception of social entrepreneurship in KZN


townships

Table 5.20: Component matrix of society’s perception of social


entrepreneurship in KZN townships
Component Matrixa
Component
B9 1
Social entrepreneurs' activities are affected by society’s lack of understanding of .853
the role of social entrepreneurs
Social entrepreneurs’ activities are affected by society’s inadequate information .884
about their activities
Social entrepreneurs’ activities are influenced by society’s poor awareness of their .869
contributions
Social entrepreneurs' activities are affected by inadequate involvement of the .847
society in their activities

174
Extraction Method: Principal Component Analysis.
a. 1 components extracted.

This component matrix is additional statistical analysis on the above-mentioned


figures (figure 5-13 to 5-16). Only one category of components was indicated to
by the respondents, with a very strong significance shown by all components. A
component test was performed on the statement regarding social entrepreneurs’
activities are affected by society’s inadequate information about their activities,
and a strong positive significance of 0.884 was determined. A strong positive
significance of 0.869 was further established for the statement whether social
entrepreneurs’ activities are influenced by society’s poor awareness of their
contributions. A figure of 0.853 is reflected for the statement relating to whether
social entrepreneurs’ activities are affected by society’s lack of understanding of
the role of social entrepreneurs. The last variable reflects a figure of 0.847 on the
statement regarding to whether social entrepreneurs’ activities are affected by
inadequate involvement of the society in their activities. It can be observed that
the component that was obtained from each rotational matrix is very close to a
score of 1. All the variables tested based on society’s perception of social
entrepreneurship in KZN townships reflected a very strong significance towards
social entrepreneurs’ activities, which means the respondents believe a society’s
positive perception will be enhanced and increase social entrepreneurs’ activities.
Furthermore, the component test reveals society’s positive perception is seen as
an essential tool in helping social entrepreneurs contribute to sustainable
development in the KZN townships.

THE FOLLOWING VARIABLES ARE ON SOCIAL NETWORKING THAT


AFFECTS SOCIAL ENTERPRENEURS’ ACTIVITIES IN KZN TOWNSHIPS

175
5.6.17 Social entrepreneurs’ activities are affected by lack of partnership
with other social entrepreneurs

Table 5.21: Social entrepreneurs' activities are affected by lack of


partnership with other social entrepreneurs

Cumulative
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent
Valid Strongly agree 24 26.7 26.7 26.7
Agree 36 40.0 40.0 66.7
Neutral 11 12.2 12.2 78.9
Disagree 13 14.4 14.4 93.3
Strongly disagree 6 6.7 6.7 100.0
Total 90 100.0 100.0

Social entrepreneurs' activities are affected by lack of


partnership with other social entrepreneurs
50
40.0
40 36

30 24 26.7
20 11 12.2 13 14.4
10 6 6.7

0
Strongly agree Agree Neutral Disagree Strongly disagree

Frequency Percentage

Figure 5.17: Social entrepreneurs' activities are affected by lack of


partnership with other social entrepreneurs

The majority of respondents (36 or 40.0 percent) are shown (Table 5.21 and figure
5.17) to have agreed and 24 (26.7 percent) respondents further strongly agreed
social entrepreneurs’ activities are affected by lack of partnership with other social
entrepreneurs. A small number of the respondents were neutral (11 or 12.2
percent), while 13 (14.4 percent) indicated disagreement with the statement and

176
six (6.7 percent) indicated strong disagreement. a Chi-square test supported
these findings and was conducted to ascertain whether lack of partnership with
other social entrepreneurs affects social entrepreneurs’ activities and their
contribution to sustainable development in the KZN townships. The results for this
variable indicate that (χ2 = 32.111; df = 4; P =0.000), signalling the partnership
lack with other social entrepreneurs was seen to affect social entrepreneurs’
activities.

5.6.18 Social entrepreneurs’ activities are affected by lack of support and


partnership from corporate organisations

Table 5.22: Social entrepreneurs' activities are affected by lack of support


and partnership from corporate organisations
Cumulative
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent
Valid Strongly agree 32 35.6 35.6 35.6
Agree 36 40.0 40.0 75.6
Neutral 12 13.3 13.3 88.9
Disagree 7 7.8 7.8 96.7
Strongly disagree 3 3.3 3.3 100.0
Total 90 100.0 100.0

Social entrepreneurs' activities are affected by lack of support


and partnerships from corporate organisations
50
40.0
40 35.6 36
32
30
20 12 13.3
7 7.8
10 3 3.3
0
Strongly agree Agree Neutral Disagree Strongly disagree

Frequency Percentage

177
Figure 5.18: Social entrepreneurs' activities are affected by lack of support
and partnership from corporate organisations

Most respondents (36 or 40.0 percent) are shown to have agreed with a further
32 (35.6 percent) that strongly agreed social entrepreneurs’ activities are affected
by lack of support and partnership from corporate organisations. Fewer
respondents were neutral (12 or 13.3 percent), while only seven (7.8 percent)
disagreed and three (3.3 percent) indicated strong disagreement with the
statement (Table 5.22 and figure 5.18). To ascertain whether lack of support and
partnership from corporate organisations affect social entrepreneurs’ activities
and their sustainable development contribution, a Chi-square test was conducted.
The results for this variable indicate that (χ2 = 50.111; df = 4; P =0.000), signalling
a significant impact by corporate organisations’ lack of support and partnership
on social entrepreneurs’ activities, thus, their contribution to sustainable
development in the KZN townships is affected.

5.6.19 Social entrepreneurs’ activities are affected by lack of support and


partnership from government

Table 5.23: Social entrepreneurs' activities are affected by lack of support


and partnership from government
Cumulative
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent
Valid Strongly agree 33 36.7 36.7 36.7
Agree 32 35.6 35.6 72.2
Neutral 13 14.4 14.4 86.7
Disagree 7 7.8 7.8 94.4
Strongly disagree 5 5.6 5.6 100.0
Total 90 100.0 100.0

178
Social entrepreneurs' activities are affected by lack of
support and partnership from government
40 36.7 35.6
33 32
30

20 13 14.4
7 7.8 5.6
10 5

0
Strongly agree Agree Neutral Disagree Strongly disagree

Frequency Percentage

Figure 5.19: Social entrepreneurs' activities are affected by lack of support


and partnership from government

Many respondents (32 or 35.6 percent) indicated they agreed (Table 5.23 and
figure 5.19), with 33 (36.7 percent) that indicated they strongly agreed social
entrepreneurs’ activities are affected by lack of support and partnership from
government. Fewer of the respondents (13 or 14.4 percent) were neutral while
only seven (7.8 percent) disagreed and five (5.6 percent) respondents indicated
strong disagreement with the statement. A Chi-square test, which was conducted
to determine whether lack of government support and partnership affects social
entrepreneurs’ activities. The results for this variable show that (χ2 = 40.889; df =
4; P =0.000), signalling social entrepreneurs’ activities and their contribution to
sustainable development in the KZN townships are significantly impacted by the
lack of support and partnership from government. This is an indication that
government support is needed for social entrepreneurs to create social values
effectively and efficiently, to enhance their sustainable development contribution.

This finding supports Prasetyo, Setyadharma and Kistanti (2021: 2569), who
argue that the role played by “social entrepreneurship collaboration” and
networking with public institutions is “a new model of innovation that optimizes
existing resources to improve productivity, entrepreneurial business

179
opportunities, and security [of] sustainable regional development”. Furthermore,
Gigauri and Damenia (2020) suggest start-up funds can be provided by
government in support of social entrepreneurial initiatives that could also aid in
acquiring media attention to publicise social initiatives.

5.6.20 Social entrepreneurs’ activities are affected by the lack of use of


platforms for social networking

Table 5.24: Social entrepreneurs' activities are affected by the lack of use of
platforms for social networking
Cumulative
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent
Valid Strongly agree 20 22.2 22.2 22.2
Agree 39 43.3 43.3 65.6
Neutral 12 13.3 13.3 78.9
Disagree 12 13.3 13.3 92.2
Strongly disagree 7 7.8 7.8 100.0
Total 90 100.0 100.0

Social entrepreneurs' activities are affected by lack of use


of platforms for social networking
50 43.3
39
40
30
20 22.2
20 12 13.3 12 13.3
7 7.8
10
0
Strongly agree Agree Neutral Disagree Strongly disagree

Frequency Percentage

Figure 5.20: Social entrepreneurs' activities are affected by the lack of use
of platforms for social networking

180
As table 5.24 and figure 5.20 illustrate, many respondents (39 or 43.3 percent)
agreed and 20 (22.2 percent) further strongly agreed that social entrepreneurs’
activities are affected by the lack of use of platforms for social networking. In
addition, 12 (13.3 percent) respondents remained neutral, with 12 (13.3 percent)
that disagreed with the statement, while seven (7.8 percent) strongly disagreed.
A Chi-square test was conducted in order to determine whether lack of the use of
platforms for social networking impacts social entrepreneurs’ activities and their
contribution to sustainable development in the KZN townships was further
conducted. The results for this variable indicate that (χ2 = 35.444; df = 4; P
=0.000), signalling the lack of platforms use for social networking affects social
entrepreneurs’ activities.

This finding supports the claim of Abi-Aad (2015) that for better results, and long-
lasting initiatives, social entrepreneurs can take advantage of the audience, reach
and potential virality of the vast array of social networking platforms. Furthermore,
Scuotto, Del Giudice and Carayannis (2017) suggest the use of social networking
platforms can help entrepreneurs to engage external actors actively, including
customers, public institutions, and other businesses, to attain and take up external
knowledge, to then produce innovation.

Component matrix: Social networking as it relates to social entrepreneurs


in the KZN townships

Table 5.25: Component matrix: Social networking as it relates to social


entrepreneurs in the KZN townships

Component Matrixa
Component
B10 1
Social entrepreneurs' activities are affected by lack of partnership with .701
other social entrepreneurs

181
Social entrepreneurs' activities are affected by lack of support and .835
partnership from corporate organisations
Social entrepreneurs' activities are affected by lack of support and .824
partnership from government
Social entrepreneurs' activities are affected by the lack of use of .831
platforms for social networking
Extraction Method: Principal Component Analysis.
1 component extracted.

These components are drawn from additional statistical analysis of the figures
discussed above (figure 5.17 to 5-.0). One category of component was indicated
to by the respondents, showing a strong positive significance of 0.835 on the
statement whether social entrepreneurs’ activities are affected by lack of support
and partnership from corporate organisations. On the variable on whether social
entrepreneurs’ activities are affected by lack of support and partnership from
government, a positive significance of 0.824 was shown, while the other variables
on whether social entrepreneurs’ activities are affected by the lack of use of
platforms for social networking and social entrepreneurs’ activities affected by
lack of partnerships with other social entrepreneurs showed a figure of 0.831 and
0.701 respectively. This means all variables tested revealed a strong significance
to social networking, indicating that the underlying construct loaded perfectly and
reliably measured the underlying construct.

THE FOLLOWING VARIABLES ARE ON SOCIAL IMPACT MEASUREMENT


AS IT AFFECTS SOCIAL ENTREPRENUERS ACTIVITIES IN THE KZN
TOWNSHIPS.

5.6.21 Lack of understanding of social impact measurement affects social


entrepreneur’s activities

182
Table 5.26: Lack of understanding of social impact measurement affects
social entrepreneur's activities
Cumulative
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent
Valid Strongly agree 29 32.2 32.2 32.2
Agree 29 32.2 32.2 64.4
Neutral 15 16.7 16.7 81.1
Disagree 11 12.2 12.2 93.3
Strongly disagree 6 6.7 6.7 100.0
Total 90 100.0 100.0

Lack of understanding of social impact measurment affects


social entrepreneur's activities
35 32.2 32.2
29 29
30
25
20 16.7
15
15 11 12.2
10 6 6.7
5
0
Strongly agree Agree Neutral Disagree Strongly disagree

Frequency Percentage

Figure 5.21: Lack of understanding of social impact measurement affects


social entrepreneur's activities

It is illustrated by table 5.26 and figure 5.21 that the majority respondents (29 or
32.2 percent) agreed and 29 (32.2 percent) further strongly agreed that lack of
understanding of social impact measurement affects social entrepreneur’s
activities. Further to this, 15 (16.7 percent) respondents remained neutral, with 11
(12.2 percent) respondents that disagreed and six (6.7 percent) that indicated
they strongly disagreed with the statement. These findings were supported by a
Chi-square test that was performed to ascertain whether social entrepreneur’s

183
activities are affected by lack of understanding of social impact measurement. The
results for this variable indicate that (χ2 = 24.667; df = 4; P =0.000), which shows
a lack of social impact measurement understanding affects social entrepreneur’s
activities. According to Buckland and Hehenberger (2021), social impact
measurement offers improved comprehension of the aggregate impact by SEs
that engage in similar social issues or in similar geographical areas to achieve
greater results.

5.6.22 Social entrepreneurs’ activities are affected by lack of applying


appropriate social impact measurement methods/techniques

Table 5.27: Social entrepreneurs’ activities are affected by lack of applying


appropriate social impact measurement methods/techniques
Cumulative
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent
Valid Strongly agree 21 23.3 23.3 23.3
Agree 31 34.4 34.4 57.8
Neutral 18 20.0 20.0 77.8
Disagree 13 14.4 14.4 92.2
Strongly disagree 7 7.8 7.8 100.0
Total 90 100.0 100.0

Social entrepreneurs' activities are affected by lack of


applying appropriate social impact measurement
methods/techniques
40 34.4
31
30 21 23.3 18 20.0
20 13 14.4
7 7.8
10
0
Strongly agree Agree Neutral Disagree Strongly disagree

Frequency Percentage

184
Figure 5.22: Social entrepreneurs’ activities are affected by lack of applying
appropriate social impact measurement methods/techniques

According to DeRobertis-Theye (2021), no-one-size-fits-all exists with regards to


applying social impact measurement techniques. A wide range of method and
technique is needed as it also depends on different types of corporations, their
requirements, activities, objectives and those impact aspects they want to
measure (Maas and Liket 2011). This shows that applying the right social impact
measurement technique is important for a social entrepreneur. Many respondents
(31 or 34.4 percent) agreed and 21 (23.3 percent) further strongly agreed that
social entrepreneurs’ activities are affected by lack of applying appropriate social
impact measurement methods/techniques. In addition, 18 (20.0 percent)
respondents remained neutral, with 13 (14.4 percent) that disagreed and a further
seven (7.8 percent) that indicated strong disagreement with the statement (Table
5.27 and figure 5.22). A Chi-square test determined whether social entrepreneurs’
activities are affected by lack of applying appropriate social impact measurement
methods/techniques. For this variable, results indicate that (χ2 = 18.000; df = 4; P
=0.001), illustrating that insufficient application of social impact measurement
methods/techniques affects social entrepreneurs’ activities.

5.6.23 Lack of social impact measurement affects social entrepreneurs’


from identifying other opportunities to solve social problems

Table 5.28: Lack of social impact measurement affects social entrepreneurs’


from identifying other opportunities to solve social problems

Cumulative
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent
Valid Strongly agree 27 30.0 30.0 30.0

185
Agree 32 35.6 35.6 65.6
Neutral 11 12.2 12.2 77.8
Disagree 11 12.2 12.2 90.0
Strongly disagree 9 10.0 10.0 100.0
Total 90 100.0 100.0

Lack of social impact measurement affects social


entrepreneurs' from identifying other opportunities to
solve social problems
40 35.6
30.0 32
27
30
20
11 12.2 11 12.2 9 10.0
10
0
Strongly agree Agree Neutral Disagree Strongly
disagree

Frequency Percentage

Figure 5.23: Lack of social impact measurement affects social


entrepreneurs’ from identifying other opportunities to solve social
problems

Table 5.28 and figure 5.23 illustrate that most respondents (32 or 35.6 percent)
agreed and 27 (30.0 percent) further strongly agreed that lack of social impact
measurement affects social entrepreneurs’ identifying other opportunities to solve
social problems. A further 11 (12.2 percent) respondents remained neutral, with
11 (12.2 percent) respondents that disagreed with the statement and nine (10.0
percent) that indicated strong disagreement. A Chi-square test was conducted to
ascertain whether social entrepreneurs’ identifying other opportunities to solve
social problems is affected by lack of social impact measurement was further
conducted. The results for this variable indicate that (χ2 = 25.333; df = 4; P
=0.000), which signals lack of social impact measurement impacts social

186
entrepreneurs from identifying other opportunities to solve social problems in the
KZN townships.

5.6.24 Lack of social impact measurement affects the willingness of


investors to invest in social entrepreneurs’ activities

Table 5.29: Lack of social impact measurement affects the willingness of


investors to invest in social entrepreneurs' activities

Cumulative
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent
Valid Strongly agree 25 27.8 27.8 27.8
Agree 33 36.7 36.7 64.4
Neutral 13 14.4 14.4 78.9
Disagree 10 11.1 11.1 90.0
Strongly disagree 9 10.0 10.0 100.0
Total 90 100.0 100.0

Lack of social impact measurment affects the willingness


of investors to invest in social entrepreneurs' activities
40 36.7
33
27.8
30 25

20
13 14.4
10 11.1 9 10.0
10

0
Strongly agree Agree Neutral Disagree Strongly disagree

Frequency Percentage

Figure 5.24: Lack of social impact measurement affects the willingness of


investors to invest in social entrepreneurs' activities

187
According to So and Capanyola (2016), due diligence is required from investors
to access the potential social return prior to committing to an investment, and
measuring the social impact after the programme concludes, to assess portfolio
performance in order to know whether to reinvest. Many SE funders are beginning
to experience “budgetary constraints and need to allocate their resources more
carefully than in the past”, thus making social impact measurement an important
requirement to access funding from impact investors (European commission
2015: 4).

This supports the findings, as a majority of the respondents (33 or 36.7 percent)
indicated agreement and 25 (27.8 percent) further strongly agreed the lack of
social impact measurement affects the willingness of investors to invest in social
entrepreneurs’ activities. A smaller number of 13 (14.4 percent) respondents
indicated neutral, while 10 (11.1 percent) disagreed, with nine (10.0 percent)
respondents that strongly disagreed with the statement. A Chi-square test,
conducted to determine the impact on investors’ willingness to invest in social
entrepreneurs’ activities affects their lack of social impact measurement. For this
variable, the results indicate that (χ2 = 24.667; df = 4; P =0.000), which shows lack
of social impact measurement influences investor willingness to invest in social
entrepreneurs’ activities in the KZN townships.

Component matrix: Social impact measurement as it affects social


entrepreneurs’ activities

Table 5.30: Component matrix: Social impact measurement as it affects


social entrepreneurs’ activities in KZN townships
Component Matrixa
Component
B11 1
Lack of understanding of social impact measurement affects social entrepreneurs’ .865
activities

188
Social entrepreneurs’ activities are affected by lack of applying appropriate social .914
impact measurement methods/techniques
Lack of social impact measurement affects social entrepreneurs’ from identifying other .904
opportunities to solve social problems
Lack of social impact measurement affects the willingness of investors to invest in .808
social entrepreneurs' activities
Extraction Method: Principal Component Analysis.
a. 1 components extracted.

These components are drawn from additional statistical analysis of the figures
discussed above (figure 5.21 to 5.24). One category of component was indicated
to by the respondents, showing a very strong positive significance of 0.914 on the
statement whether lack of applying appropriate social impact measurement
methods/techniques affects social entrepreneurs’ activities. On the variable
whether lack of social impact measurement affects social entrepreneurs’ from
identifying other opportunities to solve social problems, a strong positive
significance of 0.904 is indicated, while the other variables on lack of
understanding of social impact measurement affects social entrepreneurs’
activities and lack of social impact measurement affects the willingness of
investors to invest in social entrepreneurs' activities, showed a figure of 0.865 and
0.808, respectively. This means all variables tested revealed a very strong
significance as to social impact measurement and loaded perfectly along a single
component.

THE FOLLOWING SECTION IS BASED ON FINANCIAL RESOURCES AS IT


AFFECTS SOCIAL ENTREPRENUERS AND THEIR CONTRIBUTION TO
SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT

5.6.25 Lack of access to financial resources affects social entrepreneurs’


activities

189
Table 5.31: Lack of access to financial resources affects social
entrepreneurs' activities
Cumulative
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent
Valid Strongly agree 44 48.9 48.9 48.9
Agree 25 27.8 27.8 76.7
Neutral 10 11.1 11.1 87.8
Disagree 6 6.7 6.7 94.4
Strongly disagree 5 5.6 5.6 100.0
Total 90 100.0 100.0

Lack of access to financial resources affects social


enterpreneurs' activities
60
48.9
50 44
40
27.8
30 25
20
10 11.1
10 6 6.7 5 5.6

0
Strongly agree Agree Neutral Disagree Strongly disagree

Frequency Percentage

Figure 5.25: Lack of access to financial resources affects social


entrepreneurs' activities

According to the ILO (2016: 13), access to finance in any country is crucial for
social entrepreneurs’ growth, including SA. Increased access to finance can help
social entrepreneurs resolve some of their challenges and ensure they realise
their full potential (European Commission 2019: 1). However, one of the major
challenges of SEs in SA remains access to finance (GIBS 2018).

As reflected in table 5.31 and figure 5.25, a significant number of respondents (44
or 48.9 percent) indicated strong agreement, with a further 25 (27.8 percent)

190
respondents that agreed lack of financial resource access affects social
entrepreneurs’ activities. Ten (11.1 percent) respondents remained neutral, with
six (6.7 percent) that disagreed and five (5.6 percent) that disagreed strongly with
the statement. To ascertain whether social entrepreneurs’ activities are influenced
by non-existent or insufficient access to financial resources, a Chi-square test was
conducted. The results for this variable show that (χ2 = 61.222; df = 4; P =0.000),
this shows social entrepreneurs’ activities are affected by lack of access to
financial resources.

5.6.26 Many social entrepreneurs depend on family and friends for finance
to survive

Table 5.32: Many social entrepreneurs depend on family and friends for
finance in order to survive
Cumulative
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent
Valid Strongly agree 19 21.1 21.1 21.1
Agree 32 35.6 35.6 56.7
Neutral 13 14.4 14.4 71.1
Disagree 13 14.4 14.4 85.6
Strongly disagree 13 14.4 14.4 100.0
Total 90 100.0 100.0

191
Many social entrepreneurs depend on family and
friends for finance in order to survive
40 35.6
32
30
19 21.2
20 13 14.4 13 14.4 13 14.4
10

0
Strongly agree Agree Neutral Disagree Strongly
disagree

Frequency Percentage

Figure 5.26: Many social entrepreneurs depend on family and friends for
finance in order to survive

As table 5.32 and figure 5.26 illustrate, many respondents (32 or 35.6 percent)
agreed and 19 (21.2 percent) further strongly agreed that many social
entrepreneurs depend on family and friends for finance to survive. In addition, 13
(14.4 percent) respondents remained neutral, with 13 (14.4 percent) that
disagreed with the statement and another 13 (14.4 percent) that strongly
disagreed. A Chi-square test, performed to ascertain whether many social
entrepreneurs depend on family and friends for finance to survive, reflect results
for this variable showing that (χ2 = 15.111; df = 4; P =0.004). According to Arregle
et al. (2013: 313), family feature strongly in relation to entrepreneurial resources,
but both positive and negative outcome can arise. Uzialko (2022) mentions that
many small business owners, including social entrepreneurs, rely on friends and
family for social, financial and sometimes, even operational support.

5.6.27 Lengthy processes required by financial institutions to obtain


financial resources affect social entrepreneurs’ activities

192
Table 5.33: Lengthy processes required by financial institutions to obtain
financial resources affects social entrepreneurs’ activities
Cumulative
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent
Valid Strongly agree 25 27.8 27.8 27.8
Agree 38 42.2 42.2 70.0
Neutral 14 15.6 15.6 85.6
Disagree 8 8.9 8.9 94.4
Strongly disagree 5 5.6 5.6 100.0
Total 90 100.0 100.0

Lengthy processes required by financial institutions to


obtain financial resources affects social entrepreneurs'
activities
60
38 42.2
40
25 27.8
20 14 15.6
8 8.9 5 5.6
0
Strongly agree Agree Neutral Disagree Strongly disagree

Frequency Percentage

Figure 5.27: Lengthy processes required by financial institutions to obtain


financial resources affects social entrepreneurs’ activities

Table 5.33 and figure 5.27 show most respondents (38 or 42.2 percent) indicated
their agreement, while 25 (27.8 percent) respondents further indicated strong
agreement that lengthy processes required by financial institutions to obtain
financial resources affects social entrepreneurs’ activities. A further 14 (15.6
percent) respondents remained neutral, with eight (8.9 percent) respondents that
disagreed with the statement and five (5.6 percent) that disagreed strongly. A Chi-
square test was performed to determine this variable, with a good fit once again
established, where the results indicate that (χ2 = 40.778; df = 4; P =0.000).

193
According to Aktas and Barbetta (2022: 1), social entrepreneurs increase their
production significantly, along with “fixed assets, properties and employment”
when they are able to access financial resources and are not constrained by
access to credit processes.

5.6.28 Social entrepreneurs’ activities are affected by lack of government


financial assistance

Table 5.34: Social entrepreneurs’ activities are affected by lack of


government’s financial assistance
Cumulative
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent
Valid Strongly agree 27 30.0 30.0 30.0
Agree 37 41.1 41.1 71.1
Neutral 13 14.4 14.4 85.6
Disagree 7 7.8 7.8 93.3
Strongly disagree 6 6.7 6.7 100.0
Total 90 100.0 100.0

Social entrepreneurs' activities are affected by lack of


government financial assistance
50
41.1
37
40
30.0
27
30
20 13 14.4
7 7.8 6 6.7
10
0
Strongly agree Agree Neutral Disagree Strongly disagree

Frequency Percentage

Figure 5.28: Social entrepreneurs’ activities are affected by lack of


government’s financial assistance

194
As table 5.34 and figure 5.28 illustrate, the majority of respondents (37 or 41.1
percent) agreed and 27 (30.0 percent) further strongly agreed that social
entrepreneurs’ activities are affected by lack of government’s financial assistance.
Furthermore, 13 (14.4 percent) respondents remained neutral, with seven (7.8
percent) respondents that disagreed and six (6.7 percent) that indicated strong
disagreement. To determine whether lack of government financial assistance
affects social entrepreneurs’ activities, a Chi-square test was conducted. The
results for this variable indicate that (χ2 = 40.667; df = 4; P =0.000), which shows
social entrepreneurs’ activities and their contribution to sustainable development
are impacted by insufficient financial assistance from the government.

Component matrix: Resources as it affects social entrepreneurs’ activities

Table 5.35: Component matrix: The effects of financial resources on social


entrepreneurs’ activities in KZN townships
Component Matrixa
Component
B12 1
Lack of access to financial resources affects social entrepreneurs' activities .736
Many social entrepreneurs depend on family and friends for finance in order .668
to survive
Lengthy processes required by financial institutions to obtain financial .779
resources affects social entrepreneurs' activities
Social entrepreneurs' activities are affected by lack of government financial .794
assistance
Extraction Method: Principal Component Analysis.
a. 1 component extracted.

These components are a further statistical analysis of the figures mentioned


above (figures 5.25 to 5.28). A component test was conducted on financial
resources as it relates to social entrepreneurs. Respondents indicated to one

195
component category, with a positive significance of 0.794 illustrative of the
statement on whether social entrepreneurs’ activities are influenced by
inadequate financial assistance from the government. On the statement whether
lengthy processes required by financial institutions to obtain financial resources
affects social entrepreneurs’ activities a score of 0.779 was shown. A positive
significance of 0.736 is reflected with regard to the statement on whether lack of
financial resources affects social entrepreneurs’ activities. The statement to
indicate whether many social enterprises depend on family and friends for finance
in order to survive, reflects a positive significance of 0.668. The above variable
thus showed a very strong relationship, indicating financial resources are
necessary to enable adequate social value creation by social entrepreneurs and
allow them to contribute to sustainable KZN townships development. This implies
that the statement that constituted the sections measured what they set out to
measure.

THE FOLLOWING SECTION IS BASED ON INTERNAL ENVIRONMENTAL


FACTORS THAT AFFECT SOCIAL ENTREPRENEURSHIP AS A
SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT TOOL

5.6.29 Lack of management competence and skills affects social


entrepreneurs’ activities

Table 5.36: Lack of management competence and skills affects social


entrepreneurs’ activities

Cumulative
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent
Valid Strongly agree 28 31.1 31.1 31.1
Agree 38 42.2 42.2 73.3

196
Neutral 11 12.2 12.2 85.6
Disagree 8 8.9 8.9 94.4
Strongly disagree 5 5.6 5.6 100.0
Total 90 100.0 100.0

Lack of management competence and skills affects


social entrepreneurs' activities
50 42.2
38
40
28 31.1
30
20 11 12.2 8 8.9
10 5 5.6
0
Strongly agree Agree Neutral Disagree Strongly
disagree

Frequency Percentage

Figure 5.29: Lack of management competence and skills affects social


entrepreneurs’ activities

As shown in table 5.36 and figure 5.29, a majority of respondents (38 or 42.2
percent) indicated agreement and 28 (31.1 percent) respondents further strongly
agreed that lack of management competence and skills affects social
entrepreneurs’ activities. In addition, 11 (12.2 percent) of the respondents were
neutral, whilst only eight (8.9 percent) disagreed with the statement and five (5.6
percent) indicated strong disagreement. These findings are supported by studies
conducted by Ncube and Chimucheka (2019) and Iskandar and Kaltum (2022),
which assert that SMME performance, including SEs, is influenced by
management competence.

A study by Kim (2019) also revealed a positive relationship between management


competence and economic and social performance of a SE. To ascertain whether
lack of management competence and skills influences social entrepreneurs’
activities, a Chi-square test was conducted. The results for this variable indicate

197
that (χ2 = 45.444; df = 4; P =0.000), which indicates social entrepreneurs’ activities
are affected by lack of management competence and skills.

5.6.30 Lack of technical skills affects social entrepreneurs’ activities

Table 5.37: Lack of technical skills affects social entrepreneurs’ activities

Cumulative
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent
Valid Strongly agree 25 27.8 27.8 27.8
Agree 38 42.2 42.2 70.0
Neutral 10 11.1 11.1 81.1
Disagree 10 11.1 11.1 92.2
Strongly disagree 7 7.8 7.8 100.0
Total 90 100.0 100.0

Lack of technical skills affects social enterpreneurs'


activities
60
38 42.2
40
25 27.8
20 10 11.1 10 11.1 7 7.8
0
Strongly agree Agree Neutral Disagree Strongly disagree

Frequency Percentage

Figure 5.30: Lack of technical skills affects social entrepreneurs’ activities

Table 5.37 and figure 5.30 show a majority of the respondents (38 or 42.2 percent)
were in agreement, while a further 25 (27.8 percent) respondents strongly agreed
lack of technical skills affects social entrepreneurs’ activities. These findings are
supported by a Chi-square test that was performed to ascertain whether social
entrepreneurs’ activities are affected by lack of technical skills. For this variable,

198
the results indicate that (χ2 = 38.778; df = 4; P =0.000), signalling social
entrepreneurs’ activities are affected by lack of technical skills. A further 10 (11.1
percent) respondents remained neutral, with 10 (11.1 percent) respondents that
disagreed with the statement and seven (7.8 percent) that strongly disagreed.
According to Javani et al. (2017), technical skills provide the requisite knowledge,
skills and practical competencies that enable an entrepreneur, including social
entrepreneurs, to perform their duties effectively. In SA, one of the major
challenges affecting the performance of SEs is still a lack of technical skills,
inclusive of entrepreneurs (Mbaile 2020).

5.6.31 Lack of education and training development affects social


entrepreneurs’ activities

Table 5.38: Lack of education and training development affects social


entrepreneurs’ activities

Cumulative
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent
Valid Strongly agree 26 28.9 28.9 28.9
Agree 37 41.1 41.1 70.0
Neutral 10 11.1 11.1 81.1
Disagree 12 13.3 13.3 94.4
Strongly agree 5 5.6 5.6 100.0
Total 90 100.0 100.0

199
Lack of education and training development affects social
entrepreneurs' activities
50 41.1
37
40
30 26 28.9

20 12 13.3
10 11.1
10 5 5.6
0
Strongly agree Agree Neutral Disagree Strongly disagree

Frequency Percentage

Figure 5.31: Lack of education and training development affects social


entrepreneurs’ activities

As table 5.38 and figure 5.31 show, most respondents (37 or 41.1 percent)
indicated their agreement, with 26 (28.9 percent) that further strongly agreed the
lack of education and training development affects social entrepreneurs’ activities.
A Chi-square test was conducted to ascertain whether social entrepreneurs’
activities are affected by lack of education and training development, with the
results supporting the findings. For this variable, the results indicate that (χ2 =
38.556; df = 4; P =0.000), which show the lack of education and training
development affects social entrepreneurs’ activities and their contribution to
sustainable development. In addition, 10 (11.1 percent) of the respondents were
neutral, whilst 12 (13.3 percent) of the respondents disagreed with the statement
and five (5.6 percent) indicated strong disagreement.

According to Waghid and Oliver (2017), education and training development helps
to build and strengthen the entrepreneurial capacity of individuals to develop new
ventures that will have positive implications for society. Littlewood and Holt (2018)
concur and further find that education and training development is an important
mechanism that will enable social entrepreneurs in SA to contribute effectively to

200
finding solutions to some broader social problems, for instance unemployment
and crime.

5.6.32 Lack of marketing skills affects social entrepreneurs’ activities

Table 5.39: Lack of marketing skills affects social entrepreneurs’ activities

Cumulative
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent
Valid Strongly agree 21 23.3 23.3 23.3
Agree 40 44.4 44.4 67.8
Neutral 9 10.0 10.0 77.8
Disagree 12 13.3 13.3 91.1
Strongly disagree 8 8.9 8.9 100.0
Total 90 100.0 100.0

Lack of marketing skills affects social entrepreneurs'


activities
50 44.4
40
40
30
21 23.3
20 12 13.3
9 10.0 8 8.9
10
0
Strongly agree Agree Neutral Disagree Strongly disagree

Frequency Percentage

Figure 5.32: Lack of marketing skills affects social entrepreneurs’ activities

According to Satar et al. (2016), social entrepreneurs, similar to commercial


entrepreneurs, have to develop innovative entrepreneurial approaches to the
marketing of their goods and services in order to successfully create social value
that will enhance their contribution to development. A study by Oji et al. (2017: 2)

201
finds one of the major factors in SA is the lack of adequate marketing strategies
and skills, which still contribute to business failure on an ongoing basis.

Table 5.39 and figure 5.32 depict agreement by the majority of respondents (40
or 44.4 percent), while a further 21 (23.3 percent) strongly agreed that lack of
marketing skills affects social entrepreneurs’ activities. A smaller number of the
respondents (nine or 10.0 percent) were neutral to the statement, whilst only 12
(13.3 percent) disagreed and eight (8.9 percent) strongly disagreed with the
statement. These findings clearly show that marketing skills are critical in ensuring
the effective operations of social entrepreneurs. A Chi-square test was performed
to ascertain whether social entrepreneurs’ activities are affected by lack of
marketing skills, which supported these findings. The results for this variable show
that (χ2 = 39.444; df = 4; P =0.000), signalling inadequate marketing skills affect
social entrepreneurs’ activities.

Component matrix: Internal environmental factors that affect social


entrepreneur’s contribution to sustainable development

Table 5.40: Component matrix: Internal environmental factors that affect


social entrepreneur’s contribution to sustainable development in KZN
townships
Component Matrixa
Component
B13 (Internal) 1
Lack of management competence and skills affects social entrepreneurs’ .874
activities
Lack of technical skills affects social entrepreneurs’ activities .911
Lack of education and training development affects social entrepreneurs’ .899
activities
Lack of marketing skills affects social entrepreneurs’ activities .791
Extraction Method: Principal Component Analysis.

202
a. 1 components extracted.

An additional statistical analysis was performed for the figures mentioned above
(figure 5.29 to 5.32). A component test was, furthermore, performed on the section
related to internal environmental factors that impact the contribution of social
entrepreneurs to sustainable development. The respondents indicated to only one
category of components, where all components tested reflected a positive
significance. On the statement on whether social entrepreneurs’ activities are
affected by lack of technical skills, a very strong positive significance of 0.911 is
shown. This means respondents felt the lack of technical skills affects social
entrepreneurs’ activities. Another variable, on whether social entrepreneurs’
activities are affected by lack of education and training development, showed a
strong positive significance of 0.899. With regards to social entrepreneurs’
activities being affected by lack of management competence and skills, indicating
a strong positive significance of 0.874. Regarding whether lack of marketing skills
affects social entrepreneurs’ activities, this statement reflected a strong positive
significance of 0.791. It is clear, based on the component test that all the variables
tested had a positive significance and the underlying constructs loaded perfectly
and reliably measured in the aforementioned table further supports the reliability
of the research instrument.

THE FOLLOWING SECTION IS BASED ON THE EXTERNAL


ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS THAT AFFECT SOCIAL ENTERPRENEURSHIP
AS A SUSUTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT TOOL

5.6.33 Lack of adequate legal framework for social entrepreneurs in SA


affects their activities

Table 5.41: Lack of adequate legal framework for social entrepreneurs in


South Africa is affecting their activities

203
Cumulative
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent
Valid Strongly agree 29 32.2 32.2 32.2
Agree 38 42.2 42.2 74.4
Neutral 7 7.8 7.8 82.2
Disagree 10 11.1 11.1 93.3
Strongly disagree 6 6.7 6.7 100.0
Total 90 100.0 100.0

Lack of adequate legal framework for social


entrepreneurs in South Africa is affecting their activities
50 42.2
38
40 32.2
29
30
20
7.8 10 11.1
7 6 6.7
10
0
Strongly agree Agree Neutral Disagree Strongly disagree

Frequency Percentage

Figure 5.33: Lack of adequate legal framework for social entrepreneurs in


South Africa is affecting their activities

Table 5.41 and figure 5.33 show that a majority respondents (38 or 42.2 percent)
agreed and 29 (32.2 percent) further strongly agreed that lack of adequate legal
framework for social entrepreneurs is affecting their activities. A small number of
the respondents (seven or 7.8 percent) were neutral to the statement, whilst 10
(11.1 percent) stated their disagreement with the statement and six (6.7 percent)
indicated strong disagreement. A Chi-square test supported these findings and
was conducted to ascertain whether social entrepreneurs’ activities are affected
by lack of an adequate legal framework. The results for this variable indicate that
(χ2 = 47.222; df = 4; P =0.000), signalling the lack of an adequate legal framework

204
affects social entrepreneurs’ activities. These findings are supported by a study
conducted by Dzomonda (2021: 1-17) that finds lack of adequate policy and
regulation to be a major problem for social entrepreneurs in SA. Moreover, a study
by GIBS (2018) reveals an appropriate legal framework does not exist for social
entrepreneurship in SA to guide its operations and activities. Therefore, for
effective and efficient social value creation by social entrepreneurs and
successfully play their role in the country, appropriate policy and regulations need
to be in place.

5.6.34 Adequate government rules and regulations will improve social


entrepreneurs’ activities

Table 5.42: Adequate government rules and regulations will improve social
entrepreneurs’ activities
Cumulative
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent
Valid Strongly agree 30 33.3 33.3 33.3
Agree 38 42.2 42.2 75.6
Neutral 9 10.0 10.0 85.6
Disagree 7 7.8 7.8 93.3
Strongly disagree 6 6.7 6.7 100.0
Total 90 100.0 100.0

Adequate government rules and regulations will


improve social entrepreneurs' activities
60
38 42.2
40 30 33.3

20 9 10.0 7 7.8 6 6.7


0
Strongly agree Agree Neutral Disagree Strongly
disagree

Frequency Percentage

205
Figure 5.34: Adequate government rules and regulations will improve social
entrepreneurs’ activities

As depicted in table 5.42 and figure 5.34 The majority of respondents (38 or 42.2
percent) agreed with strong agreement indicated by 30 (33.3 percent)
respondents that adequate government rules and regulations will improve social
entrepreneurs’ activities. Neutrality to the statement was indicated by a small
number of the respondents (nine or 10.0 percent), whilst seven (7.8 percent)
respondents disagreed with the statement, with six (6.7 percent) that strongly
disagreed. To ascertain whether social entrepreneurs’ activities will improve with
less government rules and regulations, a Chi-square test was conducted. For this
variable, the results show that (χ2 = 49.444; df = 4; P =0.000), which illustrates
that less rules and regulations by government will improve social entrepreneurs’
activities. According to Stephan et al. (2015: 308-331), the rules and regulations
developed by government could serve as a motivation for social entrepreneurs or
a deterrent to engage in social value creation activities.

5.6.35 Increased government support will improve social entrepreneurs’


activities

Table 5.43: Increased government support will improve social


entrepreneurs’ activities

Cumulative
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent
Valid Strongly agree 33 36.7 36.7 36.7
Agree 38 42.2 42.2 78.9
Neutral 7 7.8 7.8 86.7
Disagree 7 7.8 7.8 94.4
Strongly disagree 5 5.6 5.6 100.0

206
Total 90 100.0 100.0

Increased government support will improved social


entrepreneurs' activities
50 42.2
36.7 38
40 33
30
20
7 7.8 7 7.8 5 5.6
10
0
Strongly agree Agree Neutral Disagree Strongly disagree

Frequency Percentage

Figure 5.35: Increased government support will improve social


entrepreneurs’ activities

The majority of respondents (38 or 42.2 percent) agreed and a further 33 (36.7
percent) strongly agreed that increased government support will improve social
entrepreneurs’ activities. Seven (7.8 percent) of the respondents were neutral,
whilst seven (7.8 percent) stated their disagreement and five (5.6 percent)
indicated strong disagreement with the statement (table 5.43 and figure 5.35). To
establish whether social entrepreneurs’ activities will improve with increased
government support, a Chi-square test was conducted. The results for this
variable indicate that (χ2 = 57.556; df = 4; P =0.000), signalling increased
government support will improve social entrepreneurs’ activities.

According to Littlewood and Holt (2018), a major factor limiting social


entrepreneurs in SA and their sustainable development contribution remains the
lack of government support in the country. Government can provide support and
empower social entrepreneurs in the form of acquisition of resources, creating
awareness, and coordination and implementation (Abidin and Kaka 2014)

207
5.6.36 Political instability affects social entrepreneurs’ activities

Table 5.44: Political instability affects social entrepreneurs' activities

Cumulative
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent
Valid Strongly agree 34 37.8 37.8 37.8
Agree 30 33.3 33.3 71.1
Neutral 11 12.2 12.2 83.3
Disagree 10 11.1 11.1 94.4
Strongly disagree 5 5.6 5.6 100.0
Total 90 100.0 100.0

Political instability affects social entrepreneurs' activities


37.8
40 34 33.3
30
30

20
11 12.2 10 11.1
10 5 5.6

0
Strongly agree Agree Neutral Disagree Strongly disagree

Frequency Perentage

Figure 5.36: Political instability affects social entrepreneurs' activities

According to Shumetie and Watabaji (2019: 1), “political instability has significant
negative effects” on a country’s enterprise innovativeness and special attention
needs to be given to it in order to enhance enterprises’ innovativeness. Political
instability such as “violence, civil war, strike, coup d’état and the collapse of
government can affect business and investments in a country”, as no business
prefers to operate in an unstable, which also does not draw investment (Jalloh,
Djatmika and Adi Putra 2017: 380). In SA, as mentioned by Cilliers and Aucoin
(2016: 7), “economic inequality, frequency of protests and trust in government”

208
are among the drivers of instability that could affect any business, including social
entrepreneurs.

As table 5.44 and figure 5.36 show, the majority most respondents (34 or 37.8
percent) strongly agreed and 30 (33.3 percent) further agreed that political
instability affects social entrepreneurs’ activities. Eleven (12.2 percent)
respondents remained neutral to the statement, whilst 10 (11.1 percent)
disagreed with the statement and a smaller number (five or 5.6 percent) strongly
disagreed. To determine whether social entrepreneurs’ activities are affected by
political instability, a Chi-square test was performed. For this variable, results
reveal that (χ2 = 37.889; df = 4; P =0.000), which shows that political instability
affects social entrepreneurs’ activities.

5.6.37 Social entrepreneurs’ activities are affected by corruption

Table 5.45: Social entrepreneurs' activities are affected by corruption

Cumulative
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent
Valid Strongly agree 28 31.1 31.1 31.1
Agree 28 31.1 31.1 62.2
Neutral 15 16.7 16.7 78.9
Disagree 10 11.1 11.1 90.0
Strongly disagree 9 10.0 10.0 100.0
Total 90 100.0 100.0

209
Social enterpreneurs' activities are affected by corruption
40
31.1 31.1
28 28
30

20 15 16.7
10 11.1 9 10.0
10

0
Strongly agree Agree Neutral Disagree Strongly disagree

Frequency Percentage

Figure 5.37: Social entrepreneurs' activities are affected by corruption

Table 5.45 and figure 5.37 show many respondents (28 or 31.1 percent) agreed
while a further 28 (31.1 percent) strongly agreed that corruption affects social
entrepreneurs’ activities. In addition, 15 (16,7 percent) respondents indicated
neutral to the statement, whilst 10 (11.1 percent) disagreed with the statement
and nine (10.0 percent) strongly disagreed. To determine whether social
entrepreneurs’ activities are affected by corruption, a Chi-square test was
conducted. The results for this variable show that (χ2 = 19.667; df = 4; P =0.001),
illustrating corruption influences social entrepreneurs’ activities.

According to Ofusori (2020), in SA there has been a continuous increase in


corruption perceived to be as a result of mild or non-existent consequence
management to deter others. Fraud and corruption in SA lead to the mistrust in
government by citizens, and by domestic and foreign investors which, in turn,
hinders investments and slows down economic growth (Chitiga-Mabugu et al.
2021).

5.6.38 Social entrepreneurs’ activities are affected by social factors

Table 5.46: Social entrepreneurs' activities are affected by social factors

210
Cumulative
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent
Valid Strongly agree 25 27.8 27.8 27.8
Agree 35 38.9 38.9 66.7
Neutral 17 18.9 18.9 85.6
Disagree 8 8.9 8.9 94.4
Strongly disagree 5 5.6 5.6 100.0
Total 90 100.0 100.0

Social entrepreneurs' activities are affected by social


factors
50
38.9
40 35
27.8
30 25
20 17 18.9
8 8.9
10 5 5.6

0
Strongly agree Agree Neutral Disagree Strongly disagree

Frequency Percentage

Figure 5.38: Social entrepreneurs' activities are affected by social factors

As depicted, the majority respondents (35 or 38.9 percent) were in agreement and
a further 25 (27.8 percent) respondents strongly agreed social entrepreneurs’
activities are affected by social factors. A further 17 (18.9 percent) of the
respondents were neutral, whilst eight (8.9 percent) indicated their disagreement
with the statement and five (5.6 percent) strongly disagreed (table 5.46 and figure
5.38). A Chi-square test to ascertain whether social factors affect social
entrepreneurs’ activities was conducted. For this variable, the results show that
(χ2 = 33.778; df = 4; P =0.000), which indicates social entrepreneurs’ activities are
affected by social factors.

211
5.6.39 High crime rate affects social entrepreneurs’ activities

Table 5.47: High crime rate affects social entrepreneurs' activities

Cumulative
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent
Valid Strongly agree 30 33.3 33.3 33.3
Agree 38 42.2 42.2 75.6
Neutral 9 10.0 10.0 85.6
Disagree 7 7.8 7.8 93.3
Strongly disagree 6 6.7 6.7 100.0
Total 90 100.0 100.0

High crime rate affects social entrepreneurs' activities


50
42.2
38
40 33.3
30
30

20
9 10.0 7 7.8 6.7
10 6

0
Strongly agree Agree Neutral Disagree Strongly disagree

Frequency Percentage

Figure 5.39: High crime rate affects social entrepreneurs' activities

As table 5.47 and figure 5.39 show, a majority of respondents (38 or 42.2 percent)
indicated agreement, while a further 30 (33.3 percent) strongly agreed that the
high crime rate affects social entrepreneurs’ activities. Neutrality to the statement
was indicated by a small number of the respondents (nine or 10.0 percent), whilst
seven (7.8 percent) respondents disagreed with the statement and six (6.7
percent) strongly disagreed. A Chi-square test was conducted to determine

212
whether social entrepreneurs’ activities are affected by high crime rate. The
results for this variable reveal that (χ2 = 49.444; df = 4; P =0.000), showing the
high crime rate affects social entrepreneurs’ activities and their contribution to
sustainable development.

Mahofa, Sundaram and Edwards (2016: 3) find crime imposes a cost and
negatively affects expected profits of small firms such as SEs, as “they may have
to spend on security systems such as alarms, trackers on vehicles, electric
fences, or armed guards to keep their property and staff secure”. This supports
the findings of Dzomonda (2021: 5) that a high crime rate increases the cost of
doing business and retards growth and performance of social entrepreneurs in
SA.

5.6.40 Lack of understanding of taxation for social enterprises affects their


activities

Table 5.48: Lack of understanding of taxation for social enterprises affects


their activities

Cumulative
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent
Valid Strongly agree 26 28.9 28.9 28.9
Agree 36 40.0 40.0 68.9
Neutral 14 15.6 15.6 84.4
Disagree 10 11.1 11.1 95.6
Strongly disagree 4 4.4 4.4 100.0
Total 90 100.0 100.0

213
Lack of understanding of taxation for social enterprises
affects their activities
50 40.0
40 36
30 26 28.9
20 14 15.6
10 11.1
10 4 4.4
0
Strongly agree Agree Neutral Disagree Strongly disagree

Frequency Percentage

Figure 5.40: Lack of understanding of taxation for social enterprises affects


their activities

Table 5.48 and figure 5.40 show the majority respondents (36 or 40.0 percent)
agreed with a further 26 (28.9 percent) that strongly agreed a lack of
understanding of taxation for social enterprises affects their activities. A total of
14 (15.6 percent) respondents remained neutral to the statement, with 10 (11.1
percent) that disagreed with the statement while four (4.4 percent) strongly
disagreed. To determine whether social entrepreneurs’ activities are impacted by
insufficient understanding of taxation, a Chi-square test was conducted. The
results for this variable show that (χ2 = 36.889; df = 4; P =0.000), signalling lack
of understanding of taxation for social enterprises affects their activities.

According to Killian and O’Regan (2018: 1), the fact that SE “combines for-profit
and social impact aim in a single entity, a tax system that anticipates a binary
world of charities and capitalism may be unable to accommodate them, and as
such becomes a constraint for their common good”. Hence, the confusion and
lack of understanding of the tax system for SEs is a critical factor limiting their
effective operation. The challenge of SEs not having a specific legal form in SA
and having to adopt any available legal structure as for-profit entities has a
significant implication in terms of taxation and the ability to benefit from different
tax incentive schemes (Ker 2014: 17)

214
5.6.41 High interest rates affect social entrepreneurs’ activities

Table 5.49: High interest rates affects social entrepreneurs’ activities

Cumulative
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent
Valid Strongly agree 33 36.7 36.7 36.7
Agree 31 34.4 34.4 71.1
Neutral 12 13.3 13.3 84.4
Disagree 10 11.1 11.1 95.6
Strongly disagree 4 4.4 4.4 100.0
Total 90 100.0 100.0

High interest rate affects social entrepreneurs' activities


40 36.7
33 34.4
35 31
30
25
20
15 12 13.3
10 11.1
10
4 4.4
5
0
Strongly agree Agree Neutral Disagree Strongly disagree

Frequency Percentage

Figure 5.41: High interest rates affect social entrepreneurs’ activities

The majority respondents (33 or 36.7 percent) indicated that they strongly agreed,
with another 31 (34.4 percent) respondents that agreed high interest rates affect
social entrepreneurs’ activities (table 5.49 and figure 5.41). Further to this, 12
(13.3 percent) respondents indicated neutral to the statement, with 10 (11.1
percent) that disagreed with the statement and four (4.4 percent) that strongly

215
disagreed. To determine whether social entrepreneurs’ activities are affected by
high interest rates, a Chi-square test was conducted. For this variable, the results
show that (χ2 = 38.333; df = 4; P =0.000), indicating high interest rates affect social
entrepreneurs’ activities.

According to Johnston (2019), the interest rate is an economic factor that


influences a business, because as interest rates rise, bank charges for loans
increase, which shows more business earnings are used to settle loan interest,
which diminishes their profits. The repo rate for SA is expected to return to the
pre-Covid-19 pandemic level of 6.50 percent by the end of 2024 (PWC 2022: 5).
This will have both short- and long-term effects on businesses, including SEs.

5.6.42 Social entrepreneurs’ activities are affected by rapid technological


changes

Table 5.50: Social entrepreneurs' activities are affected by rapid


technological changes
Cumulative
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent
Valid Strongly agree 31 34.4 34.4 34.4
Agree 34 37.8 37.8 72.2
Neutral 13 14.4 14.4 86.7
Disagree 7 7.8 7.8 94.4
Strongly disagree 5 5.6 5.6 100.0
Total 90 100.0 100.0

216
Social entrepreneurs' activities are affected by rapid
technological changes
37.8
40 34.4 34
31
30

20 13 14.4
7 7.8 5.6
10 5

0
Strongly agree Agree Neutral Disagree Strongly
disagree

Frequency Percentage

Figure 5.42: Social entrepreneurs' activities are affected by rapid


technological changes

As table 5.50 and figure 5.42 reflect, most respondents (34 or 37.8 percent)
agreed and 31 (34.4 percent) further strongly agreed that social entrepreneurs’
activities are affected by rapid technological changes. In addition, 13 (14.4
percent) of the respondents remained neutral, while seven (7.8 percent)
respondents disagreed with the statement, with five (5.6 percent) that strongly
agreed. To determine whether rapid technological changes affect social
entrepreneurs’ activities, a Chi-square test was conducted. For this variable, the
results show that (χ2 = 41.111; df = 4; P =0.000), which shows social
entrepreneurs’ activities are affected by rapid technological changes.

The new technology surge, for example “3D printing, cloud computing, digital
platform modularisation, social media, data analytics and digital” artefacts, are
some of the rapid changes in technology disrupting the ways of creating business
(Mortensen 2021: 18). According to Tendai, Nicole and Tafadzwa (2018), any
business, including social enterprises that does not adjust to the rapid
technological changes, may not survive the competition in the business
environment.

217
5.6.43 Social entrepreneurs’ activities are affected by lack of government
support to technological changes

Table 5.51: Social entrepreneurs' activities are affected by lack of


government support to technological changes

Cumulative
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent
Valid Strongly agree 33 36.7 36.7 36.7
Agree 34 37.8 37.8 74.4
Neutral 10 11.1 11.1 85.6
Disagree 8 8.9 8.9 94.4
Strongly disagree 5 5.6 5.6 100.0
Total 90 100.0 100.0

Social entrepreneurs' activities are affected by lack of


government support to technological changes
36.7 37.8
40 34
33
30

20
10 11.1 8 8.9
10 5 5.6

0
Strongly agree Agree Neutral Disagree Strongly disagree

Frequency Percentage

Figure 5.43: Social entrepreneurs' activities are affected by lack of


government support to technological changes

As illustrated by table 5.51 and figure 5.43, many respondents (34 or 37.8 percent)
indicated they agreed, while a further 33 (36.7 percent) strongly agreed social
entrepreneurs’ activities are affected by lack of government support to

218
technological changes. Furthermore, 10 (11.1 percent) respondents indicated
neutral, whilst eight (8.9 percent) disagreed with the statement and five (5.6
percent) respondents strongly disagreed. To ascertain whether lack of
government support to technological changes affects social entrepreneurs’
activities a Chi-square test was conducted. The results for this variable reveal that
(χ2 = 45.222; df = 4; P =0.000), which shows social entrepreneurs’ activities are
affected by lack of government support to technological changes.

5.6.44 Social entrepreneurs’ activities are influenced by competition from


other businesses

Table 5.52: Social entrepreneurs' activities are influenced by competition


from other businesses

Cumulative
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent
Valid Strongly agree 30 33.3 33.3 33.3
Agree 35 38.9 38.9 72.2
Neutral 10 11.1 11.1 83.3
Disagree 11 12.2 12.2 95.6
Strongly disagree 4 4.4 4.4 100.0
Total 90 100.0 100.0

219
Social entrepreneurs' activities are influenced by
competition from other businesses
50
38.9
40 33.3 35
30
30

20
10 11.1 11 12.2
10 4 4.4
0
Strongly agree Agree Neutral Disagree Strongly disagree

Frequency Percentage

Figure 5.44: Social entrepreneurs' activities are influenced by competition


from other businesses

SEs operate under resource scarcity conditions, which create competition that
could jeopardise the enterprise’s long-term sustainability (Walkenhorst et al.
2021). Social enterprises like commercial enterprises are faced with the challenge
of competition, as such it is important for a SE not to compromise on its business
competitiveness because it contributes to the achievement of it mission (Seferian
2020).

As table 5.52 and figure 5.44 show, most respondents (35 or 38.9 percent)
indicated their agreement, with 30 (33.3 percent) that further strongly agreed
social entrepreneurs’ activities are influenced by competition from other
businesses. A small number of the respondents (10 or 11.1 percent) remained
neutral to the statement, with 11 (12.2 percent) that disagreed with the statement
and four (4.4 percent) that strongly disagreed. To ascertain whether competition
from other businesses influences social entrepreneurs’ activities and their
contribution to sustainable development, a Chi-square test was conducted. For
this variable, the results indicate that (χ2 = 41.222; df = 4; P =0.000), which show

220
social entrepreneurs’ activities are influenced by competition from other
businesses.

5.6.45 Social entrepreneurs’ activities have been affected by the Covid-19


pandemic

Table 5.53: Social entrepreneurs' activities have been affected by the Covid-
19 pandemic

Cumulative
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent
Valid Strongly agree 39 43.3 43.3 43.3
Agree 35 38.9 38.9 82.2
Neutral 10 11.1 11.1 93.3
Disagree 3 3.3 3.3 96.7
Strongly disagree 3 3.3 3.3 100.0
Total 90 100.0 100.0

Social entrepreneurs' activities has been affected by the


Covid-19 pandemic
50 43.3
39 38.9
40 35
30
20
10 11.1
10 3 3.3 3 3.3
0
Strongly agree Agree Neutral Disagree Strongly disagree

Frequency Percentage

Figure 5.45: Social entrepreneurs' activities have been affected by the


Covid-19 pandemic

221
Closure by many governments of non-essential businesses, including the South
African government, to curb the effects of the Covid-19 pandemic, hindered and
in many cases eradicated opportunities for many small business owners, such as
social entrepreneurs to generate profit (Weaver 2020: 1). Table 5.53 and figure
5.45 show that the majority respondents (39 or 43.3 percent) stated their strong
agreement, with a further 35 (38.9 percent) that agreed social entrepreneurs’
activities have been affected by the Covid-19 pandemic. A further 10 (11.1
percent) respondents remained neutral to the statement, with disagreement
indicated by a very small number of respondents (three or 3.3 percent) and strong
disagreement with the statement by three (3.3 percent) respondents. To
determine whether the Covid-19 pandemic affected social entrepreneurs’
activities a Chi-square test was conducted. The results for this variable indicate
that (χ2 = 69.111; df = 4; P =0.000), which shows the Covid-19 pandemic impacted
social entrepreneurs’ activities.

5.6.46 Social entrepreneurs’ activities has been affected by lack of


government support from the effects of Covid-19

Table 5.54: Social entrepreneurs' activities have been affected by lack of


government support from the effects of Covid-19

Cumulative
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent
Valid Strongly agree 44 48.9 48.9 48.9
Agree 28 31.1 31.1 80.0
Neutral 11 12.2 12.2 92.2
Disagree 5 5.6 5.6 97.8
Strongly disagree 2 2.2 2.2 100.0
Total 90 100.0 100.0

222
Social entrepreneurs' activities has been affected by lack
of government support from the effects of Covid-19
60
48.9
50 44
40 31.1
28
30
20
11 12.2
10 5 5.6
2 2.2
0
Strongly agree Agree Neutral Disagree Strongly disagree

Frequency Percentage

Figure 5.46: Social entrepreneurs' activities have been affected by lack of


government support from the effects of Covid-19

As illustrated, the majority respondents (44 or 48.9 percent) strongly agreed and
28 (31.1 percent further agreed that social entrepreneurs’ activities have been
affected by lack of government support from the effects of Covid-19. In addition,
11 (12.2 percent) respondents remained neutral to the statement, whilst
disagreement with the statement was indicated by a small number (five or 5.6
percent) and two (2.2 percent) respondents strongly disagreed (table 5.54 and
figure 5.46). To ascertain whether lack of government support from the effects of
Covid-19 affected social entrepreneurs’ activities, a Chi-square test was
conducted. For this variable, the results show that (χ2 = 69.444; df = 4; P =0.000),
illustrating social entrepreneurs’ activities have been affected by lack of
government support from the effects of Covid-19.

Social entrepreneurs have a vital role to play, according to Bacq and Lumpkin
(2020: 4), “despite the many unknowns and considerable challenges surrounding
Covid-19”, as the glue that holds cross-sector solutions together. However, this
will require support from all stakeholders, particularly the government, which
needs to build an enabling environment that will promote highly enthusiastic social

223
entrepreneurs who are imaginative and revolutionary to develop solutions for the
socio-economic effects of Covid-19 (Adedeji and Olanipekun 2022). A report by
the British Council (2020c) reveals the lack of government support for social
entrepreneurs from the effects of Covid-19 is most acute in SSA.

Component matrix: External environmental factors that affect social


entrepreneurship as a tool for sustainable development

Table 5.55: Component matrix: External environmental factors that affect


social entrepreneurship as a tool for sustainable development in KZN
townships
Rotated Component Matrixa
Component
B13 (External)
1 2 3
Lack of adequate legal framework for social entrepreneurs in South Africa is .802
affecting their activities
Less government rules and regulations will improve social entrepreneurs' .757
activities
Increased government support will improve social entrepreneurs' activities .555
Political instability affects social entrepreneurs' activities .720
Social entrepreneurs' activities are affected by corruption .742
Social entrepreneurs' activities are affected by social factors .774
High crime rates affect social entrepreneurs' activities .715
Lack of understanding of taxation for social enterprises affects their activities .570
High interest rates affect social entrepreneurs' activities .643
Social entrepreneurs' activities are affected by rapid technological changes .800
Social entrepreneurs' activities are affected by lack of government support to .785
technological changes
Social entrepreneurs' activities are influenced by competition from other .714
businesses
Social entrepreneurs' activities have been affected by the Covid-19 pandemic .748
Social entrepreneurs' activities have been affected by lack of government .669
support from the effects of Covid-19

224
Extraction Method: Principal Component Analysis.
Rotation Method: Varimax with Kaiser Normalization.
a. Rotation converged in 7 iterations.

This component matrix is presents results from supplementary statistical analysis


of the figures mentioned above (figure 5.33 to 5.46). A component test was
conducted on the statements related to external environmental factors affecting
social entrepreneurship as a sustainable development tool. Respondents
indicated to three categories of components. On the statement whether rapid
technological changes affects social entrepreneurs’ activities, a positive
significance of 0.800 was shown. With regards to social entrepreneurs’ activities
being affected by lack of government support to technological changes, a positive
significance of 0.785 was shown. This means the respondents felt social
entrepreneurs’ activities will improve with government support for rapid
technological changes. Another variable, on whether social entrepreneurs’
activities are affected by high interest rates, a positive significance of 0.643 was
shown.
As highlighted in table 5.55 above, respondents had different views on some of
the variables. For example, on whether lack of adequate legal framework for
social entrepreneurs in South Africa affecting their activities; Political instability
affecting social entrepreneurs’ activities; and whether social entrepreneurs’
activities has been affected by the covid-19 pandemic. This implies that despite
the fact that these external environmental factors affect social entrepreneurs’
activities, some of the respondents do not consider them as critical components
affecting social entrepreneurs’ contribution to sustainable development.

225
5.7 DISCUSSION OF KEY FINGINGS IN LINE WITH THE LITERATURE
REVIEW AND RESEARCH OBJECTIVES OF THE STUDY
This section discusses the primary findings aligned to the review of literature and
research objectives. As outlined in the first chapter, the study objectives include
the following:

Sub-objective 1: To ascertain the characteristics that influence social


entrepreneurs in KZN townships.

Sub- objective 2: To investigate society’s perception of social entrepreneurship


as it affects its contribution as a sustainable development tool in KZN townships.

Sub-objective 3: To explore the social networking impact on social


entrepreneurship contribution as a sustainable development tool in KZN
townships.

Sub-objective 4: To explore the effect of social impact measurement on the social


entrepreneurship contribution as a sustainable development tool in KZN
townships.

Sub-objective 5: To investigate the impact of resources on the social


entrepreneurship contribution as a sustainable development tool in KZN
townships.

Sub-objective 6: To identify the environmental factors that affect social


entrepreneurship as a sustainable development tool in KZN townships.

5.7.1 Key findings of Objective 1


To ascertain the characteristics that influence social entrepreneurs in the
townships in KZN

According to GIBS (2018), in SA social entrepreneurship seemingly suits mostly


unemployed young people aged between 25 and 44 years who perceive it as an

226
attractive working world entry. Findings in the GEM (2016) report support findings
that a greater younger generation representation is needed in operational social
entrepreneurship in SSA, in comparison to that of entrepreneurship that is
commercially operational. The empirical findings of this study agree with the
literature, in that many respondents (49 percent) agreed young people make up
the majority social entrepreneurs. The empirical findings further show that many
of the respondents (49 percent) agreed most people started a social enterprise
because they could not find employment. This means age and unemployment are
motivational factors impacting KZN township social entrepreneurship.

The study findings further revealed many respondents (51 percent) disagreed
gender has an influence on who becomes a social entrepreneur. The findings also
reveal many of the respondents (41 percent) disagreed there are more female
social entrepreneurs than male. This is supported by a GEM (2016) report, which
suggests in SSA less of or no gender gap exists for operational social
entrepreneurship, as opposed to that of operational commercial entrepreneurship.
This means social entrepreneurship in the KZN townships should not be about
gender, instead, embracing every innovation and capacity to solve pressing social
issues.

The findings also revealed many respondents (62 percent) agreed the level of
education influences who becomes a social entrepreneur. This supports the
findings by GEM (2016), which indicate in SSA, a higher education level is found
among operational social entrepreneurs than operational commercial
entrepreneurs. The findings by GIBS (2018) and the British Council (2020a) are
also supported, as they indicate level of education is an important characteristic
of social entrepreneurs in SA. This means that a higher level of education is
required by social entrepreneurs in the KZN townships in order to have the
required skills and expertise to identify opportunities and create social value out
of social problems.

227
5.7.2 Key findings on Objective 2
To investigate society’s perception of social entrepreneurship as it affects
its contribution as a tool for sustainable development in the townships in
KZN

According to Urban (2015), there is a research gap around the perception of social
entrepreneurship in SA, while Fatoki (2019) highlights that perceived social
support is a predictor of social entrepreneurial intention in the country. Urban and
Kujinga (2017), Dzomonda (2021: 5), GEM (2019) and Littlewood and Holt (2018),
as well as the GIBS (2018), all agree that in SA, the perception of social
entrepreneurship in society is one of the problems hindering its effective
operations. Ashrafi et al. (2020: 88) and Omorede (2014: 239) maintain better
knowledge and understanding of the social entrepreneurship contribution to the
development of society will help promote social entrepreneurial intention.

According to the literature review and the empirical study findings, society’s lack
in understanding the role social entrepreneurs play, affects their activities. Hence,
enriching and enlightening society to comprehend the importance of the role
played by social entrepreneurship in sustainable development, is an approach
that can enhance social entrepreneurial intention. This approach will further
enhance social innovation and social value creation that will help solve many
social problems in the KZN townships. The findings of this study supported
adoption of this approach, with many respondents (56 percent) that identified
society’s lack of understanding of the role of social entrepreneurs is one critical
factor affecting social entrepreneur’s activities.

According to the findings of the study, society’s perception of social entrepreneurs


is influenced by inadequate information about their activities (52 percent), poor
awareness of their contribution (53 percent) and inadequate involvement of
society in the township community in their activities (47 percent). Accordingly,
developing strategies through proper engagement with members of society and

228
developing a positive perception will serve as excellent support for social
entrepreneurship that will enhance its contribution to sustainable development in
the KZN townships.

5.7.3 Key findings on Objective 3


To examine the impact of social networking on the contribution of social
entrepreneurship as a tool for sustainable development in the townships in
KZN.

According to Seelos and Mair (2005: 241-246), the interfaces and social
networking “between social entrepreneurship, CSR [programmes] and public
institutions (such as governments and IOs) provide great potential for developing
various ways of collaboration that will create social value in support of sustainable
development”. Niño (2015), Saebi, Foss and Linder (2019) and Crisan-Mitra and
Borza (2012) believe social entrepreneurship can be sustained by companies, as
it is a “trigger factor”, not only of social entrepreneurship but also cross-
collaboration between companies and social entrepreneurs, which will enhance
the potential of positively impacting the social problem-solving process.

This is supported by the study findings, with 75.6 percent of respondents having
indicated social entrepreneurs’ activities are impacted by lack of support and
partnership from corporate organizations. Gigauri and Damenia (2020) and
Prasetyo et al. (2021) mention the potential collaboration and networking between
social entrepreneurs and government has to optimise existing resources that will
enhance productivity, as well as opportunities for entrepreneurial business and
sustainable development that is secure. The study findings support this, with 72.2
percent of respondents indicating social entrepreneurs’ activities are affected by
lack of support and partnership with government. Vijayann (2013) mentions that
the use of social networking platforms is very important for social entrepreneurs,
as any disconnect will create a huge challenge in terms of building networks and
interaction with audience. Furthermore, the study findings also revealed that 65.6

229
percent of the respondents cited lack of the use of social networking platforms
affects social entrepreneurs’ activities.

5.7.4 Key findings on Objective 4


To explore the effect of social impact measurement on the contribution of
social entrepreneurship as a tool for sustainable development in the
townships in KZN.

According to Buckland and Hehenberger (2021), social impact measurement is


an important tool that helps social entrepreneurs to adequately understand the
contribution of their activities. The study findings support this, with 64 percent of
respondents that agreed insufficient social impact measurement affects
understanding the contribution of the social entrepreneurs’ activities. Maas and
Liket (2011) highlight that applying the right social impact measurement method
or technique depends on dimensions such as purpose, perspective, approach and
orientation, along with the time-frame and its duration. They further mention a
wide range of methods is needed, since it also depends on the different types of
corporations, their requirements, activities, objectives and the impact aspects they
want to measure. No-one-size-fits-all solution exists (DeRobertis-Theye 2021).
This further supports the study findings, with 57.8 percent of respondents that
indicated inadequate application of social impact measurement techniques affects
social entrepreneurs’ ability to solve a social problem.

Ayala (2019) and Buckland and Hehenberger (2021) mention that clearly
displaying social impact, enables social entrepreneurs to attract investors and
create an avenue to access more funding. In addition, the study findings support
this is, as 64.4 percent of respondents indicated a lack of social impact
measurement affects the willingness of investors to invest in social entrepreneurs’
activities. Therefore, social impact measurement is crucial for social
entrepreneurs as it measures the social outcome and impact created by specified

230
activities and is an on-going process and integral part of the social entrepreneurs’
activities (OECD 2021)

5.7.5 Key findings on Objective 5


To investigate the impact of financial resources on the contribution of social
entrepreneurship as a tool for sustainable development in the KZN
townships.

As stated by Day and Jean-Denis (2016: 59-69), resources at the disposal of


social entrepreneurs enable them to grow and function effectively. Dzomonda
(2021) and the British Council (2020a: 34) highlight lack of access to funding
remains one of the major challenges to social entrepreneurs in SA. This study’s
findings supported the above, where 76.7 percent of respondents indicated lack
of access to financial resources affects social entrepreneurs’ activities. The GEM
(2016) report in SSA reveals that many social entrepreneurs rely on family for
financial support in order to survive. This is also supported by this study, where
56.7 percent of respondents indicated reliance by many social entrepreneurs on
family and friends for finance in order to survive. This affects their activities, as
well as their contribution to sustainable development. In addition, it means access
to financial resources is very crucial in ensuring social entrepreneurs create the
necessary social value that will enable them contribute to sustainable
development (Choi and Chang 2020: 1-18).

5.7.6 Key findings on Objective 6

To identify the environmental factors which affects social entrepreneurship


as a tool for sustainable development in the townships in KZN.

Various factors can be included in the environmental factors category, namely


institutional, economic, infrastructural, and cultural, as well as technological and
social factors (Petrus 2019; Dobele 2011: 101-107). These factors have been

231
found to impact the growth/performance, as well as the effectiveness in social
entrepreneurs’ value creation (Islam 2016). The section that follows offers a
discussion of the internal and external environmental factors.

Management competence and skills


Studies have shown that management competence and skills are important
requirements for any business to effectively achieve it set goals and objectives,
including social enterprises. Heinecke et al. (2014) and Wranka-Pospiech (2016)
highlight that lack of management competence and skills will hinder the
owners/managers of SEs from effectively executing functions such as
organisation, integration, planning, and measurement as well as budgeting, and
development of people. The study findings support the literature, as a significant
number of respondents (73.3 percent) agreed insufficient management
competence and skills affect social entrepreneurs’ activities and their contribution
to sustainable development.

Marketing skills
Nowadays, no business will be able to survive the ever-changing business
environment without constantly upskilling their marketing abilities, including social
entrepreneurs. Satar et al. (2016) mentioned that social entrepreneurs need to
develop an innovative entrepreneurial approach to marketing for them to be
relevant in the present business environment and create social values. Urban and
Maphathe (2021) believe social entrepreneurs who do not use social media
platforms or do not have any online presence, will affect their ability to build
awareness, gain recognition and market their products and services. The study
findings support the literature, with a significant number of the respondents (67.7
percent) that agreed the lack of marketing skills is a critical internal environment
factor affecting many social entrepreneurs and their contribution to sustainable
development in the KZN townships.

Policy and regulations

232
According to the literature, appropriate government policies and regulations are
fundamental in supporting and assisting social entrepreneurs in successfully
achieving their goals and objectives in a country. The GIBS (2018), Littlewood
and Holt (2018) and Dzomonda (2021) also maintained that lack of adequate
policies and regulations impinges on social entrepreneurs’ effective operation and
the growth and development of the social sector. The findings of this study support
the literature, as a significant number of respondents (74 percent) were in
agreement there not being an adequate legal framework for social entrepreneurs
in SA affects their activities. Although, many social entrepreneurs have
succeeded, despite all the limitations, while less red tape and restrictions will
enable social entrepreneurs to fulfil their potential (ILO, 2013). This supports the
study findings, as a significant number of the respondents (76 percent) agreed
that less government rules and regulations will improve social entrepreneurs’
activities.

Political instability
In terms of political instability, a considerable number of respondents (71 percent)
showed political instability affects social entrepreneurs’ activities. These findings
are supported by literature, as Shumetie and Watabaji (2019) assert that FDIs
and cash flow, which are crucial for the effectiveness of social entrepreneurs in
any country, are deterred by political instability such as frequent social unrest,
protest and violence. This is also highlighted by Dutta et al. (2013: 130-143), who
maintain the rate of entrepreneurship and wealth creation increases in a politically
stable country where there is a high level of government transparency,
predictability and accountability.

Corruption
Tomaszewski (2017) asserts that activities in government institutions are usually
disrupted by corruption, which further become an obstacle that affects investment
and innovative activities, as well as the development of entrepreneurship.

233
Corruption is characterised by various barriers to entrepreneurial activities and
serves as an economic catalyst (Ceresia and Mendola 2019). These points are
justified by the study findings, with 62 percent of the respondents indicating that
social entrepreneur’s activities are affected by corruption. The effects of
corruption in SA are considered very harmful, since it could heighten
unemployment, reduced tax revenue, diminishing business operations and finally,
collapse of the economy (Ofusori 2020).

High crime rate


The high crime level in SA negatively impacts the growth and development of
social entrepreneurs, as they spend their income on improving their business
security, instead of reinvesting into their business to improve capacity (Dzomonda
2021). According to Mahofa et al. (2016: 4), crime negatively impacts “return on
investment and reduces the ability of firms to retain skilled labour” and enhances
productivity. These points are supported by the study findings, with a significant
number of respondents (76 percent) indicating that the high crime rate affects
social entrepreneurs’ activities.

Rapid technological changes


According to Tendai, Nicole and Tafadzwa (2018), any business that does not
keep abreast with the rapid technological changes will risk the chance of survival
in the current business environment. Courtois and Bonnici (2022) mention the
ability of social entrepreneurs to adapt to technological changes will enable them
to scale-up their innovativeness towards sustainable development. This is
because the use of technology to address social problems has been inherent and
serves as a cost-effective way for social entrepreneurs to solve social issues
(Juneja 2015). These points are supported by the study findings, with a significant
number of respondents (72 percent) indicating that social entrepreneurs' activities
are affected by rapid technological changes. Therefore, adapting to rapid
technology changes is crucial for social entrepreneurs to improve performance,

234
increase access to information, improve customer reach and optimise internal
efficiencies (Adeyemi 2019). Government support is required in terms of providing
adequate infrastructure to enhance entrepreneurs, including social
entrepreneurs, to adapt to the changes in technology (Mark and Putzschel 2014).
The study findings further show a substantial number of respondents (74 percent)
that believe the lack of government support for technological changes affects
social entrepreneurs’ activities.

Competition
A huge aspect of any business entity, competition is important for any business,
including SEs, to provide superior products and services in order to remain
competitive (Ullah 2020). Lin-Hi et al. (2020: 58-84) highlight customers are willing
to buy sustainable products offered by either social or commercial enterprises,
making it a very competitive environment for SEs. This supports the study findings
as a noteworthy number of respondents (72 percent) indicated social
entrepreneurs’ activities are influenced by competition from other businesses.
Therefore, social entrepreneurs can survive in a competitive environment, when
they are able to generate a balanced combination of excess financial returns and
excess social value (Walkenhorst et al. 2021).

COVID-19
The pandemic and related lockdown restrictions imposed by governments to
reduce the spread of the virus has had a damaging effect on many businesses,
including SEs (UNDP 2021). Covid-19 caused unprecedented damage that could
be persistent and threaten the survival of many businesses in Africa, including
SEs (Okuwhere and Tafamel 2022). This supports the findings of this study, with
a significant number of the respondents (82 percent) confirming that the Covid-19
pandemic have affected social entrepreneurs’ activities. As stated by Khambule
(2020), the amount of R500 billion the South African government provided to
stimulate economic activities, may not reach the businesses operating in the

235
informal economy, including social entrepreneurs. This further supports the study
findings, with a significant number of respondents (80 percent) that confirmed
social entrepreneurs’ activities have been affected by the lack of government
support from the effects of Covid-19.

5.8 CONCLUSION ON RESEARCH HYPOTHESES


In this section a detailed overview is provided of conclusions drawn in terms of
the set hypotheses (Chapter One) and shown as the null hypothesis (Ho) and the
alternative hypothesis (Ha) (Appendix 10). The study hypotheses developed from
the literature review are as follows.

Ha1: There is a relationship between society’s perception (awareness about


social entrepreneurs) and social networking (partnership among social
entrepreneurs) towards social entrepreneurship contribution to sustainable
development.

The results of bivariate correlation show the relationship between the tested
variables is significantly positive at .444** (sig. 0.000) level. This indicates
rejection of the null hypothesis, concluding that society’s perception (awareness
of social entrepreneurs) and social networking (partnership among social
entrepreneurs) are related and impact the social entrepreneurship contribution to
sustainable development.

Ha2: There is a relationship between social networking (use of social networking


platforms) and social impact measurement (willingness of investors to fund)
towards social entrepreneurs’ contribution to sustainable development.

The results of bivariate correlation show the relationship between the tested
variables is significantly positive at .313** (sig. 0.003) level. Therefore, the null
hypothesis is rejected, concluding that social networking and social impact
measurement are related and impact social entrepreneurs’ contribution to
sustainable development.

236
Ha3: There is a relationship between social networking (the use of social
networking platforms) and internal environment (technical skills) towards social
entrepreneurship contribution to sustainable development.

The results of bivariate correlation show the relationship between the tested
variables is significantly positive at .475** (sig. 0.000) level. This, therefore,
indicates rejection of the null hypothesis, concluding that the use of social
networking platforms and technical skills are related and impact social
entrepreneurship contribution to sustainable development.

Ha4: There is a relationship between social impact measurement (understanding


its contribution) and internal environment (management competence and skills)
towards social entrepreneurship contribution to sustainable development.

The results of bivariate correlation show the relationship between the tested
variables is significantly positive at .525** (sig. 0.000) level. Therefore, it indicates
the null hypothesis is rejected, concluding that social impact measurement and
management competence and skills are related and impact social
entrepreneurship contribution to sustainable development.

Ha5: There is a relationship between financial resources (government financial


assistance) and external environment (corruption) towards social
entrepreneurship contribution to sustainable development.

The results of bivariate correlation show the relationship between the tested
variables is significantly positive at .480** (sig. 0.000) level. This means rejection
of the null hypothesis, concluding that government financial assistance and
corruption are related and impact social entrepreneurship contribution to
sustainable development.

Ha6: There is a relationship between external environment (government support


to rapid technological changes) and social impact measurement (identifying other

237
opportunities) towards social entrepreneurship contribution to sustainable
development.

The results of bivariate correlation show the relationship between the tested
variables is significantly positive at .328** (sig. 0.002) level. Therefore, rejection
of the null hypothesis allows the conclusion that government support to rapid
technological changes and social impact measurement are related and impact
social entrepreneurship contribution to sustainable development.

5.9 CONCLUSIONS ON THE VARIABLES MATCHED WITH THEORIES


The relevant theories relating to social entrepreneurship as a sustainable
development tool are explored in this section. These theories are also integrated
with the study’s empirical findings.

According to Drucker (1985) and SE theory, social entrepreneurs are people who
have the ability to “search for change, respond to it and exploit it as an
opportunity”. This means social entrepreneurs are people with innovative
capabilities, with their main objective the creation of social value that solves social
problems in communities, and the nation as a whole. This study finds
characteristics of social entrepreneurs (age and level of education) as factors that
influence social entrepreneurs to generate innovative and creative ways of
addressing social problems and significantly contribute to sustainable
development in the KZN townships and SA. Furthermore, lack of awareness and
understanding of the important role social entrepreneurs play in communities
influences society’s perception and were also identified by the empirical findings
as critical components that affect social entrepreneurship’s contribution to
sustainable development.

North (1990), through institutional theory, emphasises that economies can


develop institutions that will lead to growth and development or develop
institutions that will lead to stagnation. Therefore, as highlighted in the empirical

238
findings of this study, inadequate policy and regulations, lack of support and
partnership with government, lack of access to financial resources, and high
interest rates were identified as critical factors that impact social entrepreneurship
as a sustainable development tool in KZN townships. This means for social
entrepreneurs to grow and thrive in SA, particularly in the KZN township, there
needs to be a formal institutional guideline that removes every form of ambiguity
on the operations of social entrepreneurs. As reflected in the literature review, the
institution creates the incentive structure and helps build the relationship between
social entrepreneurs and society at large.

Anthony Giddens’ (1984) structuration theory points out that human agency and
social structures cannot be separated and, as such, the human environment
created, influences their activities. According to the empirical study findings,
political instability, corruption, high crime rates, and rapid technological changes,
as well as lack of technical and marketing skills, and the effects from Covid-19 are
environmental factors identified by this study as factors that affect social
entrepreneurship as a sustainable development tool. Failure in adjusting to the
ever-changing environment proved to be a critical factor hindering the effective
operation of social entrepreneurs. Therefore, the adoption of Anthony Giddens’
structuration theory will greatly assist social entrepreneurs in effectively managing
social structures and provide critical steps that will ensure social value creation
and improve social entrepreneurs’ contribution to sustainable KZN township
development.

5.10 CONCLUSION
As highlighted in the data analysis and the study findings, it is evident social
entrepreneurs are faced with enormous challenges. A comprehensive picture is
provided by the tested variables, of these challenges and the factors that affect
social entrepreneurship as a sustainable development tool in KZN townships. The
findings illustrated society’s perception is a catalyst to social entrepreneurs’

239
growth and development. Social impact measurement also plays an important
role in ensuring social entrepreneurs better understand their activities and help
them attract investors. Environmental factors, social networking, resources and
the characteristics of the social entrepreneurs were also identified to be critical
factors influencing social entrepreneurs and their effective contribution to
sustainable development in the KZN townships. Overall, it is clear critical attention
is needed on these factors in order for social entrepreneurs to grow, thrive and
operate at their full potential in the KZN townships.

240
241
CHAPTER SIX
CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

6.1 INTRODUCTION
The aim of this study was to discover and analyse the critical factors affecting the
contribution of social entrepreneurs to sustainable development in townships, with
the KZN province as case study. Arising from the study, an integrated model was
developed to assist social entrepreneurs to enhance their social value creation
and improve their contribution to sustainable development in the KZN townships.
A rich foundation of secondary data was obtained from the comprehensive
literature review, while a detailed empirical study provided the primary data that
were broadly analysed to ascertain any significant correlation between the study
variables. In this chapter, conclusions will be provided to summarise the key
findings and show evidence that the research objectives were achieved.
Furthermore, the hypotheses will be discussed relative to the findings of the study.
Limitations and recommendations of the study linked to the findings are provided
and explained. Finally, recommendations for further study are provided.

6.2 SUMMARY OF KEY FINDINGS


The study’s primary aim was the identification of the critical factors that impact the
contribution of social entrepreneurship to sustainable KZN township development
and from this evidence, suggest a prototype model. The following conclusions can
be drawn based on the findings:

Biographical and background information obtained indicate that:

• Most of the social entrepreneurs have attained at least a diploma/certificate;


• The largest group of social entrepreneurs was between the ages of 26 and 32
years;
• Many of the social entrepreneurs within the sample were profit-oriented;

242
• Most of the social entrepreneurs within the sample were managers and sole
owners.

In terms of the characteristics of social entrepreneurs, 62.2 percent of the


respondents believed level of education has a significant influence on social
entrepreneurs as it affects the way they are able to identify social problems and
articulate a solution to address them. These findings indicate level of education
plays an important role in ensuring a social entrepreneur enhances their
innovativeness and creativity, which are required to generate higher returns from
their activities. The findings are also confirmed in literature, with level of education
crucial for social entrepreneurs to survive and grow in a complex and uncertain
environment of social ventures.

The respondents identified society’s’ perception of social entrepreneurship as a


significant variable affecting its contribution to sustainable development, with 62.2
percent of the responses indicating that society’s lack of understanding of the role
of social entrepreneurs hinders them from operating effectively and efficiently.
The results also indicated that 59 percent of the respondents believed poor
awareness of the contribution of social entrepreneurs influences society’s
perception regarding their activities. These findings indicate that in order for social
entrepreneurs to grow and thrive, relevant awareness and education, focusing on
the important role social entrepreneurs could fulfil in dealing with social problems,
should be increased and supported in society. Nonetheless, social entrepreneurs
can also contribute to improving society’s perception by providing adequate
information of their activities, as shown by 57.8 percent of respondents.
Furthermore, 52.2 percent of the respondents also believed society’s perception
is influenced by a lack of adequate involvement in social entrepreneurs’ activities.
Thus, the findings demonstrate society’s perception of social entrepreneurs is
crucial in ensuring social values are created that would contribute to sustainable
development. The study concludes social entrepreneurship awareness needs to

243
be increased and strengthened, as with commercial entrepreneurship in society,
which will support them in identifying opportunities and enabling social
entrepreneurs to grow and thrive.

The respondents identified social networking as an important factor that affects


social entrepreneurs’ contribution to sustainable development. A total of 75.6
percent of respondents believed lack of support and partnership with corporate
organisations affect social entrepreneurs’ activities. These findings are confirmed
in literature, where it was shown that support and partnership with corporate
organisation will help SEs overcome the structural barriers encountered in the
formation of their business models and sustaining these. The findings also
support the literature, in that social entrepreneurs’ activities are seen as greatly
affected by lack of support and partnership with government (72.2 percent).
Additionally, 65.6 percent felt that lack of the use of social networking platforms
affects social entrepreneurs’ activities and hinders their contribution to sustainable
development.

On the issue of social impact measurements’ role in enabling the understanding


of the social entrepreneurs’ activities, the study found respondents believed this
factor was significant (64.4 percent), which is also supported by the number
respondents (65.6 percent) who indicated that lack of social impact measurement
negatively affects social entrepreneurs identifying other opportunities to solve
social problems. Again, insufficient social impact measurement was also regarded
a significant factor that affects attracting investors for social entrepreneurs’
activities and thus, their contribution to sustainable development (64.4 percent).

It is believed by 76.7 percent of the respondents that lack of access to financial


resources had an impact on social entrepreneurs’ activities. This is linked to the
findings that lengthy processes required by financial institutions to obtain financial
resources negatively affects social entrepreneurs’ activities (70 percent).
Furthermore, 56.7 percent of the respondents also indicated that many social

244
entrepreneurs depend on family and friends for finances in order to survive.
Moreover, of the respondents, 71.1 percent identified insufficient financial
assistance from government as a critical factor hindering social entrepreneurs’
value creation and contribution to sustainable development.

Regarding the internal environment, 73.3 percent of the respondents believed


lack of management competence and skills has a significant impact on social
entrepreneurs’ activities, as it affects the manner in which they operate and the
ability to adequately achieve the desired goals and objectives. A further 70
percent of the respondents perceived the lack of technical skills contributed to
social entrepreneurs’ inability to effectively address social problems, which is also
supported by the number of respondents (70 percent) that indicated the lack of
education and training development negatively affect social entrepreneurs’
activities. Additionally, 67.8 percent felt a lack of marketing skills affects social
entrepreneurs’ ability to expose their products and services to the necessary
audience.

The respondents indicated various external environmental factors that they


believed had a major impact on social entrepreneurs’ activities. It was felt by 74.7
percent of the respondents that the lack of an adequate legal framework for social
entrepreneurs in SA hinders their activities. The study found that many
respondents (71.1 percent) believed that political instability was a significant
factor affecting social entrepreneurs’ activities. A total of 62.2 percent of the
respondents indicated that corruption hinders social entrepreneurs from
accessing the required resources from government to enhance their activities.
The study also found 75.6 percent of the respondents considered the high crime
rate to hinder social entrepreneurs’ activities. It is believed by 72.2 percent of the
respondents that rapid technological changes were a major factor affecting social
entrepreneurs and their contribution to sustainable development. Furthermore,
72.2 percent of the respondents indicated that competition with other businesses

245
was a factor affecting social entrepreneurs’ activities. These findings are
confirmed in literature as resources are limited in any business environment, thus,
a competitive advantage is required when a social entrepreneur is to grow and
thrive. Additionally, of the respondents, 80 percent indicated lack of support by
government from effects of the Covid-19 pandemic is a major factor hindering
social entrepreneurs’ activities and their contribution to sustainable development.

6.3 CONCLUSIONS
The conclusions are formulated according to the study objectives.

6.3.1 Conclusions as to the research objectives


In this section, the conclusions reached are provided in line with the study
objectives. The statistical analysis of the empirical findings and the tested
hypothesis form the basis of the conclusions. These conclusions, discussed
below, cover the tested variables, based on the questionnaire (Appendix 1),
formulated in accordance with a thorough literature review and study objectives.
The questionnaire was personally administered to respondents in order for the
primary data to be gathered.

After analysing the data, a host of challenges were reflected, along with critical
factors that impact social entrepreneurship as a sustainable development tool in
the KZN townships. The findings suggest that an integrated model for social
entrepreneurship, providing pointers to its effective contribution to sustainable
development, can be designed and applied to benefit social entrepreneurs and
other stakeholders in the social sector. The proposed integrated model is
presented and recommended in the section that follows.

Sub-objective 1: To ascertain the characteristics of social entrepreneurs


that influence their contribution to sustainable development in the
townships in KZN

246
The study concludes that there is a positive attitude among young people to be
social entrepreneurs. It further concludes that no gender gap exists for social
entrepreneurship, as both males and females equally play critical roles in
addressing social problems in the KZN townships. Level of education is believed
to significantly impact the ability of social entrepreneurs to identify a social
problem and turn it to an opportunity to contribute to sustainable development.

Sub-objective 2: To investigate society’s perception of social


entrepreneurship as it affects its contribution as a tool for sustainable
development in the townships in KZN
The study findings reflect society’s perception regarding social entrepreneurship
plays an important role in its contributions to sustainable development. It is further
concluded that educating and creating awareness in society on the contributions
and importance of social entrepreneurs will help improve their contribution to
sustainable development. Social entrepreneurs providing adequate information
and involving community members in their activities are key drivers to society’s
positive perception.

Sub-objective 3: To examine the impact of social networking on the


contribution of social entrepreneurship as a tool for sustainable
development in the townships in KZN
It is concluded social entrepreneurs believe social networking has a significant
impact on their contribution to sustainable development. This involves networking
among social entrepreneurs themselves, partnering and receiving support from
corporate organisations, and the government, as well as their effective use of the
various social networking platforms available.

Sub-objective 4: To explore the effect of social impact measurement on the


contribution of social entrepreneurship as a tool for sustainable
development in the townships in KZN

247
The study findings show in order for social entrepreneurs to effectively contribute
to sustainable development, social impact measurement is a requirement. It is
further concluded these entrepreneurs need social impact measurement to
comprehend the contribution of their activities, identify other opportunities to solve
social problems, as well as attract investors. social entrepreneurs must also be
familiar with and apply an appropriate method/technique in measuring their social
impact.

Sub-objective 5: To investigate the impact of financial resources on the


contribution of social entrepreneurship as a tool for sustainable
development in the townships in KZN
The study concludes that social entrepreneurs’ contribution to sustainable
development is impacted by lack of access to financial resources. Lengthy
processes from financial institutions to obtain financial resources pose a
significant challenge to social entrepreneurs. As financial resources are an
important asset for any business, many social entrepreneurs depend on family
and friends to survive. This study also concludes that lack of government financial
assistance hinders social entrepreneurs’ activities.

Sub-objective 6: To identify the environmental factors that affect social


entrepreneurship as a sustainable development tool in the townships in
KZN
Environmental factors (internal and external) were considered to have an
important effect on social entrepreneurs’ contribution to sustainable development
in the KZN townships. The empirical findings showed that management
competence and skills, technical skills, education and training development, as
well as marketing skills, were identified as the main internal factors affecting social
entrepreneurs’ contribution to sustainable development, while policy and
regulation, political instability, corruption, and the high crime rate, as well as rapid
technological changes, and Covid-19, were the primary external factors affecting

248
the activities of social entrepreneurs. It is, therefore, concluded that for social
entrepreneurship to make a contribution to sustainable development in the KZN
townships, more focus should be placed on the environmental factors.

6.4 IMPLICATIONS
The study outcome includes consequences, effects and suggestions for social
entrepreneurship in contributing to sustainable development in the KZN
townships.

6.4.1 Implications of social entrepreneurship theory


The primary study focus contributes to the body of knowledge by proposing an
integrated model consisting of critical factors affecting the contribution of social
entrepreneurship to sustainable development, with specific reference to the
townships in KZN. These, as well as social entrepreneurs elsewhere in the world,
documented in the literature and by means of the empirical study findings, are
subjected to a variety of challenges that hinder their social value creation and
thus, their sustainable development contribution.

The proposed integrated social entrepreneurship framework (figure 6.2) shows


that social networking, social impact measurement, financial resources, and
government support, as well as adapting to technological changes, are principal
aspects of the social entrepreneurship contribution to sustainable development.
This makes it important that social entrepreneurs take note of these and other
relevant theories that deal with innovation, growth and development, which will
guide and assist them in overcoming diverse challenges in their operational
environment. These theories can also enable social entrepreneurs to understand
economic growth and development determinants and to develop an innovative
and creative culture to survive and thrive.

A greater awareness in terms of the environmental factors that affect social


entrepreneurs is of significance to their contribution to sustainable development.

249
As social entrepreneurs around the world are recognised and considered to have
great potential to sustain economies, including SA, the development of new
theories and conceptual frameworks depict that social entrepreneurs need to start
adopting and implementing social entrepreneurship theories for the purpose of
innovation, growth and development.

6.4.2 Implications for social entrepreneurship practice


Social entrepreneurs are in a position to contribute significantly towards reviving
and transforming the economy of the country post-Covid, including contributing
towards GDP, creating employment, poverty alleviation and addressing other
social issues. Against this background, the importance of studying and analyses
of potential means were considered in enhancing and improving the contribution
of social entrepreneurship as a sustainable development tool. The empirical
findings indicated, based on social entrepreneurs’ opinions, social
entrepreneurship can be enhanced through acquiring the right management
competence, education and training, as well as having a conducive business
environment. Should financial constraints be lessened and social networking
enhanced, social entrepreneurs should be in a better position to innovatively and
creatively develop strategies and a growth model that will improve their
contribution to sustainable development. Adequate but simplified policy and
regulation for social entrepreneurs, together with government support through
both finance and training, as well as creating awareness in society, will go a long
way to improving social entrepreneurs’ value creation. Adapting to rapid
technological changes was also considered very important for social
entrepreneurs in the current age, while awareness of shifting social norms and
needs is also considered significant, particularly in the dynamic, global business
environment.

250
6.5 RECOMMENDATIONS BASED ON THE STUDY RESULTS
The study recommendations are constructed from its empirical findings and
discussed below.

6.5.1 Theoretical framework formulated through variables identified from


the literature review
As the previous chapters indicated, formulation of objectives, hypotheses and
instrument for data collection was accomplished by means of a thorough search
of the literature. This review of literature was instrumental and formed the basis
in the identification and selection of variables in support of the study’s
development (figure 6.1).

It can be concluded, based on the literature review, that social entrepreneurs


within the KZN townships are affected by a number of factors that can hinder their
effective contribution to sustainable development. In order to create a focus for
the research study, these factors were identified and categorised into research
themes. The theoretical framework below demonstrates, society’s perception,
social entrepreneurs’ characteristics, social networking, and social impact
measurement, as well as financial resources and environmental factors, were all
identified as critical components that impact social entrepreneurship as a
sustainable development tool. The variables were used to develop the
questionnaire, which was scientifically tested, with the suggested integrated
model accordingly developed and described (figure 6.2).

251
Figure 6.1: Conceptual framework based on literature review
Source: Developed by the researcher

252
Development of this framework was based on both secondary and primary data
that were collected and thoroughly analysed, while insights were gained from the
conceptual framework of the study. Determining the primary (empirical) data was
achieved by examination of a broad range of variables that respondents
considered as having a significant impact on the social entrepreneurship
contribution to sustainable development in the KZN townships.

6.6 PROPOSED INTEGRATED CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK

Figure 6.2: Proposed integrated conceptual framework

253
Characteristics of social entrepreneurs: Level of education and age have been
identified by the empirical findings as important characteristics that influence
social entrepreneurship. Therefore, the study recommends government be aware
of these characteristics and provide more sponsorship for social entrepreneurs
into tertiary level of education so they may acquire the knowledge and skills
necessary for identifying opportunities presented by social problems. Government
can also encourage more young people to become social entrepreneurs, as this
will help address the level of unemployment in the country.

Society’s perception: Society’s perception of social entrepreneurship was found


to be important. Society lacks an understanding of the importance of social
entrepreneurs and is not aware of their contributions to sustainable development.
Social entrepreneurs have been perceived in society as people who cannot find
attractive employment. It is, therefore, recommended that government educate
society on the relevance of social entrepreneurs to development. Awareness
should be created in society for social entrepreneurship, similar to that done for
commercial entrepreneurship. This will improve society’s support for social
entrepreneurs, and will motivate them to be innovative and creative in solving
more social problems.

Social networking: The proposed integrated conceptual framework reflects lack


of partnership and support from corporate organisations and lack of partnership
and support from government are regarded as a critical part of the social network,
as indicated by the respondents. There is the need for social entrepreneurs to
collaborate, partner and receive support from corporate organisations and
government, which will enable them to understand business environment trends,
thus helping them improve their operations.

Social impact measurement: Lack of understanding and applying the


appropriate methods and techniques of social impact measurement have been
identified by the empirical study as drawbacks to social entrepreneurs’

254
effectiveness. Therefore, the study recommends social entrepreneurs become
aware of the importance of social impact measurement and how it impacts their
operations.

Financial resources: Lack of access to financial resources, lengthy financial


institution processes, and lack of government financial assistance were identified
as the key financial aspects that hinder social entrepreneurs’ activities. It is
recommended the government develops systems and structures that encourage
access to financial resources for social entrepreneurs. Financial institutions
should also reduce their requirements for social entrepreneurs to acquire credit
or loans in order to enhance their productivity.

Internal factors: Management competence and skills, technical skills, education


and training, as well as development and marketing skills, were singled out as key
internal factors by the empirical study that critically impact the ability of SEs to be
effective in their operations through social value creation, which will factor as part
of its sustainable development contribution. It is, therefore, recommended that
SEs should analyse their strengths and weaknesses in their internal environment,
to develop strategies and empower themselves to compete favourably in the
dynamic business environment. Government can also provide support in training
social entrepreneurs to acquire these critical skills in order to improve their
activities.

External factors: Lack of an adequate legal framework, political instability,


corruption, and rapid technological changes, as well as effects from Covid-19,
were identified as key external factors by this empirical study and shown to affect
social entrepreneurship. It is recommended that social entrepreneurs understand
the dynamic business environment in order to adapt or identify ways to integrate
their activities. Social entrepreneurs should ensure they keep up with rapid
technological changes. Furthermore, government should develop an adequate

255
legal framework and ensure a conducive environment is provided for social
entrepreneurs to grow and thrive.

Overall, it is recommended that for social entrepreneurs to improve their activities


and grow while also contributing to sustainable development, a need exists to first
conduct a comprehensive analysis of the internal and external factors affecting
their effective operations and to determine the most appropriate remedial
approaches in enhancing their operations. The conceptual framework provided in
the model above could be used to conceptualise the necessary approaches.

6.7 RECOMMENDATIONS
6.7.1 Society’s perception
The study findings disclosed insufficient understanding by society along with poor
awareness of the role and contributions of social entrepreneurs affect their
activities:

• It is recommended that government needs to invest in educating and informing


society about social entrepreneurship. Roadshows and workshops promoting
and sensitising society to the importance and contributions of social
entrepreneurs to sustainable development should be explored and
implemented. This will help create the required awareness of social
entrepreneurship and influence more individuals into following it as a career
path.
• Government further needs to form collaborative forums with community
leaders. This will help them share knowledge and ideas on how to improve
social entrepreneurship in local communities. For instance, since community
leaders have a better understanding of their communities, they can share their
ideas on how to educate and inform the community with regard to the
important role played in their development by social entrepreneurship.
• Social entrepreneurs need to use their activities to create awareness in
society. They need to develop a systematic mechanism of involving

256
community members in their activities. This will promote inclusivity and
remove any form of animosity from community members. Hence, creating a
conducive environment where everyone is involved in enhancing changes and
society’s development.

6.7.2 Social entrepreneurship policy re-evaluation


Based on the findings of the study, inadequate policy and regulations,
inappropriate government support mechanisms, as well as corruption, and high
interest rates, have negatively impacted social entrepreneurship. Therefore, it is
recommended that:

• South African government policy makers should review and reconsider


government policy and regulations on social entrepreneurship, with the
complexity in terms of SE registration that should be critically evaluated to
relieve the confusion on what kind of business venture they operate,
considering their substantial contribution in both social, economic and
environmental prosperity of SA. This will create and promote an appropriate
conducive environment for SEs to operate at full capacity effectively and
efficiently.
• Accessing government financial assistance remains a huge challenge for
social entrepreneurs. The government / or financial institutions need to
develop a financial assistance system accessible to social entrepreneurs
operating in SA. For instance, newly registered social entrepreneurs should
be granted short-term loans in order for them to develop and grow.
Furthermore, government funds created to assist small businesses such as
social entrepreneurs should be carefully monitored in order that the funds
reach the target recipients and are not siphoned through corrupt practices
• High interest rates continue to make access to financial resources difficult for
social entrepreneurs. Government needs to, therefore, support social
entrepreneurs by developing an adequate legal framework that protects them

257
from high interest rates and from having to provide collateral to financial
institutions in order to acquire loans.
• Government should ensure periodic monitoring and evaluation of policies
regarding social entrepreneurs, to determine how they are coping in their
respective business environments. Registration fees should be eliminated and
taxes reduced or a probation period be provided to social entrepreneurs, as
these are considered some of the barriers affecting new entrants in the sector.

6.7.3 Education, training and skills development


The findings of the study reveal that education, training and skills development
(both amongst social entrepreneurs and their employees) affect social
entrepreneurship.

• It is recommended that social entrepreneurs need to invest in education,


training and skills development in order to improve their social value creation.
Internal SE policies promoting education, training and skills development
should be implemented. As part of SE strategic planning, both
owners/managers and staff need to be involved in training and skills
development on an ongoing basis. This is to ensure the social enterprise is
up-to-date with relevant skills required to remain competitive in the dynamic
business environment.
• Universities and technical institutions need to form a strong partnership with
social entrepreneurs to provide qualifications and training workshops. This
approach will help develop the necessary field-related entrepreneurial skills
needed for social entrepreneurs to grow and thrive. These institutions can also
include social entrepreneurship as part of their curriculum for undergraduate
studies, thus allowing for more individuals to be trained on how to use
innovative and creative ways to address social problems in society.
• As part of government incubators, there is the need to involve business
experts with proven knowledge and experience on issues relating to social

258
entrepreneurs’ development and growth. These individuals will be able to
provide field-related skills development and training workshops that are goal-
specific. This will enable social entrepreneurs to acquire a broader
understanding, which can influence their social innovation and improve
management competences for their activities.
• Social entrepreneurs need to collaborate, partner and network with other
social entrepreneurs, corporate organisations and government. This will help
the sharing of knowledge and expertise that will support social innovation and
growth. For instance, other social entrepreneurs can bring fresh ideas and
perspective on addressing social issues, while corporate organisations and
government can share their financial resources and expertise to support the
new ideas.

6.7.4 Technology changes adaption


The study findings highlight the strong influence rapid technological changes have
on the activities of social entrepreneurs and its effect on their sustainable
development contribution:

• It is imperative that social entrepreneurs invest in adequate technological


advances as globally, technology has been used to enhance social innovation
and align social entrepreneurs’ activities with frequent technological changes
in the current, dynamic business environment. This will help the social
entrepreneur improve innovative processes, while developing strategies
consistent with modern technology requirements, therefore creating a
competitive advantage for their product or services. Adapting to technological
changes will also help social entrepreneurs to measure their social impact,
improve their social networking, and facilitate the marketing of products and
services both locally and internationally.
• Government needs to also help social entrepreneurs to adapt to the rapid
technological changes through training and workshops. This will enable these

259
entrepreneurs to acquire the technical know-how that will help them adjust and
advance their operations to yield more profit.

6.8 LIMITATIONS OF THE STUDY


The study was conducted in three townships in KZN and only focused on 90 social
entrepreneurs. The study did not cover townships in other provinces, although, as
a true reflection of the selected townships in KZN and not SA in its entirety, there
are lessons that could still be learned by social entrepreneurs in the townships in
other provinces. Therefore, the findings of the study should be used with caution.
Furthermore, gathering primary data from participants was achieved through a
closed-ended questionnaire was used that contained predetermined statements,
formulated from a comprehensive literature review and from the research
objectives, while excluding open-ended questions for additional comments in the
questionnaire. This method, to an extent, limited the researcher’s insights to
respondent views.

6.9 RECOMMENDATION FOR FURTHER RESEARCH


As indicated by the empirical study findings, the recommendation is for further
research to be conducted on:

The awareness and understanding level among members of society regarding the
social entrepreneurship concept. This will help to ascertain the level of
preparedness in society to embrace and be involved in social entrepreneurship.
It can also help policy makers to develop strategies that will grow social
entrepreneurship in our society.

Assessment by further research should focus on the impact social networking has
on social entrepreneurs’ profit and development. A better understanding will thus
be provided of the exact social networking contribution to SE sustainability, in
addition to its other roles of maintaining contact, interactions and collaborations.

260
Further research needs to be conducted to determine the effects of government
support mechanisms on social entrepreneurship growth and development in the
country. This type of research can provide a clearer understanding of the
significance of adequate policy and regulations and other ways government
support can nurture and promote social entrepreneurship in order for it to operate
at its full potential in SA.

Further research should critically analyse ways social entrepreneurs can adapt to
rapid technological changes. This will help social entrepreneurs to develop
strategies and invest in adequate and appropriate technological advances to
compete favourably in the dynamic business environment.

Further research needs to be conducted on methods and techniques of social


impact measurement that are simple and less complicated. This will help social
entrepreneurs to easily measure their impact and, in turn, attract more investors
that will help them grow and develop.

Further research on financial assistance structures and systems by government


should be conducted, as there are currently significant limitations with regard to
contributing to social entrepreneurship growth and development. This will provide
a better understanding on the various government agency problems and
challenges, that prevent actively assisting social entrepreneurs to grow and thrive.
These agencies include the Small Enterprise Development Agency (SEDA) and
the Department of Social Development, among others.

A critical analysis of the characteristics that are key to social entrepreneurship


development should be undertaken. This type of research will provide a clearer
picture of the different characteristics that are significant in individuals’
engagement and involvement in social entrepreneurship.

261
6.10 CONCLUDING REMARKS
This study has highlighted the applicability of social entrepreneurship to
sustainable development in the townships in KwaZulu-Natal. Key factors affecting
the social entrepreneurs’ value creation were discussed. It is believed that social
entrepreneurship can play a critical role in addressing many of the socio-
economic challenges in townships communities. With the increasing levels of
poverty and inequality in South Africa, providing a conducive environment for
social entrepreneurs to operate can be the critical difference in achieving the
sustainable development goals. The ever-changing business environment in
South Africa, SMEs, especially social enterprises face an ongoing challenge in
gaining a competitive advantage by creating social value. In order to accomplish
this value, social entrepreneurs have to constantly review their business
strategies.

The empirical data used during this study were based on questionnaires that were
self-administered amongst owners and managers of social enterprises in the
Inanda, NtuZuma and KwaMashu township communities in KZN province. The
recommendations and conclusions discussed this chapter represent some of the
actions that could possibly be taken to improve social entrepreneurship
contribution to sustainable development in the KZN townships. It is also hoped
that this study will enable government and other stakeholders to enhance their
approach and partnership with social entrepreneurs to create social value which
will help address various challenges in the society.

262
REFERENCES

Abdul-rahama, A. 2017. Assessing the environmental factors of social


entrepreneurship in Ghana. MPhil Marketing Thesis, University of Ghana.

Abdullah, N. L. Rahid, M. R. Mohammed, N. S. and Ngah, N. S. 2022. The role of


youth social entrepreneurs in identity development, in Crowther, D. and Quoquab.
F (Ed.) Social entrepreneurs (Developments in corporate governance and
responsibility, Vol. 18), pp. 189-206. Emerald Publishing Limited, Bingley.

Abebe, T. H. 2019. The deviation and choice of appropriate test statistics (Z, t, F
and Chi-Square test) in research methodology. Mathematics letters, 5(3): 33-40.

Abi-Aad, G. 2015. Social media for social entrepreneurship. Available:


https://www.entrepreneur.com/article/249379 (Accessed 7 June 2022).

Abidin, F. Z. and Kaka, E. J. 2014. Issues surrounding government support for


social entrepreneurship as a change agent. International journal of Academic
Research in Business and Social Sciences, 4(10): 333-343.

Abubakar, S. Etikan, I. and Alkassim, R. 2015. Comparison of snowball sampling


and sequential sampling technique. Biometrics & Biostatistics international
journal, 3(1): 1-3.

Acharya, B. 2010. Questionnaire design: A backbone of research. A working


paper. Available:
http://www.saciwaters.org/CB/IFRM/IFRM/IV.%20Literature/Module%206_Qualit
ative%20Research%20Methods/6.4%20Questionnaire%20Design_Acharya%20
Bidhan.pdf (Accessed 15 March 2022).

Acharya, A. S. Prakash, A. Saxena, P. and Nigam, A. 2013. Sampling: Why and


how of it? Indian journal of medical specialities, 4(2): 330-333.

263
Adebiyi, B. O. Roman, N. V. Chinyakata, R. and Balogun, T. V. 2021. The
negative impact of Covid-19 containment measures on South African families –
Overview and Recommendation. The open public health journal, 14: 233-238.

Adedeji, A. S. and Olanipekun, O. J. 2022. Social entrepreneurship and Covid-


19: Impact, challenges and opportunities in Nigeria, Eniola, A. A (Ed.)
Entrepreneurship and post-pandemic future, Emerald Publishing Limited, Bingley,
pp. 23-37.

Adeyemi, P. 2019. The place of technology in social entrepreneurship. Available:


http://library2.smu.ca/bitstream/handle/01/29223/Adeyemi_Patrick_MASTERS_
2019.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y (Accessed 04 February 2021).

Adwok, J. 2015. Probability sampling – A guide for quantitative health care


research. The annals of African surgery, 12(2): 95-99.

Afridi, Z. 2016. How does corruption impact entrepreneurship? Available:


http://www.ecosysteminsights.org/how-does-corruption-impact-
entrepreneurship/ (Accessed 22 October 2021).

Aggarwal, R. and Ranganathan, P. 2016. Common pitfalls in statistical analysis:


The use of correlation techniques. Perspectives in clinical research, 7(4): 187-
190.

Agrawal, A. and Hockerts, K. 2013. Institutional theory as a framework for


practitioners of social entrepreneurship. In book: Social innovation: Solutions for
a sustainable future. Pp: 111-129. Publisher: Springer Berlin Heidelberg.

Ahmed, S. Wasim, S. Irfan, S. Gogoi, S. Srivastava, A. and Farheen, Z. 2019.


Qualitative vs. Quantitative research. Population, 1. Pp. 2.

Ajayi, V. O. 2017. Primary sources of data and secondary sources of data.


Available:

264
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/320010397_Primary_Sources_of_Data
_and_Secondary_Sources_of_Data (Accessed 17 March 2022).

Akaranga, S. I. and Makau, B. K. 2016. Ethical consideration and their


applications to research: A case of the University of Nairobi. Journal of
Educational Policy and Entrepreneurial Research, 3(12): 1-9.

Aktas, K. and Barbetta, G. P. 2022. The effects of giving credit to social


enterprises: evidence from Italy. Italian Economic Journal. Available:
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s40797-022-00188-1#citeas (Accessed
05 July 2022).

Akthar, I. 2016. Research design. In book: Research in social science:


Interdisciplinary perspective. Available:
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/308915548_Research_Design
(Accessed 30 November 2021).

Albers, M. J. 2017. Introduction to quantitative data analysis in the behavioural


and social sciences. John Wiley & Sons, Inc. USA.

Alderson, P. and Morrow, V. 2020. The ethics of research with children and young
people: A practical handbook. Sage.

All Answers Ltd. 2018. Impact Measurement Tools for Social Enterprises: Use
and Efficiency. Available: https://ukdiss.com/examples/impact-measurement-
tools-for-social-enterprises.php?vref=1 (Accessed 3 June 2021).

Alvarez-Iglesias, A. Garman, E. and Lund, C. 2021. Effects of Covid-19 on the


economy and mental health of young people in South Africa: Opportunities for
strengthening social protection programmes by integrating mental health. South
African journal of psychology, 51(2): 199-204.

265
Alvi, M. 2016. A manual for selecting sampling techniques in research. Available:
https://mpra.ub.uni-muenchen.de/70218/ (Accessed 26 January 2022).

Alumo Energy, 2020. The impact of load shedding on small businesses. Available:
https://blog.alumo.co.za/blog/the-impact-of-load-shedding-on-small-businesses
(Accessed 20 April 2022).

Amini, Z., Arasti, Z. and Bagheri, A. 2018. Identifying social entrepreneurship


competencies of managers in social entrepreneurship organizations in
healthcare sector. Journal of global entrepreneurship research, 8(19).

Anello, E. 2021. An introduction to non-probability sampling methods. Exploring


other sampling techniques for data science. Available:
https://towardsdatascience.com/an-introduction-to-non-probability-sampling-
methods-b74c76f7f710 (Accessed 26 January 2022).

Antwi, S. K. and Hamza, K. 2015. Qualitative and quantitative research paradigm


in business research: A philosophical reflection. European Journal of Business
and Management. 7(3): 217-225.

Apăvăloaie, E. I. 2014. The impact of the internet on the business environment.


Procedia Economic and Finance, 15: 951-958.

Apuke, O. B. 2017. Quantitative research method: A synopsis approach. Kuwait


chapter of Arabian journal of business and management review, 6(11): 40-47.

Arenas, D. 2020. Should social enterprises compete or cooperate? Available:


https://dobetter.esade.edu/en/social-enterprises-
competition?_wrapper_format=html (Accessed 05 November 2021).

Arregle, J. L., Batjargal, B., Hitt, M. A., Webb, J. W., Miller, T., & Tsui, A. S. 2013.
Family ties in entrepreneurs’ social networks and new venture growth.
Entrepreneurship: Theory and Practice, 39(2): 313-344.

266
Asawapoom, S. 2020. Population and samples: Often misused concepts in social
sciences researches. Psychology and Education, 57(9): 2375-2380.

Asenahabi, B. M. 2019. Basics of research design: A guide to selecting


appropriate research design. International journal of contemporary applied
researches, 6(5): 76-89.

Ashrafi, D. M., Sarker, M. A. R., Hashim, J. B., Haque, A. and Nayan, F. K. 2020.
An exploration of the youth’s perception toward social entrepreneurship
development: Evidence from Bangladesh. Jurnal Ilmiah Bidang Akuntansi dan
Manajemen, 17(1): 88-104.

Asiamah, N. Mensah, H. K. and Oteng-Abayie, E. F. 2017. General, target, and


accessible population: Demystifying the concept of effective sampling. Qualitative
report, 22(6): 1607-1622.

Australian Social Value Bank (ASVB). 2018. Five reasons why social impact
measurement is a priority. Available: https://asvb.com.au/2018/07/23/five-
reasons-social-impact-measurement-priority/ (Accessed 8 June 2021).

Ayala, T. 2019. Impact metrics: Importance of measuring social impact. Available:


https://socialfintech.org/social-impact-metrics/ (Accessed 9 June 2021).

Ayyagari, M., Kunt, A. D. and Maksimovic, V. 2008. How important are financing
constraints? The role of finance in the business environment. The World Bank
Economic Review, 22(3): 483-516.

Babbie, E. 1998. The practice of social research. Belmont: Wadsworth Publishing


Company. USA.

Bacq, S. and Janssen, F. 2011. The multiple faces of social entrepreneurship: A


review of definitional issues based on geographical and thematic criteria.
Entrepreneurship and regional development, 23(5): 373-403.

267
Bacq, S. and Lumpkin. G. T. 2020. Social entrepreneurship and Covid-19. Journal
of Management Studies. Available:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7675580/pdf/JOMS-9999-na.pdf
(Accessed 09 July 2022).

Bandyambona, E. 2013. Community based co-operative in Inanda, Ntuzuma and


KwaMashu (INK) community (eThekwini Municipality) as an alternative form of
economic development: Lessons from the Kenyan co-operative model. Submitted
in partial fulfilment of the requirement for the degree of Master of Community
Development in the School of Built Environment and Development Studies at the
University of KwaZulu-Natal.

Banerjee, A. and Chaudhury, S. 2010. Statistics without tears: Population and


samples. Industrial psychiatry journal, 19(1): 60-65.

Bannigan, K. and Watson, R. 2009. Reliability and validity in a nutshell. Journal


of clinical nursing, 18(23): 3237-3243

Bansal, S., Garg, I. and Sharma, D. G. 2019. Social entrepreneurship as a part


for social change and a driver for sustainable development: A systematic review
and research agenda. Sustainability, 11(4): 1091.

Bakar, S. A. N. A., Arshad, R., Pauzi, N. F. M., Mamat, S. N. and Omar, N. 2017.
Human capital management and accountability of social enterprise. SHS web of
conferences, 36(00037).

Barhatov, V. Campa, A. and Pletnev, D. 2018. The impact of internet-technologies


development on small business success in Russia. Procedia – Social and
Behaviourial Sciences, 238: 552-561

Barnard, H. 2019. From the editor: The social side of international business policy
– mapping social entrepreneurship in South Africa. Journal of international
business policy, 2: (1-8).

268
Bartik, A. W. Bertrand, M. Cullen, Z. Glaeser, E. L. Luca, M. and Stanton, C. 2020.
The impact of Covid-19 on small business outcomes and expectations. Available:
https://www.pnas.org/content/pnas/117/30/17656.full.pdf (Accessed 11 January
2022).

Bartniczak, B. and Raszkowski. A. 2018. Sustainable development in Africa


countries: An indicator-based approach and recommendations for the future.
Sustainability. MDPI, 11(1): 1-23

Belitski, M., Guenther, C., Kritikos, A. S. and Thurik, R. 2021. Economic effects of
the Covid-19 pandemic on entrepreneurship and small businesses. Discussion
paper. IZA DP No. 14630.

Bernardino, S., Freitas Santos, J. and Cadima Ribeiro, J. 2018. Social


entrepreneurs and gender: What’s personality got to do with it? International
Journal of Gender and Entrepreneurship, 10(1): 61-82

Bertha Centre for Social Innovation and Entrepreneurship. 2016. A guide to legal
forms for social enterprises in South Africa. Available:
https://www.gsb.uct.ac.za/files/Bertha_GuideToLegalForms.pdf (Accessed 29
April 2022).

Berthod, O. 2018. Institutional theory of organization. In book: Global


Encyclopedia of Public Administration, Public policy, and Governance, pp: 1-5.
Available:
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/312572322_Institutional_theory_of_org
anizations (Accessed 14 April 2022).

Bewayo, E. D. and Vicente Portes, L. S. 2016. Environmental factors for social


entrepreneurship success: Comparing four regions. American journal of
management 16(4): 39-56.

269
Bhandari, P. 2021a. An introduction to quantitative research. Available:
https://www.scribbr.com/methodology/quantitative-
research/#:~:text=Quantitative%20research%20is%20the%20process,generaliz
e%20results%20to%20wider%20populations (Accessed 08 December 2021).

Bhandari, P. 2021b. Questionnaire design: Methods, question types, steps.


Available: https://www.scribbr.com/methodology/questionnaire/ (Accessed 15
March 2022).

Bhandari, P. 2021c. Ethical consideration in research: Types and examples.


Available: https://www.scribbr.com/methodology/research-ethics/ (Accessed 6
April 2022).

Bhardwaj, P. 2019. Types of sampling in research. Journal of the practice of


cardiovascular sciences, 5(3): 157-163.

Bierman, B. 2021. Social media tips for SMEs who want to thrive in the digital age.
Available: https://www.businesspartners.co.za/social-media-tips-for-smes-who-
want-to-thrive-in-the-digital-age/. (Accessed 26 April 2022)

Bisbelle, L. 2006. The intercultural city – making the most of diversity. Thematic
study. Social entrepreneurship as a space for intercultural communication and
innovation. Available: https://rm.coe.int/16804925d5 (Accessed 25 October
2021).

Bittar, A. 2020. Five facts about poverty in South Africa. Available:


https://borgenproject.org/poverty-in-south-africa/ (Accessed 8 October 2021).

Blagoycheva, H. 2019. Social enterprises’ position in regional sustainable


development. Trakia journal of science, 17(1): 488-495.

Blanche, M. T. Durrheim, K. and Painter, D. 2006. Research in practice: Applied


methods for the social sciences. 2nd ed. University of Cape Town press.

270
Bľanda, J. and Urbančíková, N. 2020. Social entrepreneurship as a tool for
sustainable development. Quality Innovation Prosperity, 24(3).

Bless, C. And Higson-Smith, C.1995. Fundamentals of social research methods:


an African perspective. Cerda Press, Cape Town. South Africa.

Bolarinwa, O. A. 2015. Principles and methods of validity and reliability testing of


questionnaires used in social and health science researches. Nigeria
postgraduate medical journal, 22(4): 195-201.

Bonnici, F. 2020. Why social entrepreneurs are critical to our response to and
recovery from the Covid-19 crisis. Available:
https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2020/05/schwab-foundation-covid-response-
alliance-social-entrepreneurs-coronavirus-recovery response/ (Accessed 11
January 2022).

Boparai, J. K. Singh, S. and Kathuria, P. 2018. How to design and validate a


questionnaire: A guide. Current clinical pharmacology, 13(4): 210-215.

Bornstein, D. and Davies, S. 2010. Social entrepreneurship. What everybody


needs to know. Social Enterprise. Available: https://www.ashokau.org/wp-
content/uploads/2010/12/Social-Entrepreneurship-What-Everyone-Needs-to-
Know-Teaching-notes-final.pdf (Accessed 20 July 2021).

Boschee, J. 2006. Strategic marketing for social entrepreneurs. Available:


https://www.socialent.org/pdfs/StrategicMarketing.pdf (Accessed 04 November
2021).

Boschee, J. and McClurg, J. 2003. Towards a better understanding of social


entrepreneurship: Some important distinctions. Available:
https://www.law.berkeley.edu/php-programs/courses/fileDL.php?fID=7289
(Accessed 24 October 2021).

271
Bouronikos, V. 2021. Youth social entrepreneurship: Making the world a better
place. Available: https://ied.eu/blog/youth-social-entrepreneurship-making-the-
world-a-better-place/ (Accessed 30 June 2022).

Boyland, M. 2020. The importance of ethical practice in research. Available:


https://www.sumernet.org/story/the-importance-of-ethical-practice-in-research
(Accessed 6 April 2022).

Boynton, P. M. 2004. Administering, analyzing and reporting your questionnaire.


BMJ (Clinical research ed.). 328(7452): 1372-1375.

Brannick, M. T. 2005. Estimating reliability in primary research. Available:


http://faculty.cas.usf.edu/mbrannick/papers/conf/Estimating%20Reliability%20in
%20Primary%20Research.pdf (Accessed 1 April 2022).

Brieger, S. A., Bäro, A., Criaco, G. and Terjesen, S. A. 2020. Entrepreneurs’ age,
institutions, and social value creation goals: A multi-country study. Small business
economics. Available https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11187-020-
00317-z (Accessed 19 May 2021).

Briggs, S. 2021. Connectivity in South Africa: The numbers you need to know.
Available: https://itweb.africa/content/dgp45Ma6yKxqX9l8 (Accessed 25 April
2022).

British Council, 2015. Social enterprise in the UK. Developing a thriving social
enterprise sector. Available
https://www.britishcouncil.org/sites/default/files/social_enterprise_in_the_uk_fi
nal_web_spreads.pdf (Accessed 06 August 2021).

British Council, 2017. The state of social enterprise in Kenya. Available:


https://www.britishcouncil.org/sites/default/files/state_of_social_enterprise_in_
kenya_british_council_final.pdf (Accessed 4 April 2022).

272
British Council, 2020a Creative and social enterprise in South Africa. Available:
https://www.britishcouncil.org.za/sites/default/files/surveying_creative_and_soci
al_enterprise_in_sa.pdf (Accessed 6 October 2021).

British Council, 2020b. Social enterprise and job creation in Sub-Saharan Africa.
Available:
https://www.britishcouncil.org/sites/default/files/social_enterprise_and_job_creati
on_in_sub-saharan_africa_final_singlepages.pdf (Accessed 20 September
2021).

British Council. 2020c. Innovation and resilience: A global snapshot of social


enterprises responses to covid-19. Available:
https://www.britishcouncil.org/sites/default/files/socialenterprise_covidresponse
survey_web_final_0.pdf (Accessed 10 January 2022).

Bryan, J. L. 2013. The impact of government policy on economic growth.


Bridgewater State University. Management Faculty publication, Paper 23.

Buckland, L. and Hehenberger, L. 2021. Measuring social impact can help foster
a stronger European social economy. Available:
https://ssir.org/articles/entry/measuring_social_impact_can_help_foster_a_stron
ger_european_social_economy (Accessed 10 June 2021).

Bueno Montaldo, C. R. 2013. Literature review: Sustainable development


approaches for rural development and poverty alleviation & Community capacity
building for rural development and poverty alleviation. Yonsei University, Wonju.
Available:
https://sustainabledevelopment.un.org/content/documents/877LR%20Sustainabl
e%20Development%20v2.pdf (Accessed 10 October 2021).

Bugg-Levine, A., Kogut, B. and Kulatilaka, N. 2012. A new approach to funding


social enterprises. Harvard Business Review. Available:

273
https://hbr.org/2012/01/a-new-approach-to-funding-social-enterprises (Accessed
27 October 2021).

Business Tech. 2021. South Africans think corruption is getting worse under
Ramaphosa. Available: https://businesstech.co.za/news/trending/521918/south-
africans-think-corruption-is-getting-worse-under-ramaphosa/ (Accessed 22
October 2021).

Business Tech. 2022. Russia-Ukraine crisis has stunted South Africa’s economic
recovery – but there’s a possible silver lining. Available:
https://businesstech.co.za/news/finance/564048/russia-ukraine-crisis-has-
stunted-south-africas-economic-recovery-but-theres-a-possible-silver-lining/
(Accessed 19 April 2022).

Business Trust and Department of Provincial and local Government. 2007.


Inanda, Ntuzuma and KwaMashu (INK) Nodal Economic Development Profile,
KwaZulu-Natal. Available:
http://www.btrust.org.za/library/assets/uploads/documents/2_CIPPN_INK%20na
rrative.pdf. (Accessed 11 April 2023)

Bvuma, S. and Marnewick, C. 2020. Sustainable livelihoods of township small,


medium and micro enterprises towards growth and development. Sustainability,
12(3149).

Cadena-Iniguez, P., Rendon-Medel, R., Aguilar-Avila, J., Salinas-Cruz, E., Cruz-


Morales, F. R. and Sangerman-Jarquin, D. M. 2017. Quantitative methods,
qualitative methods or combination of research: An approach in social sciences.
Mexican journal agricultural sciences, 8(7): 1607-1617

Cadete, L. 2017. What is a pilot study? Available:


https://s4be.cochrane.org/blog/2017/07/31/pilot-studies/ (Accessed 22 July
2022).

274
Canals, I. 2017. Instruments for gathering data. In E. Moore. & M. Dooly (Eds),
Qualitative approaches to research on plurilinqual education, pp. 390-401.
Research-publishing.net.

Canestrino, R., Cwiklicki, M., Magoliocca, P. and Pawelek, B. 2020.


Understanding social entrepreneurship: A cultural perspective in business
research. Journal of business research, 110: 132-143.

Cappa, C. Petrowski, N. and Njelesani, J. 2015. Navigating the landscape of child


disability measurement: A review of available date collection instruments. ALTER,
European journal of disability research, 9(4): 317-330.

Carriles-Alberdi, M., Lopez-Gutierrez, C. and Fernandez-Laviada, A. 2021. The


influence of the ecosystem on the motivation of social entrepreneurs.
Sustainability, 13(922): 1-17.

Carty, W. 2020. Applying a gender lens to social entrepreneurship. Available:


https://philanthropynewsdigest.org/columns/ssir-pnd/applying-a-gender-lens-to-
social-entrepreneurship (Accessed 31 May 2021).

Casteel, A. and Bridier, N. I. 2021. Describing populations and samples in doctoral


student research. International journal of doctoral research, 16: 339-362

Causadias, J. M. 2020. What is culture? Systems of people, places, and practices.


Applied developmental science, 24(4): 310-320.

Ceresia, F. and Mendola, C. 2019. The effects of corruption in entrepreneurial


ecosystem on entrepreneurial intentions. Administrative sciences, 9(88): 1-14.

Chandra, Y. and Kerlin, J. A. 2021. Social entrepreneurship in context: Pathways


for new contributions in the field. Journal of Asian public policy, 14(2): 135-151.

275
Chepurenko, A. 2015. Entrepreneurship theory: New challenges and future
prospects. Foresight and STI governance, National Research University Higher
School of Economics, 9(2): 44-57.

Cherry, K. 2021. How frequency distributions are used in psychology research.


Available: https://www.verywellmind.com/what-is-a-frequency-distribution-
2795187 (Accessed 25 March 2022).

Chitiga-Mabugu, M. Maisonnave, H. Hanseler, M. and Mabugu, R. E. 2021.


Corruption in state-owned companies hurts low-skilled workers the most.
Available: https://www.up.ac.za/news/post_3023414-expert-opinion-corruption-
in-state-owned-companies-hurts-low-skilled-workers-the-most-researchers-
including-up-professor-show-how (Accessed 07 July 2022).
Choi, Y. 2020. The effects of social entrepreneur’s characteristics on resource
acquisition and firm performance. International journal on entrepreneurship,
24(1).

Choi, E., Kim, E., Kim, I. and Choi, I. 2020. Attitude toward social enterprises: A
comparison between for-profit and social enterprise employees. Sustainability,
12(2720): 1-10.

Choi, Y., and Chang, S., 2020. The effects of social entrepreneurs’ characteristics
on resource acquisition and firm performance. International journal of
entrepreneurship, 24(1), 1-18.

Choi, Y., Chang, S. and Foroudi, P. 2020. The effects of social entrepreneur’s
human capital on and firm performance: Monitoring the role of specific human
capital. Cogent business & management, 7(1): 1-15.

Choto, P., Tengeh, R. K. and Iwu, C. G. 2014. Daring to survive or to grow? The
growth aspirations and challenges of survivalist entrepreneurs in South Africa.
Environmental Economics, 5(4): 93-101.

276
Cilliers, J. and Aucoin, C. 2016. Economics, governance and instability in South
Africa. Institute for Security Studies, Paper 293: 1-22. Available:
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/305034098_Economics_Governance_
and_Instability_in_South_Africa (Accessed 07 July 2022).
Claeye, F. 2016. Social enterprise in South Africa. A tentative typology.
International Comparative Social Enterprise Model (ICSEM). Working papers, 38.

Claeye, F. Shumba, R. and Steinman, S. 2014. Exploring models of social


entrepreneurship in South Africa. 2nd Global Social Business Summit. Available:
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/267508017_Exploring_models_of_soci
al_entrepreneurship_in_South_Africa (Accessed 26 October 2021).

Coetzee, M. 2016. Choosing the right legal form for your social enterprise: insights
from a strategy consultant. Available: https://www.marcuscoetzee.co.za/essay-
choosing-legal-form-for-your-socent/ (Accessed: 4 October 2021).

Coetzee, D. and Els, M. M. 2016. The impact of load shedding on the construction
industry in South Africa. Available:
https://openbooks.uct.ac.za/uct/catalog/download/5/7/210?inline=1 (Accessed
20 April 2022).

Coffelt, T. 2017. Confidentiality and anonymity of participants. Iowa State


University. Available
https://lib.dr.iastate.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1140&context=engl_pubs
(Accessed 11 January 2021).

Cohen, N. and Arieli, T. 2011. Field research in conflict environments:


Methodological challenges and snowball sampling. Journal of peace research.
48(4): 423-435.

277
Colling, A. 2019. South Africa’s load shedding threat. Available:
https://crisis24.garda.com/insights-intelligence/insights/articles/south-africas-
load-shedding-threat (Accessed 20 April 2022).

Colosi, L. 2006. Designing an effective questionnaire. Available:


http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.419.6136&rep=rep1&t
ype=pdf (Accessed 17 March 2022).

Columbia Telecommunication Corporation. 2010. The impact of broadband speed


and price on small business. Available:
https://www.portlandoregon.gov/OCT/article/396099 (Accessed 25 April 2022).

COMESA Monetary Institute. 2020. Economic impact of Covid-19 on Micro Small


and Medium Enterprises (MSME) in Africa and policy options for mitigation.
Available: https://www.tralac.org/documents/resources/covid-19/regional/4049-
economic-impact-of-covid-19-on-msmes-in-africa-and-policy-options-for-
mitigation-comesa-special-report-august-2020/file.html (Accessed 12 January
2022).

Conner, B. and Johnson, E. 2017. Descriptive statistic. American Nurse Today,


12(11): 52-55.

Courtois, J. P. & Bonnici, F. 2022. How digital tech can turbo-charge the social
economy. Available: https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2022/05/how-digital-tech-
turbo-charge-social-enterprises/ (Accessed 17 June 2022).

Creswell, J. W. 2014. Research design. Quantitative, qualitative and mixed


methods approaches. 4th ed. SAGE Publications, Inc. USA.

Crisan-Mitra, C. and Borza, A. 2012. Social entrepreneurship and corporate social


responsibilities. International Business research, 5(2): 106-113

278
Crossman, A. 2019. Pilot study in research. Available:
https://www.thoughtco.com/pilot-study-3026449 (Accessed 23 March 2022).

Da Costa, C. and Schneider, Z. 2016. Quantitative data collection and study


validity. In Nursing and Midwifery Research, 5th ed.; Schneider, Z. Whitehead, D.
LoBiondo-Wood, G. Haber, J. Eds. Elsevier Australia: Chatswood, NSW,
Australia, Pp. 181-196.

Dacin, M. T., Goodstein, J. and Scott, W. R. 2002. Institutional theory and


institutional change: Introduction to the special research forum. Academy of
management journal, 45(1): 45-57.

Dacin, P. A., Dacin, M. T. and Matear, M. 2010. Social entrepreneurship: Why we


don’t need a new theory and how we move forward from here. Academy of
management perspective, 24(3): 37-57.

Daniel, E. 2016. The usefulness of qualitative and quantitative approaches and


methods in researching problem solving ability in science education curriculum.
Journal of education and practice, 7(15): 91-100.

Danish Technological Institute. 2016. Discussion paper: Promoting social


enterprise financing. Available:
https://www.siceurope.eu/sites/default/files/field/attachment/promoting_social_e
nterprise_financing.pdf (Accessed 27 October 2021).

Daoui, A. 2017. Challenges facing African entrepreneurs. Available:


https://www.waystocap.com/blog/challenges-facing-african-entrepreneurs/
(Accessed 13 October 2021).

David, R. J., Tolbert, P. S. and Boghossian, J. 2019. Institutional theory in


organization studies. Oxford Research Encyclopedia. Available:
https://oxfordre.com/view/10.1093/acrefore/9780190224851.001.0001/acrefore-
9780190224851-e-158 (Accessed: 7 September 2021).

279
Davies, I. A., Haugh, H. and Chambers, L. 2019. Barriers to social enterprise
growth. Journal of small business management, 57(4): 1616-1636.

Davis, B. 2021. What is the difference between study population and target
population? Available: https://www.mvorganizing.org/what-is-the-difference-
between-study-population-and-target-population/ (Accessed 15 December 2021)

Davis, R. 2022. Untangling the narrative web surrounding South Africa’s stance
on the Russia-Ukraine conflict. Available:
https://www.dailymaverick.co.za/article/2022-03-08-untangling-the-narrative-
web-surrounding-south-africas-stance-on-the-russia-ukraine-conflict/ (Accessed
19 April 2022)

Day, S. W. and Jean-Denis, H. 2016. Resource based view of social


entrepreneurship: Putting the pieces together. Journal of strategic innovation and
sustainability, 11(2): 59-69.

De Vaus, D. A. 2001. Research design in social research. Available:


http://research.apc.org/images/5/5f/De_Vaus_chapters_1_and_2.pdf (Accessed
1 December 2021)

Dees, J. G. 1998. The meaning of social entrepreneurship. Available:


https://centers.fuqua.duke.edu/case/wp-
content/uploads/sites/7/2015/03/Article_Dees_MeaningofSocialEntrepreneursh
ip_2001.pdf (Accessed 15 October 2021).

Defourny, J. and Nyssen, M. 2012. The EMES approach of social enterprise in a


comparative perspective. European Research Network. Working Paper, 12(3).

Department of Co-operative Governance and Traditional Affairs (COGTA). 2009.


Township transformation timeline Available: http://sacitiesnetwork.co.za/wp-
content/uploads/2014/07/township_transformation_timeline.pdf (Accessed 20
October 2019).

280
Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport (DCMS). and Department for
Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (BEIS). 2017. Social enterprise: Market
trend 2017. Available:
https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/att
achment_data/file/644266/MarketTrends2017report_final_sept2017.pdf
(Accessed 20 August 2021).

Department of Environmental Affairs and Tourism (DEAT). 2008. A National


Framework for Sustainable Development in South Africa. Available
https://www.gov.za/sites/default/files/gcis_document/201409/nationalframeworkf
orsustainabledevelopmenta0.pdf (Accessed 07 August 2021).

Department of Provincial and Local Government (DPLG). 2006. Inanda, Ntuzuma,


KwaMashu (INK) nodal economic development profile. Available
http://www.durban.gov.za/Documents/City_Government/IDP_Policy/01%20INK_
narrative.pdf. (Accessed 20 October 2019).

Department of Small Business Development. 2021. Impact of Covid-19 on Micro


and informal businesses in South Africa. Available:
http://www.dsbd.gov.za/sites/default/files/publications/Impact-of-covid19-on-
businesses.pdf (Accessed 14 January 2022).

Department of Trade and Industry (DTI), Republic of South Africa. 2018. 3rd
Annual Economic Research Advisory Network (ERAN) Conference: Concept
Note. Available: https://www.thedti.gov.a/ERPC/papers.jsp. (Accessed 20
October 2019).

DeRobertis-Theye, N. 2021. How to measure social impact: 8 best practices.


Available: https://blog.submittable.com/measure-social-impact/ (Accessed 25
May 2022).

281
Deshwal, S. 2015. A conceptual study of social entrepreneurship. International
Journal of applied research, 1(10): 975-977.

Diab, M. B. 2019. Towards social entrepreneurship and sustainable development


in Lebanon. Proceedings of the 13th International Conference on Business
Excellence, 56-70.

Dickel, P. and Eckardt, G. 2020. Who wants to be a social entrepreneur? The role
of gender and sustainability orientation. Journal of small business management,
59(1): 196-214.

Dietrich, N. 2019. SMMEs - Tackling South Africa’s employment challenges.


Available: https://www.imqs.co.za/news-articles/infrastructure-development-vital-
for-smme-growth-in-south-africa/ (Accessed 13 October 2021).

Disman, D., Ali, M. and Barliana, M. S. 2017. The use of quantitative research
method and statistical data analysis in dissertation: An evaluation study.
International Journal of Education, 10(1): 46-52

Dobele, L. 2011. Influencing factors of social entrepreneurship in Latvia.


Research for local development, 17(2): 101-107.

Doody, O. and Doody, C. M. 2015. Conducting a pilot study: case study of a


novice researcher. British journal of nursing, 24(21).

Dos Santos, J. and Duffett, R. 2021. Exploring social media usage as a


communication channel among independent food retailer SMEs in South Africa.
Small business international review, 5(2): 1-18

Doumit, G. 2015. Social entrepreneurship: A force for political stability. Stanford


social innovation review. Available:
https://ssir.org/articles/entry/social_entrepreneurship_a_force_for_political_stabil
ity (Accessed 21 October 2021).

282
Drnevich, P. L. and Kriauciunas, A. P. 2011. Clarifying the conditions and limits of
the contributions of ordinary and dynamic capabilities to relative firm performance.
Strategic management journal, 32(3): 254-279.

Drucker, P. F. 1985. Innovation and Entrepreneurship: Practical and principles.


University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign’s Academy for Entrepreneurial
Leadership Historical Research Reference in Entrepreneurship. Available:
https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1496169 (Accessed 21
August 2021).

Du Plessis, I. 2022. KZN floods: Crisis of national proportions. Available:


https://germistoncitynews.co.za/lnn/1168703/kzn-floods-crisis-of-national-
proportions/ (Accessed 21 April 2022).

Durably, P. 2015. Does corruption affect social and commercial entrepreneurs


differently? A thesis submitted in the Department of Applied Economics. Erasmus
School of Economics, Erasmus University Rotterdam.

Dutta, N., Sobel, R. S. and Roy, S. 2013. Entrepreneurship and political risk.
Journal of entrepreneurship and public policy, 2(2): 130-143.

Dzomonda, O. 2021. Demystifying the challenges faced by social entrepreneurs


in pursuit of their social mission in South Africa. Academy of Entrepreneurship
Journal (AEJ), 27(4): 1-17.

Eldridge, J. 2020. Reliability, Validity and Trustworthiness. Available:


http://samples.jbpub.com/9781284079654/9781284108958_CH12_Pass03.pdf.
(Accessed 1 April 2022).

Elfil, M. and Negida, A. 2017. Sampling methods in clinical research. An


educational review. Emergency, 5(1): 1-3.

283
Elliott, R. M. 2019. Social entrepreneurship as a catalyst to the poverty trap: An
analysis of the motivational factors in South Africa. Acta Commercii. Independent
research journal in the management sciences, 19(2).

Elson, P. R., Hall, P. and Wamucii, P. 2016. Canadian National social enterprise
sector survey report. Available: https://ccednet-rcdec.ca/en/toolbox/canadian-
national-social-enterprise-sector-survey-report (Accessed: 29 September 2021).

Emas, R. 2015. The concept of sustainable development: Definition and defining


principles. Available:
https://sustainabledevelopment.un.org/content/documents/5839GSDR%202015
_SD_concept_definiton_rev.pdf (Accessed 02 August 2020).

Eruemegbe, G. O. 2015. Impact of business environment on organization


performance in Nigeria – A study of Union Bank of Nigeria. European scientific
journal. Special Edition. ISSN 1857-7881: 478 – 494.

Estrin, S., Mickiewicz, T. and Stephan, U. 2013. Entrepreneurship, social capital,


and institution: social and commercial entrepreneurship across nations.
Entrepreneurship: Theory and practice, 37(3): 479-504.

Ethekwini Municipality, 2022. eThekwini Municipality Spatial Development


Framework 2022-2023. Available:
https://parks.durban.gov.za/storage/Documents/DPEM/Documents%20%20Noti
ces/Strategic%20Spatial%20Planning/SDF/SDF%202022%20-
%202023/Report/Final%20SDF%202022-2023%20June%202022.pdf.
(Accessed 11 April 2023)

Etikan, I., Musa, S. A. and Alkassim, R. S. 2016. Comparison of convenience


sampling and purposive sampling. American journal of theoretical and applied
statistics, 5(1): 1-4

284
European Commission, 2014. Proposed approaches to social impact
measurement. Available:
https://ec.europa.eu/social/BlobServlet?docId=13401&langId=en (Accessed 2
June 2021).

European Commission. 2015. Policy brief on social impact measurement for


social enterprises. Available: https://www.oecd.org/social/PB-SIM-
Web_FINAL.pdf. (Accessed 04 July 2022)

European Commission, 2016. Policy brief on scaling the impact of social


enterprises: Policies for social entrepreneurship. Available:
https://www.oecd.org/cfe/leed/Policy-brief-Scaling-up-social-enterprises-EN.pdf
(Accessed 17 December 2020).

European Commission. 2019. Guidance note: Access to finance. Available:


file:///C:/Users/TEMP/Downloads/The%20Better%20Entrepreneurship%20Policy
%20Tool%20-%20Guidance%20note_%20Access%20to%20Finance%20-
%202019-02-27.pdf (Accessed 05 July 2022)

Fairlie, R. 2020. The impact of Covid-19 on small business owners: Evidence from
the first 3 months after widespread social-distancing restrictions. Journal of
Economics & Management Strategy, 1-14

Farrokhi, F. and Mahmoudi-Hamidabad, A. 2012. Rethinking convenience


sampling: Defining quality criteria. Theory and practice in language studies, 2(4):
784-792.

Fatoki, O. 2019. Determinants of social entrepreneurial intention of university


students in South Africa. Journal of Economics and Behaviorial Studies, AMH
International, 10(6)72-80

Ferri, E. 2014. Social entrepreneurship and institutional context: A quantitative


Analysis. Doctoral thesis. Universita Autonoma de Barcelona. Available:

285
https://www.tesisenred.net/bitstream/handle/10803/285392/ef1de1.pdf?sequenc
e=1 (Accessed 17 February 2021).

Ferri, E. and Urbano, D. 2010. Environmental factors and social entrepreneurship.


Working paper at the Department of Business, Autonomous University of
Barcelona. 1003: 1-41.

Fernández-Laviada, A., López-Gutiérrez, C. and Pérez, A. 2020. How does the


development of the social enterprise sector affect entrepreneurial behaviour? An
empirical analysis. Sustainability, 12(3): 826.

Findley, L. and Ogbu, L. 2011. South Africa: From township to town. Places
journal. Available: https://placesjournal.org/article/south-africa-from-township-to-
town/#0 (Accessed 02 November 2021).

Fischer, R. M. and Comini, G. 2012. Sustainable development: From


responsibility to entrepreneurship. R.Adm. São Paulo, 47(3): 363-369.

Fitch Ratings, 2021. South Africa riots show link between political and fiscal risk.
Available: https://www.fitchratings.com/research/sovereigns/south-african-riots-
show-link-between-political-fiscal-risk-15-07-2021 (Accessed 21 October 2021).

Fleming, J. and Zegwaard, K. E 2018. Methodologies, methods and ethical


considerations for conducting research. International journal of Work-Integrated
Learning, Special issue, 19(3): 205-213

Fourie, W. 2018. How South Africa can align its development plans with the
SDGs. Available: https://theconversation.com/how-south-africa-can-align-its-
development-plan-with-the-sdgs-93302 (Accessed 10 August 2021)

Fraser, J. Fahlman, D. W. Arscott, J. and Guillot, I. 2018. Pilot testing for feasibility
in a study of student retention and attrition in online undergraduate programs.
International Review of research in open and distributed learning. 19(1): 260-278

286
Frey, B. 2018. Quantitative research method. The SAGE encyclopedia of
educational research, measurement, and evaluation. Vol. 1-4.

Galloway, A. 2005. Non-probability sampling. Available:


https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/B0123693985003820
(Accessed 26 January 2022).

Galvanauskaite, I. 2014. Exploring Technology’s role in social entrepreneurship.


Available: https://research-
api.cbs.dk/ws/portalfiles/portal/58433993/inga_galvanauskaite.pdf (Accessed
16 February 2021).

Galvin, M. and Bond, P. 2022. Flood-prone Durban ill-equipped to weather the


climate crisis. Available: https://mg.co.za/top-six/2022-04-19-flood-prone-
durban-ill-equipped-to-weather-the-climate-crisis/ (Accessed 21 April 2022).

Ganeshpurkar, A., Pandey, V., Asati, S., Maheshwari, R., Tekade, M. and
Tekade, R. K. 2018. Chapter 8 - Experimental Design and Analysis of Variance.
In Advances in Pharmaceutical Product Development and Research. Dosage
Form Design Parameters. Academic Press. Pages 281-301.

Garcia-Sanchez, E., Garcia-Morales, V. J. and Martin-Rojas, R. 2018. Analysis of


the influence of the environment, stakeholder integration capacity, absorptive
capacity, and technological skills on organizational performance through
corporate entrepreneurship. International Entrepreneurship and Management
Journal, 14(2): 345-377.

Gigauri, I., & Damenia, N., 2020, ’Cooperation between social entrepreneur and
government to develop solution to social problems’, Business and economic
research 10(3), 116-136.

287
Global Entrepreneurship Monitor (GEM). 2016 Special topic report Social
Entrepreneurship. Available: https://www.gemconsortium.org/report/gem-2015-
report-on-social-entrepreneurship (Accessed 20 July 2021).

Global Entrepreneurship Monitor (GEM). 2019. Global report 2019/2020.


Available: https://www.gemconsortium.org/report/gem-2019-2020-global-report
(Accessed 20 December 2020).

Global Entrepreneurship Monitor (GEM). 2022. Global report 2021/2022.


Opportunity amid disruption. Available:
https://gemconsortium.org/file/open?fileId=50900 (Accessed 25 July 2022).

Global Innovative Index (GII). 2021. Tracking innovation through the Covid crisis.
Available: https://www.wipo.int/edocs/pubdocs/en/wipo_pub_gii_2021.pdf
(Accessed 02 November 2021).

Goga, S. 2013. The texture of culture in post-apartheid South Africa. Available:


http://www.hsrc.ac.za/en/review/hsrc-review-november-2013/culture (Accessed
25 October 2021).

Golafshani, N. 2003. Understanding reliability and validity in qualitative research.


The qualitative report, 8(4): 597-607.

Gonul, O. O. and Senyuva, Z. 2020. How social entrepreneurs can create impact
for a better world. Available: https://eiexchange.com/content/how-social-
entrepreneurs-can-create-impact-for-a-better-world (Accessed 3 June 2021).

Gordon Institute of Business Sciences (GIBS). 2015. Why social entrepreneurship


in South Africa. Available: https://www.gibs.co.za/news-events/news/Pages/why-
social-entrepreneurship-in-south-africa.aspx (Accessed 24 August 2021).

Gordon Institute of Business Sciences (GIBS). 2018. Social enterprises in South


Africa. Discovering a vibrant sector. SSESA reports with case studies.

288
Gorji, M. B and Rahimian, P. 2011. The study of barriers to entrepreneurship in
men and women. Australian journal of business and management research,
1(9): 31-36.

Gray, B., Kirkwood, J., Monahan, E. and Eternaddar, M. 2018. Internal factors
influencing effective opportunity identification in a Tongan social enterprise.
Journal of small business & entrepreneurship, 31(4): 323-347.

Gregory, I. 2003. Ethics in research. A&C Black. Available:


https://books.google.co.za/books?hl=en&lr=&id=oOW_eV_apwYC&oi=fnd&pg=
PR9&dq=ethics+in+research&ots=dacN7OWRpJ&sig=V1JTXgIkYnkSNQ-
3jOv0LH_pUUw&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q=ethics%20in%20research&f=false
(Accessed 6 April 2022).

Griffiths, M. D., Gundry, L. K. and Kickul, J. R. 2013. The social-political,


economic, and cultural determinants of social entrepreneurship activity: An
empirical examination. Journal of small business and enterprise development,
20(2): 341-357.

Grover, V. K. 2015. Research approach: An overview. International


multidisciplinary research journal. Golden research thoughts, 4(8): 1-8.

Gunter, B. 2002. The quantitative research process. In Jensen, K. B. A handbook


of media and communication research: Qualitative and quantitative
methodologies. Routledge. Taylor & Francis Group. London and New York. Pp.
209-234.

Hadad, S. and Gauca, O. 2014. Social impact measurement and social


entrepreneurial organizations. Management and marketing. Challenges for the
knowledge society, 9(2): 119-136.

289
Hammed, A. A. 2018. Corruption, political instability and development Nexus in
Africa: A call for sequential policies reforms. (Munich personal RePEc archive)
MPRA paper no. 8527. Available: https://mpra.ub.uni-muenchen.de/85277/.

Hammersley, M. 2008. Assessing validity in social research. The SAGE handbook


of social research methods. pp. 42-53.

Hammersley, P. and Mairs, H. 2004. Sampling methods. Nurse researcher.


12(1): 4-8.

Haradhan, M. 2017. Two criteria for good measurement in research. Validity and
Reliability. Annals of Spiru Haret University. 17(4): 56-82.

Hayes, A. 2021a. Social entrepreneur. Available:


https://www.investopedia.com/terms/s/social-entrepreneur.asp (Accessed 16
September 2021).

Hayes, A. 2021b. Chi-square statistics. Available:


https://www.investopedia.com/terms/c/chi-square-statistic.asp (Accessed 29
March 2022).

Haywood, L. K., Funke, N., Audouin, M., Musvoto, C. and Nahman, A. 2018. The
Sustainable Development Goals in South Africa: investigating the need for multi-
stakeholder partnerships. Available
https://researchspace.csir.co.za/dspace/bitstream/handle/10204/11124/20094_
RS%20The%20sustainable%20development%20goals%20in%20South%20Afri
ca%20Investigating%20the%20need%20for%20multi%20stakeholder%20partne
rships.pdf?sequence=1 (Accessed 10 August 2021).

Hazzi, O. and Maldaon, I. 2015. A pilot study: Vital methodological issues.


Business: Theory and practice, 16(1): 53-62.

290
Heale, R. and Twycross, A. 2015. Validity and reliability in quantitative study. Evid
Based Nurs. 18(3).

Heinecke, A., Kloibhofer, M. and Krzeminska, A. 2014. Leadership in social


enterprise. How to manage yourself and the team. Available:
http://www3.weforum.org/docs/WEF_leadership_in_social_enterprise_2014.pdf
(Accessed 12 February 2021).

Heo, M., Kim, N. and Faith, M. S. 2015. Statistical power as a function of


Cronbach Alpha of instruments questionnaire items. BMC Medical Research
Methodology, 15(86): 1-10

Hojnik, B. B. and Crnogaj, K. 2020. Social impact, innovations and market activity
of social enterprises: Comparison of European countries. Sustainability,12(1915).

Hopp, C. and Stephan, U. 2012. The influence of socio-cultural environments on


the performance of nascent entrepreneurs: community culture, motivation, self-
efficacy and start up success. Entrepreneurship and regional development, 24(9-
10): 917-945.

Hosseini, S. A. and Ziaaldini, M. 2019. Social entrepreneurship and sustainable


development. International journal of business management, 4(1): 52-59.

Howell, D. C. 2011. Chi-Square Test. Analysis of contingency tables. Available:


https://www.uvm.edu/~statdhtx/StatPages/R/Chi-Square-
Folder/Chi%20square%20test%20analysis%20of%20contingency%20tables_Da
vid_Howell%20.pdf (Accessed 29 March 2022).

Hunter, D. 2007. The roles of ethics committees: Implications for membership.


Research ethics review, 3(1): 24-26

291
Ifeoma, A. R. and Ifeanyichukwu, N. 2019. Social Entrepreneurship: A tool for
sustainable development in Nigeria. International Journal of Academic
Accounting, Finance & Management Research (IJAAFMR), 3(10): 12-14.

İlter, B. 2017. The importance of public relations in social entrepreneurship


activities. Available:
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/322539312_The_Importance_of_Publi
c_Relations_in_Social_Entrepreneurship_Activities (Accessed 28 June 2022).

In, J. 2017. Introduction of pilot study. Korean journal of Anaesthesiology. 70(6):


601-605.

Indris, S. and Primiana, I. 2015. Internal and external environment analysis on the
performance of Small and Medium industries (SMES) in Indonesia. International
journal of scientific and technology research, 4(04).

International Labour Organization (ILO), 2013. The potential of non-profit


organizations in the Free State Province to adopt a social enterprise approach.
Available: https://www.ilo.org/wcmsp5/groups/public/---africa/---ro-abidjan/---ilo-
pretoria/documents/publication/wcms_227651.pdf (Accessed 24 August 2020).

International Labour Organization (ILO). 2016. Access to finance for social


entrepreneurs in South Africa. Available:
http://www.oit.org/wcmsp5/groups/public/---africa/---ro-abidjan/---ilo-
pretoria/documents/publication/wcms_474847.pdf (Accessed 05 July 2022).

International Labour Organization (ILO). 2017. Promoting Social


Entrepreneurship and Social Capital: A Practice Guide for Supporting Social
Entrepreneurship and Inclusiveness in Rural Communities. Geneva, Switzerland.
Available: https://www.ilo.org/wcmsp5/groups/public/---africa/---ro-abidjan/---sro-
cairo/documents/publication/wcms_589097.pdf (Accessed 13 April 2022).

292
International Management Institute. 2019. Marketing for social entrepreneurship.
Available: https://empowering-changemakers.eu/marketing-for-social-
entrepreneurship/ (Accessed 04 November 2021).

Investec. 2021. How social enterprises pivoted in the face of Covid-19.


Available: https://www.investec.com/en_gb/focus/business-growth/how-social-
enterprises-pivoted-in-the-face-of-covid-19.html (Accessed 11 January 2022).

IOL. 2022a. Five factors that small businesses face during load shedding.
Available: https://www.iol.co.za/business-report/companies/five-factors-that-
small-businesses-face-during-loadshedding-38983137 (Accessed 20 April 2022).

IOL. 2022b. KZN floods: SA cane grower’s loss R222.9 million in infrastructure,
crop and root damages. Available:
https://www.iol.co.za/dailynews/news/kwazulu-natal/kzn-floods-sa-cane-
growers-lose-r2229-million-in-infrastructure-crop-and-root-damages-c506b676-
ecf8-4d83-bd1f-567bfd432515. (Accessed 21 April 2022).

Ip, C. Y., Zhuge, T., Chang, Y. S., Huang, T. H. and Chen, Y. L. 2022. Exploring
the determinants of nascent social entrepreneurial behaviour. International
Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 19(3556): 1-15

Iskandar, Y. & Kaltum, U. 2022. Entrepreneurial competencies, competitive


advantage, and social enterprise performance: A literature review. International
Conference on Economics, Business and Management (ICEMAC 2021) (pp. 192-
203). Atlantis Press.

Islam, N. 2016. Factors influencing the development of social entrepreneurship in


Bangladesh. SSRN electronic journal, 10(2139).

Ismail, N., Kinchin, G. and Edwards, J. 2018. Pilot study, does it really matter?
Learning lessons from conducting a pilot study for a qualitative PhD thesis.
International journal of social science research, 6(1): 1-17

293
Israel, M. and Hay, I. 2006. Research ethics for social scientists. Available:
https://books.google.co.za/books?hl=en&lr=&id=4Qtuv0CBuKkC&oi=fnd&pg=PP
2&dq=ethics+in+research&ots=U7GyUcvMr2&sig=_4-
F18R7GQ05JJ0ILu8icgO4wfo&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q=ethics%20in%20res
earch&f=false (Accessed 6 April 2022).

Iwueke, O. C. and Nwaiwu, B. N. 2014. Social entrepreneurship and sustainable


development. Journal of poverty, investment, and development – An Open
Access International journal, Vol 5.

Jaén, I. Fernández-Serrano, J. Santos, F. J. and Liñán, F. 2017. Cultural values


and social entrepreneurship: A cross-country efficiency analysis. In: Peris-Ortiz,
Teulon. F. Bonet-Fernandez, D. (eds) Social entrepreneurship in Non-profit and
profit sectors. International studies in entrepreneurship, Vol 36. Springer. Cham.

Jackson, S. T. 2021. Climate change. Encyclopedia Britannica. Available:


https://www.britannica.com/science/climate-change (Accessed 25 April 2022).

Jain, S., Dubey, S. and Jain, S. 2016. Designing and validation of questionnaire.
International dental & medical journal of advanced research, 2(1): 1-3.

Jalloh, I. J., Djatmika, E. T. and Adi Putra, I. W. J. 2017. Political instability and its
effects on international companies; A case study on Sierra Rutile Limited (Sierra
Leone). International Journal of Academics Research in Business and Social
Sciences, 7(6): 379-391

Javani, A., Abolhallaje, M., Jafari, J., & Fazl Hashemi, S. 2017. Essential
managerial skills for financial and budgetary management in medical universities:
Top management managers’ perspective. Medical journal of the Islamic republic
of Iran, 31(90): 1-5.

294
Jenn, N. C. 2006. Designing a questionnaire. Malaysian family physician, 1(1):
32-35

Jiatong, W., Li, C., Murad, M., Shahzad, F. and Ashraf, S. F. 2021. Impact of
social entrepreneurial factors on sustainable enterprise development: Mediating
role of social network and moderating effect of government regulations. SAGE
Online publication, 11(3): 1-15.

Jilenga, M. T. 2017. Social enterprise and economic growth: A theoretical


approach and policy recommendations. International journal of academic
research in accounting, finance and management sciences, 7(1): 41.49.

Johnston, K. 2019. The effects of interest rate on business. Available:


https://smallbusiness.chron.com/effect-interest-rates-business-69947.html
(Accessed 08 July 2022).

Jongbo, O. C. 2014. The role of research design in a purpose driven inquiry.


Review of Public Administration and Management, 3(6): 87-94.

Juneja, P. 2015. The role of technology in social entrepreneurship. Available:


https://www.managementstudyguide.com/role-of-technology-in-social-
entrepreneurship.htm (Accessed 04 February 2021).

Kabir, S. M. S. 2016. Introduction to research. In book: Basic guidelines for


research: An introductory approach for all disciplines (pp. 1-22). Chapter 1:
Publisher: Book Zone Publication, Chittagong-4203, Bangladesh.

Kah, S. 2019. The contributions of social enterprise sector to the UK economy.


European journal of business and management, 11(20): 15-25.

Kaiser, K. 2009. Protecting respondent confidentiality in qualitative research.


Qualitative health research, 19(11): 1632-1641

295
Kajiita, R. M. and Kang’ethe, S. M. 2020. The prospects of social entrepreneurship
in South Africa: Lessons for social development practitioners. Journal of human
ecology, 69(1-3): 95-106.

Kaliyanda, F. and Kulkarni, V. 2019. Types of variables, Descriptive statistics, and


Sample size. Indian dermatology online journal, 10(1): 82-86.

Kamga, G. E. K. 2018. Insights into qualitative and quantitative research


method. Available: https://www.justgender.org/insights-into-qualitative-and-
quantitative-research-methods/ (Accessed 08 December 2021).

Kammer, A., Azour, J., Selassie, A. A., Goldfajn, I. and Rhee, C. 2022. How war
in Ukraine is reverberating across world regions. Available:
https://blogs.imf.org/2022/03/15/how-war-in-ukraine-is-reverberating-across-
worlds-
regions/#:~:text=The%20conflict%20is%20a%20major,slower%20growth%20an
d%20faster%20inflation (Accessed 19 April 2022).

Kang, A. and Seidl, L. 2021. The pandemic is not over for social enterprises:
Here’s how impact investors and other funders can help them survive Covid-19.
Available: https://nextbillion.net/pandemic-social-enterprises-impact-investors-
survive-covid19/ (Accessed 11 January 2022).

Karanda, C. and Toledano, N. 2012. Social entrepreneurship in South Africa: A


different narrative for a different context. Social enterprise journal, 8(3): 201-215.

Karaoulanis, I. 2022. Impact of climate change in small business. International


journal of entrepreneurship, 26(3): 1-9.

Kassa, E. T. 2021. Socioeconomic determinants of micro and small enterprise in


North Wollo and Waghimira Zone selected towns. Journal of innovation and
entrepreneurship, 10(28).

296
Kaur, P., Stoltzfus, J. and Yellapu, V. 2018. Descriptive statistics. International
journal of academic medicine, 4(1): 60-63

Kazi, A. M. and Khalid, W. 2012. Questionnaire designing and validation. Journal


of Pakistan Medical Association. 62(5): 514-516

Kazmi, S. S. A., Hashim, M., Kee, D. M. H. and Khan, F. U. 2016. Social


entrepreneurship and its impact on economy: In perspective of Pakistan.
International Journal of Academic Research in Accounting, Finance and
Management Sciences, 6(4): 161-166.

Ker, L. 2014. The concept of social enterprise: An analysis of the current tax
environment and proposed enabling tax incentives to aid the social enterprise.
MCom Taxation Dissertation. Faculty of Commerce. University of Cape Town.

Kerlin, J. A. and Dowsett, O. 2021. Building an equitable post-Covid world:


Social enterprise lesson from Africa. Available:
https://nonprofitquarterly.org/building-an-equitable-post-covid-world-social-
enterprise-lessons-from-africa/ (Accessed 18 January 2022).

Khambule, I. 2020. The effects of COVID-19 on the South African informal


economy: Limits and pitfalls of government response. Loyola Journal of Social
Sciences, 34(1): 95-109.

Khaustova, Y., Breus, S., Nevmerzhytska, S., Tsalko, T. and Kharchenko, T.


2019. Features of social entrepreneurship as a factor in development of social
innovation. Journal of entrepreneurship education, 22(1).

Killian, S. and O’Regan, P. 2018. Taxation and social enterprise: Constraint or


incentive for the common good. Journal of Social Entrepreneurship.10(5): 1-18

297
Kilpatrick, J. 2022. Supply chain implications of the Russia-Ukraine conflict.
Available: https://www2.deloitte.com/za/en/insights/focus/supply-chain/supply-
chain-war-russia-ukraine.html (Accessed 19 April 2022).

Kothari, C. R. 2004. Research methodology. Methods and techniques. New Age


International (P) Limited Publishers.

Kraja, Y. B. and Osmani, E. 2015. Importance of external and internal


environment in creation of competitive advantage to SMEs. Case of SMEs in the
northern region of Albania. European scientific journal, 11(13).

Krajnović, A. 2018. Institutional theory and isomorphism: limitation in multinational


companies. Journal of Corporate Governance, Insurance, and Risk Management
(JCGIRM), 5(1): 1-7.

Kro, L. 2018. The influence of socio-cultural characteristics on the emergence of


entrepreneurship: A conceptual approach study. Commerce, 7(2): 39-43.

Laher, A. E., Van Aardt, B. J., Craythorne, A. D., Van Welie, M., Malinga, D. M.
and Madi, S. 2019. Getting out of the dark: Implications of load shedding on health
care in South Africa and strategies to enhance preparedness. South Africa
medical journal, 109(12): 899-901.

Lakshmi, S. and Mohideen, M. A. 2013. Issues in reliability and validity of


research. International journal of management research and review, 3(4): 2752-
2758.

LaMarco, N., 2018. The socioeconomic factors affecting small businesses.


Available: https://smallbusiness.chron.com/socioeconomic-factors-affecting-
small-businesses-73234.html (Accessed 02 February 2021).

Lammers, J. C. and Garcia, M. A. 2017. Institutional theory approaches. In book:


The International Encyclopedia of organizational communication. Available:

298
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/314712184_Institutional_Theory_Appr
oaches (Accessed 7 September 2021).

Lamsal, L. 2012. The structuration approach of Anthony Giddens. Himalayan


Journal of Sociology and Anthropology, 5: 111-122.

Lancu, A., Popescu, L. and Popescu, V. 2021. Factors influencing social


entrepreneurship intentions in Romania. Economic research, 34(1).

Larson, M. G. 2006. Descriptive statistics and graphical display. Circulation,


114(1): 76-81

Lavisius, T. 2016. Social enterprises: Does the legal form matter? Social
transformations in contemporary society, 4: 132-141.

Lekhanya, L. M. 2017. Determinants of survival and growth of small and medium


enterprises in rural KwaZulu-Natal. Thesis submitted at the Faculty of Economics
and Management Sciences. University of the Western Cape.

Le´vesque, M. and Minniti, M. 2006. The effect of aging on entrepreneurial


behavior. Journal of business venturing, 21: 177-194.

Levine, T. R. 2016. Confirmatory Factor Analysis. The International Encyclopedia


of Interpersonal Communication, (online). Available: http:
//www.googlescholar.com (Accessed 9 October 2021).

Lewis, J. D. 2001. Policies to Promote Growth and Employment in South Africa.


Informal Discussion Papers on Aspects of the Economy of South Africa.

Liedtke, S. 2021. Load shedding a risk to South Africa’s economic recovery.


Available: https://www.engineeringnews.co.za/article/parsons-highlights-risk-of-
load-shedding-to-south-africas-economic-recovery-2021-11-09 (Accessed 20
April 2022).

299
Lin-Hi, N., Kempen, R., Petrushevska, M. and Hattrup. K. 2020. The new
competitive environment of social enterprises: An experimental study on
perceptions and customer intentions for social and traditional enterprises.
International journal of entrepreneurial venturing, 12(1): 58-84.

Litabingwa, J. and Auriacombe, C. J. 2007. Data analysis in qualitative research.


Journal of public administration. 42(6).

Littlewood, D. and Holt, D. 2018. Social entrepreneurship in South Africa:


Exploring the influence of environment. Business and Society, 57(3): 525-561.

Loarne, S. L., Maalaoui, A. and Dana, L. P. 2017. Social entrepreneurship, age


and gender: toward a model of social involvement in entrepreneurship.
International journal of entrepreneurship and small business, 31(3): 363-381

LoBiondo-Wood, G. and Haber, J. 2014. Reliability and validity. Nursing research.


Methods and critical appraisal for evidence-based practice. Pp. 289-309.

Lubberink, R. 2019. Social entrepreneurship and sustainable development. In


book: Decent work and economic growth (pp. 1-11). Edition: Encyclopaedia of the
United Nations Sustainable development goals. Publisher Springer Nature
Switzerland.

Lyon, F. and Baldok, R. 2014. Financing social ventures and the demand for
social investment. Third Sector Research Centre. Working paper 124.

Maas, J. 2013. Transitions to social entrepreneurship: Stimulating social


entrepreneurial behavior in adverse environments. PhD Thesis. Vrije Universiteit
Amsterdam. Uitgeverij BoxPress.

Maas, K. and Liket, K. 2011. Social impact measurement: Classification of


methods. In book: Environmental management accounting and supply chain
management (pp.171-202).

300
Mabuza, E. 2021. SA remains pegged below 50 points in Corruption Perception
Index. Available: https://www.timeslive.co.za/news/south-africa/2021-01-28-sa-
remains-pegged-below-50-points-in-corruption-perception-index/ (Accessed 22
October 2021).

Madriz, C., Leiva, J. C. and Henn, R. 2018. Human and social capital as drivers
of entrepreneurship. Small business international review, 2(1): 29-42.

Mafukata, M. A., Dhlandhlara, W. and Kancheya, G. 2015. Socio-demographic


factors affecting social capital development, continuity and sustainability among
microfinance adopting households in Nyanga, Zimbabwe. Journal of social
entrepreneurship, 6(1): 70-79

Mahadea, D. 2008. The environmental context for SMME entrepreneurship in


Kwazulu-Natal. Available:
http://www.africres.org/SMME%20Research/SMME%20Research%20General/R
eports/SMME%20entrepreneurship%20in%20Kwazulu-Natal.pdf (Accessed 25
January 2021).

Mahlaka, R. 2022. Devastating KZN floods deal a new blow to recovering


economy and businesses. Available:
https://www.dailymaverick.co.za/article/2022-04-12-devastating-kzn-floods-deal-
a-new-blow-to-recovering-economy-and-businesses/. (Accessed 21 April 2022)

Mahlakoana, T. 2022. Godongwana: SA economy could be spared from effects


of Russia-Ukraine conflict. Available: https://ewn.co.za/2022/02/24/godongwana-
sa-economy-could-be-spared-from-effects-of-russia-ukraine-conflict. (Accessed
19 April 2022).

Mahofa, G., Sundaram, A. and Edwards, L. 2016. Impact of crime on firm entry:
Evidence from South Africa. Available:

301
https://www.econrsa.org/system/files/publications/working_papers/working_pape
r_652.pdf (Accessed 08 July 2022).

Mair, J. and Marti, I. 2006. Social Entrepreneurship Research: A Source of


Explanation, Prediction, and Delight. Journal on World Business, 41(1): 36-44.

Mair, J. and Marti, I. 2009. Entrepreneurship in and around institutional voids: A


case study from Bangladesh. Journal of business venturing, 24(5): 419-435.

Maji, A. and Itodo, D. A. 2016. Exploring the potentials of social enterprises for
poverty alleviation in Nigeria and Cameroon in the 21 st century. European Journal
of business and management, 8(28): 10-14.

Malmqvist, J., Hellberg, K., Mollas, G., Rose, R. and Shevlin, M. 2019. Conducting
the pilot study: A Neglected part of the research process? Methodological findings
supporting the importance of piloting in qualitative research studies. International
journal of qualitative methods, 18: 1-11.

Mannion, L. 2017. Achieving gender equality through social enterprise. Available:


https://www.pioneerspost.com/news-views/20170607/achieving-gender-equality-
through-social-enterprise (Accessed 31 May 2021).

Manyaka-Boshielo, S. J. 2017. Social entrepreneurship as a way of developing


sustainable township economies. HTS theoretical studies, 73(4): 1-10

Maphalla, S. T., Nieuwenhuizen, C., and Roberts, R. 2009. Perceived barriers


experienced by township small, micro and medium enterprise entrepreneurs in
Mamelodi. Business management Thesis. University of Johannesburg.

Maretich, M. 2019. How corruption kills the promise of social enterprise – and
drives extremist violence. Available: http://maximpactblog.com/how-corruption-
kills-the-promise-of-social-enterprise-and-drives-extremist-violence/ (Accessed
22 October 2021).

302
Marin, A. 2017. Value creation through sense making: social entrepreneurship for
local sustainable development. Projectics / Proyéctica / Projectique, 3(18): 89-
106.

Marín, L. Nicolas, C. and Rubio, A. 2019. How gender, age and education
influence the entrepreneurs’ social orientation: The moderating effect of economic
development. Sustainability, 11(17): 4514.

Mark, J. and Putzschel, J. 2014. The influence of contextual factors on


entrepreneurial process. A multiple-case study of sustainability-oriented and
commercial entrepreneurship in Central America. Available: https://www.diva-
portal.org/smash/get/diva2:733501/FULLTEXT01.pdf (Accessed 22 February
2021).

Martin, R. L. and Osberg, S. 2007. Social entrepreneurship: the case for


definition. Stanford social innovation review, 5(8): 28-39

Martinez-Mesa, J. Gonzalez-Chica, D. A. Duquia, R. P. Bonamigo, R. R. and


Bastos, J. L. 2016. Sampling: how to select participants in my research study? An
Bras Dermatol, 91(3): 326-330.

Masovic, A. 2018. Socio-cultural factors and their impact on the performance of


multinational companies. Ecoforum Journal, 7(14): 1-6.

Mathers, N., Fox, N. and Hunn, A. 2009. Surveys and questionnaires. The NIHR
RDS for the East Midlands/Yorkshire & the Humber. Available: https://www.rds-
yh.nihr.ac.uk/wp-
content/uploads/2013/05/12_Surveys_and_Questionnaires_Revision_2009.pdf
(Accessed 16 March 2022).

Mathew, P. M. 2008. Social enterprises in the competitive era. Economic and


political weekly, 43(38): 22-24.

303
Matsimela, R. 2017. Social capital and the process of social innovation: A case
study of technology-based social enterprises in South Africa. A Research report
submitted to the faculty of commerce, law and management, University of
Witwatersrand.

Mavuso, B. 2022. KZN floods: Key lessons. Available:


https://www.moneyweb.co.za/moneyweb-opinion/kzn-floods-key-lessons/
(Accessed 21 April 2022).

Maxwell, J. A. 2012. Qualitative research approach: An interactive approach.


Available:
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/43220402_Qualitative_Research_Desi
gn_An_Interactive_Approach_JA_Maxwell (Accessed 1 December 2021).

Maziku, P., Majenga, A. and Mashenene, G. R. 2014. The effects of socio-cultural


factors on the performance of women small and medium enterprises in Tanzania.
Journal of economics and sustainable development, 5(21): 51-62.

Mbaile, D. 2020. Small businesses are critical to SA’s economy post covid-19.
Available: https://www.bizcommunity.com/Article/196/841/204299.html
(Accessed 21 June 2022).

Mbhele, B. and Molapo, M. 2022. KZN road repair bill estimated to cost R5.6
billion, Says Zikalala. Available: https://ewn.co.za/2022/04/18/kzn-road-repair-
bill-estimated-to-cost-r5-6-billion-says-zikalala (Accessed 21 April 2022).

Mbomvu, L. Hlongwane, I. T. Nxazonke, N. P. Qayi, Z. and Bruwer, J. P. 2021.


Load shedding and its influence on South Africa Small, Medium and Micro
Enterprise profitability, liquidity, efficiency and solvency. Available:
https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3831513 (Accessed 20
April 2022).

304
Mbunge, E. 2020. Effects of Covid-19 in South African Health system and
society: An explanatory study. Diabetics & metabolic syndrome: Clinical
research & reviews, 14(6): 1809-1814.

McCombes, S. 2019. Sampling methods: types and techniques explained.


Available: https://www.scribbr.com/methodology/sampling-
methods/#:~:text=In%20non%2Dprobability%20sampling%2C%20the,snowball
%20sampling%2C%20and%20quota%20sampling (Accessed 26 January 2022).

McKague, K. and Harrison, S. 2019. Gender and health social enterprises in


Africa: A research agenda. International journal of equity in health, 18(95): 1-10.

McKinsey and Company. 2021. New Allies: How governments can unlock the
potential of social entrepreneurs for the common good. Available:
https://catalyst2030.net/wp-content/uploads/2021_New-Allies_How-
governments-can-unlock-the-potential-of-social-entrepreneurs-for-the-common-
good_vpublish.pdf (Accessed 6 October 2021).

Mefi, N. P. and Asoba, S. N. 2020. Social entrepreneurship and the sustainability


of small businesses at a South African township. Academy of entrepreneurship
journal, 26(4): 1-11.

Mendez-Picazo, M. T., Galindo-Martin, M. A. and Castano-Martinez, M. S. 2021.


Effects of sociocultural and economic factors on social entrepreneurship and
sustainable development. Journal of innovation and knowledge, 6(2): 69-77.

Mensah, J. 2019. Sustainable development: Meaning, history, principles, pillars


and implications for human action: Literature review. Cogent social sciences, 5(1):
1-21.

Methvin, T. 2019. Why aren’t more social enterprises measuring impact? A new
study in South Africa raises questions for the global sector. Available:

305
https://nextbillion.net/social-enterprises-measuring-impact-south-africa/
(Accessed 16 August 2021).

Meyer, K. E., Witteloostuijn, A. V. and Beugelsdijk, S. 2017. What’s in a p?


Reassessing best practices for conducting and reporting hypothesis-testing
research. Journal of international business studies, 48: 535-551

Middleton, F. 2019. Reliability vs Validity in research: Differences, types and


examples. Available: https://www.scribbr.com/methodology/reliability-vs-validity/
(Accessed 5 April 2022).

Mihda, A. 2017. Why technology matters to social enterprises. Available:


https://www.delltechnologies.com/en-us/blog/why-technology-matters-social-
enterprises/ (Accessed 04 February 2021).

Mills, G. 1989. Space and power in South Africa: The Township as a mechanism
of control. Ekistics, 56(334/335): 65-74.

Millson, R. 2018. How can corporates support social enterprises in South Africa?
Available: https://www.bizcommunity.com/Article/196/356/184244.html
(Accessed 6 October 2021).

Millson, R. 2021. The ‘new normal’: Lessons from social enterprise. Available:
https://socialenterprise.academy/za/the-new-normal-lessons-from-social-
enterprise (Accessed 14 January 2022).

Mishra, P., Pandey, C. M., Singh, U., Gupta, A., Sahu, C. and Keshri, A. 2019.
Descriptive statistics and normality test for statistical data. Annals of Cardiac
Anesthesia, 22(1): 67-72

Mitchel, D. T. 2009. Introduction: internal and external factors affecting the


perception of entrepreneurial opportunities. Available:
https://addletonacademicpublishers.com/search-in-aje/2509-introduction-

306
internal-and-external-factors-affecting-the-perception-of-entrepreneurial-
opportunities (Accessed 25 January 2021).

Mitra, C. S. and Borza, A. 2011. Social entrepreneurship and Social responsibility:


Comparative study. Management & Marketing. Economic Publishing House, 6(2).

Mkansi, M. 2021. E-business adoption costs and strategies for retail micro
businesses. Available: https://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1007/s10660-020-
09448-7.pdf (Accessed 25 April 2022).

Mkhabela, M. 2020. SA economic recovery is more dependent on political


stability. Available: https://www.iol.co.za/business-report/opinion/sa-economic-
recovery-is-more-dependent-on-political-stability-f097d0c3-732d-48c5-8885-
6080ea3182b2 (Accessed 21 October 2021).

Mkhabela, O. 2022. Covid-19 and load shedding continue to cripple the local
economy. Available: https://bedfordviewedenvalenews.co.za/489841/covid-19-
and-load-shedding-continues-to-cripple-the-local-economy/ (Accessed 20 April
2022).

Mngadi, T. 2013. The role of integrated development training in the integration


and transformation of former apartheid townships in South Africa. A case study
Inanda, Ntuzuma and KwaMashu (INK), eThekwini Municipality. Submitted in
partial fulfilment of the requirements for the degree of masters in Town and
Regional planning degree, University of KwaZulu-Natal, South Africa.

Moffat, C. 2022. Ukraine crisis is also an opportunity for Africa. Available:


https://mg.co.za/opinion/2022-03-10-ukraine-crisis-is-also-an-opportunity-for-
africa/ (Accessed 19 April 2022).

307
Mohamed, M. M., Sulaiman, N, L., Sern, L. C. and Salleh, K. M. 2015. Measuring
the validity and reliability of research instruments. Procedia – Social and
Behavioral Sciences, 204: 164-171

Mohapeloa, T. and Urban, B. 2014. From policy to application: The South African
social entrepreneur. Available:
https://www.academia.edu/7923790/From_Policy_to_Application_The_South_Af
rican_Social_Entrepreneur (Accessed: 21 September 2021).

Moloi-Motsepe, P. 2021. Africa’s growth can benefit from social entrepreneurship.


Available: https://www.businesslive.co.za/bd/opinion/2021-02-02-africas-growth-
can-benefit-from-social-entrepreneurship/ (Accessed 21 October 2021).

Moriggi, A. 2020. Exploring enabling resources for place-based social


entrepreneurship: A participatory study of green care practices in Finland.
Sustainability science, 15(437-453).

Montmasson-Clair, G. 2017. Governance for South Africa’s sustainability


transition: A critical review. Available
https://www.greeneconomycoalition.org/assets/reports/External-
Reports/Montmasson-Clair-2017-Governance-of-SAs-sustainability-transition-
final.pdf (Accessed 25 May 2021).

Moorty, R. and Annamalah, S. 2014. Consumers’ perception towards motivational


intentions of social entrepreneurs in Malaysia. Review of Integrative Business &
Economic Research, 3(1): 257-268

Morgan, G. B. and Hodge, K. J. 2015. A primer on research validity for conducting


quantitative studies of the model minority stereotype. In Hartlep, N. D. & Porfilio,
B. J. Killing the model minority stereotype: Asian American counter stories and
complicity. Information Age Publishing, Inc. Charlotte. NC. Pp. 293-309.

308
Mortensen, J. H. 2021. Exploring the role of technology in innovative social
business models. Masters of Science Thesis. KTH Royal Institute of Technology.
School of Industrial Engineering and Management. Stockholm.

Moses, L. C. and Olokundun, M. A. 2014. Social Entrepreneurship: An Effective


Tool for Meeting Social Challenges and Sustainable Development.
Entrepreneurship and innovation Management Journal, 2(3): 158-169.

Moss, M. S. 2012. South Africa’s embrace of the social economy. Degree of


Masters of Arts (Developmental studies). Faculty of Humanities, School of Social
Sciences, University of Witwatersrand.

Mputing, A. 2022. National Assembly debates impact of Russia-Ukraine war on


South Africa economy. Available: https://www.parliament.gov.za/news/national-
assembly-debates-impact-russia-ukraine-war-south-african-economy (Accessed
19 April 2022).

Msomi, T. S. and Olarewaju. O. M. 2021. Factors affecting small and medium


enterprises financial sustainability in South Africa. African Journal of
Inter/Multidisciplinary Studies, 3: 103-117

Mthembu, A. and Barnard, B. 2019. Social entrepreneurship: Objective,


innovation, implementation and impact on entrepreneurship. Available:
https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3343448 (Accessed 12
February 2021).

Mustapha, R., Zapata, V. and Jung-Kim, J. 2008. Promoting human capital


through social entrepreneurship: A comparative study of Indonesia and China.
Jurnal Pendidikan, 33: 61-79.

Mwai, P. 2022. Durban floods: Is it a consequence of climate change? Available:


https://www.bbc.com/news/61107685 (Accessed 21 April 2022).

309
Myres, K. 2020. Impact entrepreneurs are poised to boost SA’s employment rate,
economy. Available: https://www.news24.com/citypress/voices/impact-
entrepreneurs-are-poised-to-boost-sas-employment-rate-economy-20200305
(Accessed 20 September 2021).

Mzekandaba, S. 2021. South Africa climbs global broadband speed rankings.


Available: https://www.itweb.co.za/content/LPp6VMrD5pNvDKQz (Accessed 26
April 2022).

Naderifar, M., Goli, H. and Ghaljaie, F. 2017. Snowball sampling: A purposeful


method of sampling in qualitative research. Strides in development of medical
education, 14(3): 1-6.

Naidoo, D. 2022. KwaZulu-Natal floods sounds the alarm on climate adaptation.


Available: https://issafrica.org/iss-today/kwazulu-natal-floods-sound-the-alarm-
on-climate-adaptation (Accessed 21 April 2022).

Naidoo, R. and Fisher, B. 2020. Reset sustainable development goals for a


pandemic world. Nature, 583(7815): 198-201.

Naidoo-McCarthy, H. 2022. What Price are we paying for the Russia-Ukraine


conflict? Available: https://www.allangray.co.za/latest-insights/esg/what-price-
are-we-paying-for-the-russia-ukraine-conflict/ (Accessed 19 April 2022).

Nassaji, H. 2015. Qualitative and descriptive research: Data type versus data
analysis. Language teaching research, 19(2): 129-132.

Ncube, M. S. and Chimucheka, K. 2019. The effects of managerial competencies


on the performance of small and medium enterprises in Makana Municipality,
South Africa. African Journal of Hospitality, Tourism and Leisure, 8(5): 1-15.

Ndou, V. 2021. Social entrepreneurship education: A combination of knowledge


exploitation and exploration processes. Administrative Sciences, 11(112): 1-16

310
Nemoto, T. and Beglar, D. 2014. Developing Likert-scale questionnaires.
Available: https://jalt-publications.org/sites/default/files/pdf-
article/jalt2013_001.pdf (Accessed 22 March 2022).

Nenty, H. J. 2009. Writing a quantitative research thesis. Available:


http://168.167.8.130/bitstream/handle/10311/708/Nenty_IJES_2009.pdf?sequen
ce=1&isAllowed=y (Accessed 09 December 2021).

Nezurugo, M. P., Demoulin, L. L. and Pawar, A. 2020. Social entrepreneurs and


Covid-19: Stories from the frontline. Available:
https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2020/09/social-entrepreneurs-and-covid-19-
stories-from-the-frontline/ (Accessed 14 January 2022).

Nga, J. K. H. and Shamuganathan, G. 2010. The personality traits and


demographic factors on social entrepreneurial start up intentions. Journal of
business ethics, 95(2): 259-282.

Ngatse-Ipangui, R. and Dassah, M. O. 2019. Impact of social entrepreneurs on


community development in the Cape Town Metropolitan Municipality area, South
Africa. The journal for transdisciplinary research for South Africa, 15(1): 1-10.

Nicolaescu, V. 2011. Social enterprises in the contemporary socioeconomic


context. Journal of social economy, 1: 95-115.

Nickolas, S. 2021. What do correlation coefficients positive, negative, and zero


mean? Available: https://www.investopedia.com/ask/answers/032515/what-
does-it-mean-if-correlation-coefficient-positive-negative-or-zero.asp (Accessed
29 March 2022).

Nicolas, C. and Rubio, A. 2016. Social enterprise: Gender gap and economic
development. European journal of management and business economics, 25(2):
56-62.

311
Niño, A. C. S. 2015. Social entrepreneurship and Corporate Social Responsibility:
Differences and points in common. Journal of business and economic policy, 2(2).

North, D. C. 1990. Institutions, institutional change and economic performance.


Cambridge University Press, New York.

Noy, C. 2008. Sampling knowledge: the hermeneutics of snowball sampling in


qualitative research. International journal of social research methodology, 11(4):
327-344.

Oberoi, R., Halsall, J. P. and Snowden, M. 2021. Reinventing social


entrepreneurship leadership in the Covid-19 era: engaging with the new normal.
Entrepreneurship Education. Available:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8260323/pdf/41959_2021_Article
_51.pdf (Accessed 11 January 2022).

Ofusori, A. 2020. Implication of corruption on economic growth in South Africa.


Available: https://ddp.org.za/blog/2020/10/06/implication-of-corruption-on-
economic-growth-in-south-africa/ (Accessed 07 July 2022).
Oji, O. N. E., Iwu, C. G. and Haydam, N. 2017. The use of social media marketing
strategies by SMMEs in the hospitality sector in Cape Metropole, South Africa,
6(1): 1-16.

Okuwhere, M. P. and Tafamel, A. E. 2022. Coronavirus (Covid-19) and


entrepreneurship in Africa: Challenges and opportunities for Small and Medium
Enterprise Innovation. In Eniola, A.A. (Ed.) Entrepreneurship and Post-pandemic
future, Emerald Publishing Limited, Bingley. Pp 7-21.

Olutuyi, O. 2016. Developing the Social Sector in Nigeria. Available:


https://www.financialnigeria.com/developing-the-social-sector-in-nigeria-
sustainable-513.html (Accessed 20 December 2019).

312
Omarjee, L. 2022. KZN floods: Climate scientists explain how working with nature
can prevent future disaster. Available:
https://www.news24.com/fin24/companies/kzn-floods-climate-scientists-explain-
how-working-with-nature-can-prevent-future-disasters-20220417 (Accessed 21
April 2022).

Omorede, A. 2014. Exploration of motivational drivers towards social


entrepreneurship. Social enterprise Journal, 10(3): 239-267

Onchiri, S. 2013. Conceptual model on application of Chi-square test in education


and social sciences. Educational research and reviews, 8(15): 1231-1241.

Onodugo, V. and Onodugo, C. I. 2015. Impact of social-cultural factors on


entrepreneurial development in Nigeria. African educational research journal,
3(4): 246- 254.

Onyshchenko, O. and Shyshkin, V. 2019. A study of the socio-demographic


portrait of a social entrepreneur as a representative of modern management.
Dynamics of global village, 2.

Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD). 2015. Policy


brief on social impact measurement for social enterprise. Available:
https://www.oecd.org/social/PB-SIM-Web_FINAL.pdf (Accessed 1 June 2021).

Organization for Economic Co-operation development (OECD). 2020. Social


economy and the Covid-19 crisis: Current and future roles. Available:
https://www.oecd.org/coronavirus/policy-responses/social-economy-and-the-
covid-19-crisis-current-and-future-roles-f904b89f/ (Accessed 18 January 2022).

Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), 2021. Social


impact measurement for the social and solidarity economy. Available:
https://www.oecd-
ilibrary.org/docserver/d20a57acen.pdf?expires=1652957005&id=id&accname=g

313
uest&checksum=48FAC4E196E2FFFCE5A9755535810842 (Accessed 19 May
2022).

Ormiston, J. and Seymour, R. 2011. Understanding value creation in social


entrepreneurship: The importance of aligning mission, strategy and impact
measurement. Journal of social entrepreneurship, 2(2): 125-150.

Pacut, A. 2020. Drivers toward social entrepreneurs’ engagement in Poland: An


institutional approach. Administrative Sciences. MDPI, 10(1): 1-24

Pangriya, R. 2019. Hidden aspects of social entrepreneur’s life: A content


analysis. Journal of global entrepreneurship research, 66.

Park, Y., Konge, L. and Artino, A. R. 2020. The positivism paradigm of research.
Academic Medicine: Journal of the Association of American Medical Colleges.
95(5): 690-694

Parker, C., Scott, S and Geddes, A. 2019. Snowball sampling. Available:


https://eprints.glos.ac.uk/6781/1/6781%20Parker%20and%20Scott%20(2019)%
20Snowball%20Sampling_Pe (Accessed 1 March 2022).

Patel, N. 2016. The 8 technical skills modern entrepreneurs should pick up.
Available: https://www.forbes.com/sites/neilpatel/2016/04/04/the-8-technical-
skills-of-modern-entrepreneurs-should-pick-up/?sh=39aac7785dc4 (Accessed
15 February 2021).

Patel, M. and Patel, N. 2019. Exploring research methodology: Review article.


International journal of research and review, 6(3): 48-55

Peinelt, S. 2017. Exploring future social entrepreneurship education in Kenya. An


empirical approach towards addressing perceptions and educational needs of
contemporary social entrepreneurs in relation to Kenyan business setting.

314
Master’s thesis. Available: https://www.grin.com/document/378556 (Accessed 13
May 2021).

Peredo, A. M. and Mclean, M. 2006. Social entrepreneurship: A critical review of


the concept. Journal of World business, 41(1): 56-65.

Petrus, B. 2019. Environmental dynamism: The implications for operational and


dynamic capabilities effects. Management Sciences, 24(1): 28-36.

Phellas, C. N., Bloch, A. and Seale, C. 2011. Structured methods: Interviews,


questionnaires and observations. Available: http://courseware.cutm.ac.in/wp-
content/uploads/2020/06/interview.pdf (Accessed 16 March 2022).

Pines, A. M., Lerner, M. and Schwartz, D. 2012. Gender difference among social
vs. business entrepreneurs. Available:
https://www.intechopen.com/books/entrepreneurship-gender-geographies-and-
social-context/gender-differences-among-social-vs-business-entrepreneurs
(Accessed 25 May 2021).

Pittaway, E., Bartolomei, L. and Hugman, R. 2010. ‘Stop stealing our stories’; the
ethics of research with vulnerable groups. Journal of human rights practice, 2(2):
229-251.

Poon, D. 2011. The emergence and development of the social enterprise sector.
Social Impact Research Experience (SIRE). University of Pennsylvania.

Popov, E. V., Veretennikova, A. Y. and Kozinskaya, K. M. 2018. Formal


institutional influence on social entrepreneurship in developed countries.
Montenegrin journal of economics, Economic Laboratory for Transition Research
(ELIT), 14(4): 45-56.

Pounder, P. A. 2021. Social entrepreneurship and cultural contextualization. A


review. International journal of developmental issues, 20(3): 344-357.

315
Prasetyo, P.E., Setyadharma, A. & Kistanti, N.R., 2021, ‘The collaboration of
social entrepreneurship and institution for sustainable regional development
security’. Open journal of business and management 9(5), 2566-2590.

Price, P. C., Jhangiani, R. and Chiang, I. C. A. 2015a. Research methods in


psychology. 2nd Canadian ed. Available:
https://opentextbc.ca/researchmethods/chapter/constructing-survey-
questionnaires/ (Accessed 16 March 2022).

Price, P. C., Jhangiani, R. S. and Chiang, I. C. A. 2015b. Reliability and validity of


measurement. Research methods in psychology. Available:
https://ecampusontario.pressbooks.pub/researchmethods/chapter/reliability-and-
validity-of-measurement/ (Accessed 30 March 2022).

Punia, K. 2013. Marketing for social enterprises: A necessity or a choice?


Available: https://yourstory.com/2013/10/marketing-social-enterprises/amp
(Accessed 04 November 2021).

PWC. 2018. How economic crime is impacting business in South Africa. Available:
https://www.entrepreneur.com/article/330407 (Accessed 26 October 2021).

PWC. 2022. South Africa economic outlook: Responding to higher inflation and
interest rates. Available: https://www.pwc.co.za/en/assets/pdf/economic-
outlook/economic-outlook-responding-to-higher-inflation-rising-interest-rates.pdf
(Accessed 08 July 2022).

Quad, A. D. J. P. 2016. Research tool: Interviews & Questionnaires. Available:


https://lled500.trubox.ca/2016/225 (Accessed 17 March 2022).

Queen, K. 2021. How slow internet affects small business. Available:


https://discover.centurylink.com/the-cost-of-slow-internet-for-small-
businesses.html (Accessed 25 April 2022).

316
Queiros, A., Faria, D. and Almeida, F. 2017. Strengths and limitations of
qualitative and quantitative research methods. European journal of education
studies, 3(9): 369-387.

Rana, R. and Singhal, R. 2015. Chi-square test and its application in hypothesis
testing. Journal of the practice of cardiovascular sciences, 1(1): 69-71.

Rapando, V. O. 2016. Factors influencing social entrepreneurship in Kariobangi,


Kenya. Available:
http://erepo.usiu.ac.ke/bitstream/handle/11732/3124/RAPANDO%2C%20VINCE
NT%20ONG%E2%80%99ATO%20MBA%20THESIS%202016.pdf?sequence=1
&isAllowed=y (Accessed 26 January 2021).

Rasmussen, W. 2012. Selling good: The big picture of marketing for social
enterprises. In: Volkmann, C. Tokariski, K. and Ernst, K. (eds) Social
entrepreneurship and social business. Gabler Verlag, pp. 133-156.

Ratten, V. 2020. Cultural, lifestyle, and social entrepreneurship. Journal of small


business and entrepreneurship, 1-8.

Rattner, J. 2014. Five ways social entrepreneurs use technology to increase


their impact. Available: https://www.forbes.com/sites/ashoka/2014/12/10/five-
ways-social-entrepreneurs-use-technology-to-increase-their-
impact/?sh=677dd0ec14cc (Accessed 15 February 2021).

Raudsaar, M. and Kaseorg, M. 2013. Social entrepreneurship as an alternative


for disabled people. GSTF International Journal on Business Review, 2(3): 120-
125.
Rawhouser, H., Cummings, M. and Newbert, S. L. 2019. Social impact
measurement: Current approaches and future directions for social
entrepreneurship research. Entrepreneurship theory and practice, 43(1): 82-115.

317
Razavi, S. M., Asadi, M., Esfandabadi, H. M. and Ekbatani, H. 2014. Barriers to
Social Entrepreneurship in Iran: An Application of Grounded Theory. Journal of
Entrepreneurship & Organizational Management, 3(2): 1-5.

Resnick, D. 2022. What does the war in Ukraine mean for Africa? Available:
https://www.brookings.edu/blog/africa-in-focus/2022/02/25/what-does-the-war-
in-ukraine-mean-for-africa/ (Accessed 19 April 2022).

Ricard, M. 2019. What social entrepreneurs can do to compete with traditional


businesses that have big marketing budget. Available:
https://medium.com/swlh/what-social-entrepreneurs-can-do-to-compete-with-
traditional-businesses-that-have-big-marketing-833ff334cbb6 (Accessed 04
November 2021).

Richard, S. 2019. 3 reasons most Africans aren’t on the internet – and how to
connect them. Available: https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2019/08/3-reasons-
why-most-africans-arent-on-the-internet-and-how-to-connect-them/ (Accessed
25 April 2022).

Rivera-Santos, M., Holt, D., Littlewood, D. and Kolk, A. 2015. Social


entrepreneurship in Sub-Saharan Africa. Academy of management perspective,
29(1): 72-91.

Roan, C. and Udayakumar, K. 2021. Lessons from social entrepreneurs fighting


Covid-19. Available: https://hbr.org/sponsored/2021/03/lessons-from-social-
entrepreneurs-fighting-covid-19 (Accessed 11 January 2022).

Roberts, P. and Priest, H. 2006. Reliability and validity in research. Nursing


standard, 20(44): 41+.

Robinson, J. 2006. Navigating social and institutional barriers to markets: How


social entrepreneurs identify and evaluate opportunities. In: Mair, J. Robinson, J.
and Hockerts, K. (eds) Social entrepreneurship. Palgrave Macmillan, London.

318
Roopa, S. and Rani, M. S. 2012. Questionnaire designing for survey. The Journal
of Indian Orthodontic society, 46(4): 273-277.

Rosen, J. 2021. The science of climate change explained: Facts, evidence and
proof. Available: https://www.nytimes.com/article/climate-change-global-
warming-faq.html (Accessed 25 April 2021).

Roslan, H. H. H., Hamid, S., Ijab, M. T. and Bukhari, S. 2019. Social


entrepreneurship learning model in higher education using social network
analysis. Journal of physic: conference series, 1339.

Ross, R. 2018. The competitive advantage of social enterprises. Available:


https://ssir.org/articles/entry/the_competitive_advantage_of_social_enterprises
(Accessed 05 November 2021).

Rotich, J., Cheruiyot, P. and Yegon, C. 2014. The impact of socio-economic


factors on the performance of small and medium size enterprises: The case study
of Kericho County, Kenya. Global journal of commerce and management
perspective, 3(4): 263-267.

Ruiz-Rosa, I., Gutiérrez-Taño, D. and García-Rodríguez, F. 2020. Social


entrepreneurial intention and the impact of Covid-19 pandemic: a structural
model. Sustainability, 12(6970).

Ryan, G. 2018. Introduction to positivism, interpretivism and critical theory. Nurse


Researcher. 25(4): 41-49

Ryder, P and Vogeley, J. 2017. Telling the impact investment story through digital
media; An Indonesian case study. Communication Research and Practice. 4(1):
1-21

Saebi, T., Foss, N. J. and Linder, S. 2019. Social entrepreneurship research: Past
achievements and future promises. Journal of Management, 45(1): 70-95

319
Salmond, S. S. 2008. Evaluating the reliability and validity of measuring
instruments. Orthopaedic nursing, 27(1): 28-30.

Santos, F. 2012. A positive theory of social entrepreneurship. Journal of business


ethics, 111(3): 335-351.

Sarikaya, M. and Coskun, E. 2015. A new approach in Preschool education:


social entrepreneurship education. Social and behavioural sciences, 195: 888-
894.

Satar, M. S. 2018. Managing people in social entrepreneurship ventures - Top


two takeouts from a doctoral survey. Global journal of commerce and
management perspective, 7(1): 23-25.

Satar, M. S., Siraj, S. and Chesti, M. D. 2016. Use of marketing in social


enterprises. International journal of social entrepreneurship and innovation, 4(1):
16-24.

Schnell, A. 2020. What is reliability and why does it matter. Available:


https://www.theanalysisfactor.com/what-is-reliability/. (Accessed 1 April 2022).

Schober, P., Boer, C. and Schwarte, L. 2018. Correlation coefficient: Appropriate


use and interpretation. Anesthesia & Analgesia, 125(5): 1763-1768.

Scuotto, V., Del Giudice, M. & Carayannis, E. G. 2017. The effects of social
networking sites and absorptive capacity on SMES’ innovation performance. The
Journal of Technology transfer 42, 409-424.

Schwabe, C. 2020. Township megatrends – South Africa’s township potential


atlas. Available: https://africascope-sa.com/2020/10/07/township-megatrends-
south-africas-township-potential-atlas/ (Accessed 23 June 2021).

320
Sckliuckiene, J. and Kisielius, E. 2015. Development of social entrepreneurship
initiatives: A theoretical framework. Social and behavioural sciences, 213(1):
1015 – 1019.

Scott, W. R. 2004. Institutional theory: Contributing to a theoretical research


program. Available: https://www.researchgate.net/profile/W-
Scott/publication/265348080_Institutional_Theory_Contributing_to_a_Theoretica
l_Research_Program/links/54de42450cf2966637857c60/Institutional-Theory-
Contributing-to-a-Theoretical-Research-Program.pdf (Accessed: 8 September
2021).

Seelos, C. and Mair, J. 2004. Social entrepreneurship the contributions of


individual entrepreneurs to sustainable development. Working Paper WP No 553.
University of Havarra.

Seelos, C. and Mair, J. 2005. Social entrepreneurship: Creating new business


model to serve the poor. Business horizon, 48(3): 241-246.

Seda, A. and Ismail, M. 2019. Challenges facing social entrepreneurship: The


implementation for government policy in Egypt. Review of economics and
political science, 5(2): 162-182.

Seferian, N. 2020. Can social enterprises be competitive business? Available:


https://www.socialinnovationacademy.eu/can-a-social-enterprise-be-a-
competitive-business/ (Accessed 05 November 2021).

SEFORIS, 2013. The state of social entrepreneurship - Impact of social


enterprises. Available:
https://static1.squarespace.com/static/56d2eebbb654f9329ddbd20e/t/5773e7b1
e4fcb59a25f780f1/1467213747430/6._Impact_of_Social_Enterprises.pdf
(Accessed 7 June 2021).

321
Sekyere, E., Bohler-Muller, N., Hongoro, C. and Makoae, M. 2020. The impact
of Covid-19 in South Africa. Africa program occasional paper. Available:
https://www.wilsoncenter.org/sites/default/files/media/uploads/documents/The
%20Impact%20of%20COVID-19%20in%20South%20Africa_0.pdf (Accessed
17 January 2022).

Seo, M. 2020. Can social entrepreneurs achieve community immunity against


corruption? Available: https://accountabilitylab.org/can-social-entrepreneurs-
achieve-community-immunity-against-corruption/ (Accessed 22 October 2021).

Seo, E. H., Kim, C. Y. and Kim, K. 2020. A study on the mechanisms linking
environmental dynamism to innovation performance. Sustainability, 12(9999).

Serrano, I. 2020. Township businesses in South Africa. Available:


https://borgenproject.org/south-africas-township-businesses/ (Accessed 8
October 2021).

Shahid, S. M. and Alarifi, G. 2021. Social entrepreneurship education: A


conceptual framework and review. The international Journal of Management
Education, 19(3): 100533

Sharma, G. 2017. Pros and Cons of different sampling techniques. International


Journal of Applied Research, 3(7): 749-752

Sharpe, D. 2015. Chi Square test is statistically significant: Now what? Practical
assessment, research, and evaluation, 20(8): 1-10.

Shreffler, J. and Huecker, M. R. 2022. Exploratory data analysis: Frequency,


Descriptive statistics, Histograms and Boxplots. Available:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK557570/ (Accessed 25 March 2022).

322
Shumetie, A. and Watabaji, M. D. 2019. Effects of corruption and political stability
on enterprises’ innovativeness in Ethiopia: Pooled data based. Journal of
innovation and entrepreneurship, 8(11): 1-19.

Sijabat, R. 2015. The Role of Social Entrepreneurship in Enabling Economic


Opportunities for the Poor: A Synthesis of the Literature and Empirical Works.
International Journal of Business and Social Science, 6(11), 35-41.

Sileyew, K. J. 2019. Research design and Methodology. Available:


https://www.intechopen.com/chapters/68505 (Accessed 30 November 2021).

Sincero, S. M. 2012. Pilot survey. Available: https://explorable.com/pilot-survey.


(Accessed 23 March 2022)

Singh, A. 2016. The concepts of social value creation and social value. In book:
The process of social value creation, pp: 105-116. Springer, New Delhi.

Sinkovics, N., Sinkovics, R. R. and Yamin, M. 2014. The role of social value
creation in business model formulation at the bottom of the pyramid – implications
for MNEs? International business review, 23(4): 692-707.

Sitaharam, S. and Hoque, M. 2016. Factors affecting small and medium


enterprises in KwaZulu-Natal, South Africa. Problems and perspectives in
management, 14(2-2): 277-288.

Smith, N. C. 2003. Corporate Social Responsibility: Not whether, but how.


California management review, 45(4): 52-76.

So, I. and Capanyola, A. S. 2016. How impact investors actually measure impact.
Stanford Social Innovation Review. Available:
https://ssir.org/articles/entry/how_impact_investors_actually_measure_impact#
(Accessed 04 July 2022).

323
Socci, M., Clarke, D. and Principi, A. 2020. Active aging: Social entrepreneurship
in local communities of five European countries. International journal of
environmental research and public health, 17(2440): 1-19.

Social Enterprise UK. 2021. One year on: The effects of Covid-19 on the social
enterprise sector. Available: https://www.socialenterprise.org.uk/wp-
content/uploads/2021/04/SEUK-Year-of-COVID-report-v3.pdf (Accessed 11
January 2022).

Soni, D. 2016. Social entrepreneurship is the way to go. Available:


https://regent.ac.za/wp-content/uploads/2016/12/Empowering-Poor-Comunities-
through-Social-Entrepreneurship-final.pdf (Accessed 6 October 2021).

South African Government. 2022. President Cyril Ramaphosa: Declaration of a


national state of disaster to respond to the widespread flooding. Available:
https://www.gov.za/speeches/president-cyril-ramaphosa-declaration-national-
state-disaster-respond-widespread-flooding (Accessed 21 April 2022).

South African Police Service (SAPS). 2021. Police recorded crime statistics,
Republic of South Africa. First quarter of 2021/2022 financial year (April to June
2021). Available:
https://www.saps.gov.za/services/downloads/april_june_2021_22_quarter1_pres
entation.pdf (Accessed 26 October 2021).

Speak, A., Escobedo, F. J. Russo, A. and Zerbe, S. 2018. Comparing


convenience and probability sampling for urban ecology applications. Journal of
applied ecology, 55(5): 2332-2342.

Sroka, W. and Meyer, N. 2021. A theoretical analysis of social entrepreneurship:


The case of Poland and South Africa. Journal of Eastern European and Central
Asian Research, 8(1): 113-148.

324
Statistics South Africa (StatsSA). 2021. Quarterly Labour Force Survey (QLFS)
Q2: 2021. Available:
http://www.statssa.gov.za/publications/P0211/Presentation%20QLFS%20Q2_20
21.pdf (Accessed 1 October 2021).

Statistics South Africa (StatsSA). 2022. Quarterly Labour Force Survey (QLFS)
Q1: 2022. Available:
https://www.statssa.gov.za/?page_id=1854&PPN=P0211&SCH=73289
(Accessed 27 July 2022).

Steiner, A. A., Jack, S. and Farmer, J. 2009. Who are social ‘entrepreneurs’ and
what do they do? Available:
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/228263722_Who_are_the_Social_'Ent
repreneurs'_and_What_Do_They_Actually_Do (Accessed 16 September 2021).

Steinerowski, A. A. and Steinerowska-Streb, I. 2012. Can Social Enterprise


Contribute to Creating Sustainable Rural Communities? Using the lens of
structuration theory to analyse the emergence of rural social enterprise. Local
Economy. 27(2): 167-182.

Stephan, U., Uhlaner, L. M. and Stride, C. 2015. Institutions and social


entrepreneurship: The role of institutional voids, institutional support and
institutional configurations. Journal of international business studies, 46(3): 308-
331.

Stochemer, D. 2019. Quantitative methods for social sciences. A practical


introduction with examples in SPSS and Stata. Springer International Publishing,
2019.

Stratton, S. 2021. Population research: Convenience sampling strategies.


Prehospital and disaster medicine, 36(4): 373-374

325
Straub, R. 2016. The promise of a truly entrepreneurial society. Harvard Business
Review. Available: https://hbr.org/2016/03/the-promise-of-a-truly-entrepreneurial-
society (Accessed 26 October 2021).

Stypinska, J., Franke, A. and Myrczik, J. 2019. Social entrepreneurship: The


unrevealed driver for social innovation. Available
https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fsoc.2019.00030/full (Accessed 19
May 2021).

Sud, M., VanSandt, C. V. and Baugous, A. 2009. Social entrepreneurship: The


role of institution. Journal of business ethics, 85(1): 201-216.

Sukamolson, S. 2007. Fundamentals of quantitative research. Language institute


Chulalongkorn University. 1(3): 1-20.

Sulcas, A. 2022. Food justice & climate crisis: Changing what we eat will make or
break the planet. Available: https://www.dailymaverick.co.za/article/2022-04-18-
changing-what-we-eat-will-make-or-break-our-planet/ (Accessed 21 April 2022).

Summerfield, R. 2020. The impact of social entrepreneurship on economic


growth. Available: https://www.financierworldwide.com/the-impact-of-social-
entrepreneurship-on-economic-growth#.YVQlXLgzbIU (Accessed 29 September
2021).

Sürücü, L. and Maslakçı, A. 2020. Validity and reliability in quantitative research.


Business & Management Studies: An International Journal, 8(3): 2694-2726.

Szabo, R. Z. and Krátki, N. 2018. Social value creation and impact measurement
– What do they mean exactly? Theory Methodology Practice (TMP), 14(1): 15-25.
Faculty of Economics, University of Miskolc.

326
Taber, K. S. 2018. The use of Cronbach’s Alpha when developing and reporting
research instruments in science education. Research in Science Education.
48(6): 1273-1296

Taherdoost, M. 2016. Sampling methods in research methodology; how to


choose a sampling technique for research. International Journal of Academic
Research in Management (IJARM), 5(2): 18-27

Tavakol, M. and Wetzel, A. 2020. Factor analysis: a means for theory and
instrument development in support of construct validity. International journal of
medical education, 11: 245-247.

Tendai, C., Nicole, D. and Tafadzwa, C.W. 2018. The effects of the use of
technology on the performance of immigrant-owned SMMEs in the Eastern Cape
province, South Africa. International Journal of Entrepreneurship, 22(3): 1-12.

Theodossiou, N., Stavridis, C., Fotopoulou, E., and Struber, D. 2020. The role of
Sustainable Development Solutions Networks (SDSNs) in the protection of the
environment. Available: https://www.unsdsn.org/the-role-of-sustainable-
development-solutions-networks-sdsns-in-the-protection-of-the-environment
(Accessed 03 August 2020).

Thomas, D. B., Oenning, N. S. X. and Goulart, B. N. G. 2018. Essential aspects


in the design of data collection instruments in primary health research. Speech,
language, hearing science and education journal, 20(5): 657-668.

Tien, N. H., Minh, H. T. T., Duc, L. D. M., Mai, N. P. and Thuc, T. D. 2020. Social
entrepreneurship and corporate sustainable development. Evidence from
Vietnam. Cogent business and management, 7(1): 1-17.

Tlapana, T. and Dike, A. 2020. Social media usage patterns among Small and
Medium Enterprises (SMMEs) in East London, South Africa. Global Media
Journal, 18(35): 1-7.

327
Tomaszewski, M. 2017. Corruption – A dark side of entrepreneurship. Corruption
and innovation. Prague Economic Papers, 27(3): 1-19.

Traynor, K. and Andrews, J. C. 2015. Factor Analysis: Revisited. In Proceedings

of the 1984 Academy of Marketing Science (AMS) Annual Conference (pp. 479-

479). Springer International Publishing.

Tuner, D. P. 2020. Sampling methods in research design. The journal of head


and face pain, 60(1): 8-12.

Transparency International. 2020. Corruption Perception Index (CPI). Available:


https://www.transparency.org/en/cpi/2020/index/zaf (Accessed 22 October
2021).

Ullah, S. 2020. Identifying competitiveness in business. Available:


https://techbullion.com/identifying-competitiveness-in-business/ (Accessed 05
November 2021).

United Nations (UN). 2020a. Sustainable Development Goals. Available:


https://www.un.org/sustainabledevelopment/sustainable-development-goals/
(Accessed 03 August 2020).

United Nations (UN). 2020b. World youth report. Youth social entrepreneurship
and the 2030 agenda. Available: https://www.un.org/development/desa/youth/wp-
content/uploads/sites/21/2020/07/2020-World-Youth-Report-FULL-FINAL.pdf
(Accessed 30 June 2022).

United Nations Development Programme (UNDP). 2021. Impact of covid-19 on


micro and informal businesses in South Africa. Available:
http://www.dsbd.gov.za/sites/default/files/publications/Impact-of-covid19-on-
businesses.pdf (Accessed 20 June 2022).

328
United States Agency for International Development (USAID). 2021.
Entrepreneurship. Available:
https://www.usaid.gov/GlobalDevLab/entrepreneurship (Accessed 02 November
2021).

Urban, B. 2015. An exploratory study on outcomes of social enterprises in South


Africa. Journal of Enterprising Culture (JEC), 23(02): 271-297

Urban, B. and Maphathe, T. L. 2021. Social media marketing and customer


engagement: A focus on Small and Medium Enterprises (SMEs) in South Africa.
Journal of Contemporary Management, 18(1): 48-69

Urban, B. and Kujinga, L. 2017. Towards social change: South African university
students as social entrepreneurs. Graduate School of Business and
Management. University of Witwatersrand.

Urbano, P. D., Ferri, J. E. and Noguera, I. N. M. 2014. Female social


entrepreneurship and socio-cultural context: An international analysis. Available:
file:///C:/Users/inaak/Downloads/Dialnet-
FemaleSocialEntrepreneurshipAndSocioculturalContex-5098407%20(1).pdf
(Accessed 18 February 2021).

Uzialko, A. 2022. Family and friends provide a key lifeline for entrepreneurs.
Available: https://www.businessnewsdaily.com/9617-friends-family-business-
support.html (Accessed 05 July 2022).

Van Scheers, L. 2016. SMEs and social media opportunities: An organizational


outlook. Corporate ownership & control, 13(4): 640-648

Van Teijlingen, E. R. and Hundley, V. 2002. Importance of pilot studies. Nursing


standard: official newspaper of the Royal College of Nursing, 16(40): 33-60.

329
Varkey, B. 2021. Principles of clinical ethics and their application to practice. Med
Princ Pract, 30(1): 17-28.

Vehovar, V. Toepoel, V. and Steinmetz, S. 2016. Non-probability sampling.


Available: https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Vasja-
Vehovar/publication/307546330_Non-
probability_sampling/links/5bb1978d45851574f7f39af6/Non-probability-
sampling.pdf (Accessed 26 January 2022).

Verma, N. 2021. The best survey distribution methods to get you more high-
quality responses. Available: https://callhub.io/survey-distribution/ (Accessed 22
March 2022).

Vijayann, M., 2013, Five social media tips for social entrepreneurs. Available:
https://www.theguardian.com/social-enterprise-network/small-business-
blog/2013/may/23/social-media-five-lessons-entrepreneurs (Accessed 07 June
2022).

Visser, K. 2011. Social Entrepreneurship in South Africa: Context, Relevance and


Extent. Industry and Higher Education, 25(4): 233-247

Waghid, Z. and Oliver, H. 2017. Cultivating social entrepreneurial capacities in


students through film: Implications for social entrepreneurship education.
Educational research for social change, 6(2): 76-100.

Walkenhorst, A., Damaske, S. and Sturm, C. 2021. Creating competitive


advantage: Do social enterprises do it differently? Available:
https://esignals.fi/research/en/2021/04/08/creating-competitive-advantage-do-
social-enterprises-do-it-differently-some-preliminary-evidence/#2c1e2eca
(Accessed 05 November 2021).

330
Watters, K., Willington, L., Shutte, T. and Kruh, R. 2012. Social entrepreneurship
– Individuals with vision hold unlimited potential to alleviate poverty: The UnLtd
South Africa model. Towards Carnegie III. Conference Paper. 1-12.

Weaver, R. L. 2020. The impact of COVID-19 on the social enterprise sector.


Journal of social entrepreneurship. Available:
https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/pdf/10.1080/19420676.2020.1861476
(Accessed 10 January 2022).

West, D. M. 2012. Broadband: A catalyst for small business growth. Available:


https://www.brookings.edu/testimonies/broadband-a-catalyst-for-small-business-
growth/ (Accessed 25 April 2022).

Williams, C. 2007. Research methods. Journal of business & economic


research, 5(3): 65-72.

Williams, T. 2021. Why is quantitative research important? Available:


https://www.gcu.edu/blog/doctoral-journey/why-quantitative-research-important
(Accessed 09 December 2021).

Winter, D. 2014. A gender lens on the social change industry – focusing on


women, gender & social entrepreneurship. Available:
https://www.thebrokeronline.eu/a-gender-lens-on-the-social-change-industry-
d74/ (Accessed 02 November 2021).

World Bank. 2003. World development report 2004: Making services work for poor
people. Available: https://openknowledge.worldbank.org/handle/10986/5986
(Accessed 02 November 2021).

World Bank. 2017. Social Enterprise Ecosystem Country Profile South Africa.
Available:
https://www.innovationpolicyplatform.org/www.innovationpolicyplatform.org/syst

331
em/files/South%20Africa%20country%20profile_Apr14/index.pdf (Accessed 18
August 2021).

World Bank. 2022. Russian invasion to shrink Ukraine economy by 45 percent


this year. Available: https://www.worldbank.org/en/news/press-
release/2022/04/10/russian-invasion-to-shrink-ukraine-economy-by-45-percent-
this-year (Accessed 19 April 2022).

World Economic Forum. 2020. Opinion: Why social entrepreneurs are vital to
the Covid-19 crisis. Available: https://news.trust.org/item/20200916150609-
umtkl/ (Accessed 17 January 2022).

Worku, Z. 2013. Analysis of factors that affect the long-term survival of small
businesses in Pretoria, South Africa. Journal of data analysis and information
processing, 01(04): 67-84

Worsham, E., Langsam, K. B. and Martin, E. 2020. Emerging stronger from a


crisis. Available: https://ssir.org/articles/entry/emerging_stronger_from_a_crisis
(Accessed 18 January 2022).

Wranka-Pospiech, M. 2016. The identification of skills and competencies for


effective management in social enterprises. A managerial perspective.
Management, 20(1): 40-57.

Wu, W. and Little, T. D. 2011. Quantitative Research Methods. Encyclopaedia of


Adolescence. Academic Press. Pages 287-297

Yalcintas, M. 2019. Creating competitive advantage with social


entrepreneurship. Available: https://www.igi-global.com/chapter/creating-
competitive-advantage-with-social-entrepreneurship/208406 (Accessed 05
November 2021).

332
Yang, Q., Su, M., Li, Y. and Wang, R. 2019. Revisiting the relationship between
correlation coefficient, confidence level and sample size. Journal of Chemical
information and modeling, 59(11): 4602-4612

Yong, A. G. and Pearce, S. 2013. A beginner’s guide to factor analysis: Focusing


on Exploratory factor analysis. Tutorials in quantitative methods for psychology,
9(2): 79-94.

Zahra, F. 2017. Student’s awareness towards social entrepreneurship: A


qualitative study. International Journal of Civil Engineering and Technology
(IJCIET), 8(6): 457-464.

Zahra, S. A., Gedajlovic, E., Neubaum, D. O. and Shulman, J. M. 2009. A typology


of social entrepreneurs: Motives, search processes and ethical challenges.
Journal of business venturing, 24(5): 519-532.

Zohrabi, M. 2013. Mixed method research: Instruments, validity, reliability and


reporting findings. Theory and practice in language studies, 3(2): 254-262

333
APPENDICES
APPENDIX 1: QUESTIONNAIRE

QUESTIONNAIRE

Faculty of Management Sciences

Department of Entrepreneurial Studies and Management

Date: ____________________

Dear Participant

I am studying towards a PhD in Business Administration, in the Faculty of Management Sciences


at the Department of Entrepreneurial Studies and Management. The title of my research is: Social
entrepreneurship as a tool for sustainable development in the townships in KwaZulu-Natal
(KZN)

Please complete the questionnaire to enable me to gather data for my research. This
questionnaire is designed to gather critical factors affecting social entrepreneurship
contribution to sustainable development in the townships in KwaZulu-Natal. The information
you provide will kept strictly confidential. Please be assured that you will remain anonymous
throughout the research process and in any reporting or write-ups related to my research. Please
also be advised that participation is voluntary and you can withdraw from the study at any time
you no longer feel comfortable to participate. This questionnaire will take an estimate of 25 minutes
to be completed.

If you need any clarity on the study, please contact the researcher or the supervisor

334
________________

Mr E.I. Akoh

PhD: Business Administration

Email: [email protected]

Dr L. Lekhanya

Supervisor

Email: [email protected]

I hereby kindly request that you complete the following section by placing a cross (X) in
the appropriate box to reflect your answer.

Section one

Background information

1) Educational background: Please indicate your highest qualification

Matric 1
Diploma/Certificate 2
Degree 3
Honors 4
Masters 5
PhD 6
Others, please specify 7
………………………………………………………

2) Age group:

18 - 25 years 1
26 – 32 years 2
33 – 39 years 3
40 – 49 years 4
More than 50 years, Please specify 5
………………………..……………………………………………..

335
3) Gender:

Male 1
Female 2
Others, Please specify 3
………………………………………………………………………

4) In which of the following KwaZulu-Natal Township is your social enterprise situated? (Please
tick one)

Inanda 1
Ntuzuma 2
KwaMashu 3

5) Type of social enterprise (Please tick one)

Non-Governmental Organization (NGO) 1


Not-for-Profit Organization (NPO) 2
Hybrid 3
Profit oriented 4
Others, Please specify
…………………………………………………………………….

6) How is your social enterprise owned?

Partnership 1
Manager of the social enterprise and sole owner 2
Manager of the social enterprise and jointly owned 3
Others, please specify
………………………………………………………………………...

7) How many years have you been operating this social enterprise?

1 - 2 year 1
3 – 5 years 2
6 – 8 years 3
9 – 11 years 4
More than 11 years 5

336
Section Two: Factors affecting social entrepreneurship as a tool for sustainable
development

Please indicate your response to the following statement regarding social entrepreneurship
contribution to sustainable development in KZN townships.

Please place a cross (X) for each statement that truly reflects your response where:

1 = Strongly agree
2 = Agree
3 = Neutral
4 = Disagree
5 = Strongly disagree
Statement Strongly Agree Neutral Disagree Strongly
agree disagree

The following statements are based


on the characteristics of social
entrepreneurs in KZN townships

8a) Social entrepreneurs’ activities


are influenced by age

8b) Social entrepreneurs’ activities


are influenced by unemployment

8c) Social entrepreneurs’ activities are


influenced by gender

8d) Social entrepreneurs’ activities


involves more females than males

8e) Social entrepreneurs’ activities


are influenced by Level of education

The following questions are based


on society’s perception of social
entrepreneurship in KZN
townships

9a) Social entrepreneurs’ activities


are affected by society’s lack of
understanding of the role of social
entrepreneurs

9b) Social entrepreneurs’ activities


are affected by society’s inadequate
information about their activities

337
9c) Social entrepreneurs’ activities are
influenced by society’s poor
awareness of their contributions

9d) Social entrepreneurs’ activities


are affected by inadequate
involvement of the society in their
activities

The following statements are based


on the aspects of social networking
as it relates to social entrepreneurs
in KZN townships

10a) Social entrepreneurs’ activities


are affected by lack of partnership with
other social entrepreneurs

10b) Social entrepreneurs’ activities


are affected by lack of support and
partnership from corporate
organisations

10c) Social entrepreneurs’ activities


are affected by lack of support and
partnership from government

10d) Social entrepreneurs’ activities


are affected by lack of use of platforms
for social networking

The following statements are based


on social impact measurement as it
relates to social entrepreneurs

11a) Lack of social impact


measurement affects understanding
the contribution of the social
entrepreneur’s activities

11b) social entrepreneurs’ activities


are affected by lack of applying
appropriate social impact
measurement method/techniques

11c) Lack of social impact


measurement affects social
entrepreneurs’ identifying other
opportunities to solve social problems

11d) lack of social impact


measurement affects the willingness

338
of investors to invest in social
entrepreneurs activities

The following statements are based


on financial resources as it relates
to social entrepreneurs

12a) Lack of access to financial


resources affects social
entrepreneurs activities

12b) Many social entrepreneurs


depend on family and friends for
finance in order to survive

12c) Lengthy processes required by


financial institutions to obtain financial
resources affects social
entrepreneurs activities

12d) Social entrepreneurs activities


are affected by lack of governments
financial assistance

The following are environmental


factors (external and internal) that
affects social entrepreneurs
contribution to sustainable
development

Internal factors:

13a) Lack of management


competence, skills and experience
affect social entrepreneurs’ activities

13b) Lack of technical skills affects


social entrepreneurs’ activities

13c) Lack of adequate education and


training development affects social
entrepreneurs’ activities

13d) Lack of marketing skills affect


social entrepreneurs’ activities

External factors:

13e) Lack of adequate legal


framework for social entrepreneurs in
South Africa is affecting their activities

339
13f) adequate government rules and
regulations will improve social
entrepreneurs’ activities

13g) Increased government support


will improve social entrepreneurs’
activities

13h) Political instability affects social


entrepreneurs’ activities

13i) Social entrepreneurs’ activities


are affected by corruption

13j) Social entrepreneurs’ activities


are affected by social factors

13k) High crime rate affects social


entrepreneurs’ activities

13l) Lack of understanding of taxation


for social enterprises affects their
activities

13m) High interest rates affect social


entrepreneurs’ activities

13n) Social entrepreneurs’ activities


are affected by rapid technological
changes

13o) Social entrepreneurs’ activities


are affected by lack of government
support to technological changes

13p) Social entrepreneurs’ activities


are influenced by competition from
other businesses

13q) Social entrepreneurs’ activities


has been affected by the Covid-19
pandemic

13r) Social entrepreneurs’ activities


has been affected by lack of
government support from the effects
Covid-19

Thank you for your participation

340
APPENDIX 2: ETHICAL CLEARANCE LETTER

341
APPENDIX 3: GATEKEEPER’S LETTER

342
APPENDIX 4: FREQUENCY TABLES
Qualification
Valid Cumulative
Frequency Percent
Percent Percent
Matric 10 11.1 11.1 11.1

Diploma/Certificate 31 34.4 34.4 45.6

Degree 19 21.1 21.1 66.7

Valid Honours 17 18.9 18.9 85.6


Masters 10 11.1 11.1 96.7
PhD 2 2.2 2.2 98.9
Others 1 1.1 1.1 100.0
Total 90 100.0 100.0

Age
Valid Cumulative
Frequency Percent
Percent Percent
18 - 25 16 17.8 17.8 17.8
26 - 32 33 36.7 36.7 54.4
33 - 39 25 27.8 27.8 82.2
Valid
40 - 49 9 10.0 10.0 92.2
50+ 7 7.8 7.8 100.0
Total 90 100.0 100.0

Gender
Valid Cumulative
Frequency Percent
Percent Percent
Male 39 43.3 43.3 43.3
Valid Female 51 56.7 56.7 100.0
Total 90 100.0 100.0

Location
Valid Cumulative
Frequency Percent
Percent Percent
Inanda 30 33.3 33.3 33.3
Ntuzuma 30 33.3 33.3 66.7
Valid
KwaMashu 30 33.3 33.3 100.0

Total 90 100.0 100.0

343
Type
Valid Cumulative
Frequency Percent
Percent Percent

Non-
Governmental
16 17.8 17.8 17.8
Organisation
(NGO)

Not-for-Profit
Organisation 26 28.9 28.9 46.7
Valid
(NPO)

Hybrid 13 14.4 14.4 61.1

Profit oriented 33 36.7 36.7 97.8

Others 2 2.2 2.2 100.0


Total 90 100.0 100.0

Ownership
Valid Cumulative
Frequency Percent
Percent Percent
Partnership 16 17.8 17.8 17.8

Manager
and sole 42 46.7 46.7 64.4
owner
Valid Manager
and jointly 19 21.1 21.1 85.6
owned
Others 13 14.4 14.4 100.0
Total 90 100.0 100.0

Operations
Valid Cumulative
Frequency Percent
Percent Percent
1-2 14 15.6 15.6 15.6
3-5 35 38.9 38.9 54.4
6-8 28 31.1 31.1 85.6
Valid
9-11 4 4.4 4.4 90.0
> 11 9 10.0 10.0 100.0
Total 90 100.0 100.0

344
Understanding
Valid Cumulative
Frequency Percent
Percent Percent
Strongly
25 27.8 27.8 27.8
agree
Agree 31 34.4 34.4 62.2
Neutral 17 18.9 18.9 81.1
Valid
Disagree 11 12.2 12.2 93.3
Strongly
6 6.7 6.7 100.0
disagree
Total 90 100.0 100.0

Information
Valid Cumulative
Frequency Percent
Percent Percent
Strongly
20 22.2 22.2 22.2
agree
Agree 32 35.6 35.6 57.8
Neutral 14 15.6 15.6 73.3
Valid
Disagree 12 13.3 13.3 86.7
Strongly
12 13.3 13.3 100.0
disagree
Total 90 100.0 100.0

Awareness
Valid Cumulative
Frequency Percent
Percent Percent
Strongly
23 25.6 25.6 25.6
Agree
Agree 30 33.3 33.3 58.9
Neutral 13 14.4 14.4 73.3
Valid
Disagree 13 14.4 14.4 87.8
Strongly
11 12.2 12.2 100.0
disagree
Total 90 100.0 100.0

Involvement
Valid Cumulative
Frequency Percent
Percent Percent
Strongly
14 15.6 15.6 15.6
Agree
Agree 33 36.7 36.7 52.2
Neutral 16 17.8 17.8 70.0
Valid
Disagree 15 16.7 16.7 86.7
Strongly
12 13.3 13.3 100.0
disagree
Total 90 100.0 100.0

345
Young
Valid Cumulative
Frequency Percent
Percent Percent
Strongly
13 14.4 14.4 14.4
agree
Agree 31 34.4 34.4 48.9
Neutral 24 26.7 26.7 75.6
Valid
Disagree 15 16.7 16.7 92.2
Strongly
7 7.8 7.8 100.0
disagree
Total 90 100.0 100.0

Unemployment
Valid Cumulative
Frequency Percent
Percent Percent
Strongly
16 17.8 17.8 17.8
agree
Agree 28 31.1 31.1 48.9
Neutral 16 17.8 17.8 66.7
Valid
Disagree 27 30.0 30.0 96.7
Strongly
3 3.3 3.3 100.0
disagree
Total 90 100.0 100.0

Influence
Valid Cumulative
Frequency Percent
Percent Percent
Strongly
12 13.3 13.3 13.3
agree
Agree 17 18.9 18.9 32.2
Neutral 15 16.7 16.7 48.9
Valid Disagree 39 43.3 43.3 92.2
Strongly
7 7.8 7.8 100.0
disagree
Total 90 100.0 100.0

Activity
Valid Cumulative
Frequency Percent
Percent Percent
Strongly
9 10.0 10.0 10.0
agree
Agree 22 24.4 24.4 34.4
Neutral 22 24.4 24.4 58.9
Valid
Disagree 31 34.4 34.4 93.3
Strongly
6 6.7 6.7 100.0
disagree
Total 90 100.0 100.0

346
Level
Valid Cumulative
Frequency Percent
Percent Percent
Strongly
22 24.4 24.4 24.4
agree
Agree 34 37.8 37.8 62.2
Neutral 12 13.3 13.3 75.6
Valid
Disagree 14 15.6 15.6 91.1
Strongly
8 8.9 8.9 100.0
disagree
Total 90 100.0 100.0

Partnership
Valid Cumulative
Frequency Percent
Percent Percent
Strongly
24 26.7 26.7 26.7
agree
Agree 36 40.0 40.0 66.7
Neutral 11 12.2 12.2 78.9
Valid
Disagree 13 14.4 14.4 93.3
Strongly
6 6.7 6.7 100.0
disagree
Total 90 100.0 100.0

Support
Valid Cumulative
Frequency Percent
Percent Percent
Strongly
32 35.6 35.6 35.6
agree
Agree 36 40.0 40.0 75.6
Neutral 12 13.3 13.3 88.9
Valid
Disagree 7 7.8 7.8 96.7
Strongly
3 3.3 3.3 100.0
disagree
Total 90 100.0 100.0

Government
Valid Cumulative
Frequency Percent
Percent Percent
Strongly
33 36.7 36.7 36.7
agree
Agree 32 35.6 35.6 72.2
Neutral 13 14.4 14.4 86.7
Valid
Disagree 7 7.8 7.8 94.4
Strongly
5 5.6 5.6 100.0
disagree
Total 90 100.0 100.0

347
Platforms
Valid Cumulative
Frequency Percent
Percent Percent
Strongly
20 22.2 22.2 22.2
agree
Agree 39 43.3 43.3 65.6
Neutral 12 13.3 13.3 78.9
Valid
Disagree 12 13.3 13.3 92.2
Strongly
7 7.8 7.8 100.0
disagree
Total 90 100.0 100.0

Measurement
Valid Cumulative
Frequency Percent
Percent Percent
Strongly
29 32.2 32.2 32.2
agree
Agree 29 32.2 32.2 64.4
Neutral 15 16.7 16.7 81.1
Valid
Disagree 11 12.2 12.2 93.3
Strongly
6 6.7 6.7 100.0
disagree
Total 90 100.0 100.0

Apply
Valid Cumulative
Frequency Percent
Percent Percent
Strongly
21 23.3 23.3 23.3
agree
Agree 31 34.4 34.4 57.8
Neutral 18 20.0 20.0 77.8
Valid
Disagree 13 14.4 14.4 92.2
Strongly
7 7.8 7.8 100.0
disagree
Total 90 100.0 100.0

Identify
Valid Cumulative
Frequency Percent
Percent Percent
Strongly
27 30.0 30.0 30.0
agree
Agree 32 35.6 35.6 65.6
Neutral 11 12.2 12.2 77.8
Valid
Disagree 11 12.2 12.2 90.0
Strongly
9 10.0 10.0 100.0
disagree
Total 90 100.0 100.0

348
Invest
Valid Cumulative
Frequency Percent
Percent Percent
Strongly
25 27.8 27.8 27.8
agree
Agree 33 36.7 36.7 64.4
Neutral 13 14.4 14.4 78.9
Valid
Disagree 10 11.1 11.1 90.0
Strongly
9 10.0 10.0 100.0
disagree
Total 90 100.0 100.0

Access
Valid Cumulative
Frequency Percent
Percent Percent
Strongly
44 48.9 48.9 48.9
agree
Agree 25 27.8 27.8 76.7
Neutral 10 11.1 11.1 87.8
Valid
Disagree 6 6.7 6.7 94.4
Strongly
5 5.6 5.6 100.0
disagree
Total 90 100.0 100.0

Family
Valid Cumulative
Frequency Percent
Percent Percent
Strongly
19 21.1 21.1 21.1
agree
Agree 32 35.6 35.6 56.7
Neutral 13 14.4 14.4 71.1
Valid
Disagree 13 14.4 14.4 85.6
Strongly
13 14.4 14.4 100.0
disagree
Total 90 100.0 100.0

Process
Valid Cumulative
Frequency Percent
Percent Percent
Strongly
25 27.8 27.8 27.8
agree
Agree 38 42.2 42.2 70.0
Neutral 14 15.6 15.6 85.6
Valid
Disagree 8 8.9 8.9 94.4
Strongly
5 5.6 5.6 100.0
disagree
Total 90 100.0 100.0

349
Assistance
Valid Cumulative
Frequency Percent
Percent Percent
Strongly
27 30.0 30.0 30.0
agree
Agree 37 41.1 41.1 71.1
Neutral 13 14.4 14.4 85.6
Valid
Disagree 7 7.8 7.8 93.3
Strongly
6 6.7 6.7 100.0
disagree
Total 90 100.0 100.0

Management
Valid Cumulative
Frequency Percent
Percent Percent
Strongly
28 31.1 31.1 31.1
agree
Agree 38 42.2 42.2 73.3
Neutral 11 12.2 12.2 85.6
Valid
Disagree 8 8.9 8.9 94.4
Strongly
5 5.6 5.6 100.0
disagree
Total 90 100.0 100.0

Technical
Valid Cumulative
Frequency Percent
Percent Percent
Strongly
25 27.8 27.8 27.8
agree
Agree 38 42.2 42.2 70.0
Neutral 10 11.1 11.1 81.1
Valid
Disagree 10 11.1 11.1 92.2
Strongly
7 7.8 7.8 100.0
disagree
Total 90 100.0 100.0

Training
Valid Cumulative
Frequency Percent
Percent Percent
Strongly
26 28.9 28.9 28.9
agree
Agree 37 41.1 41.1 70.0
Neutral 10 11.1 11.1 81.1
Valid
Disagree 12 13.3 13.3 94.4
Strongly
5 5.6 5.6 100.0
agree
Total 90 100.0 100.0

350
Marketing
Valid Cumulative
Frequency Percent
Percent Percent
Strongly
21 23.3 23.3 23.3
agree
Agree 40 44.4 44.4 67.8
Neutral 9 10.0 10.0 77.8
Valid
Disagree 12 13.3 13.3 91.1
Strongly
8 8.9 8.9 100.0
disagree
Total 90 100.0 100.0

Legal
Valid Cumulative
Frequency Percent
Percent Percent
Strongly
29 32.2 32.2 32.2
agree
Agree 38 42.2 42.2 74.4
Neutral 7 7.8 7.8 82.2
Valid
Disagree 10 11.1 11.1 93.3
Strongly
6 6.7 6.7 100.0
disagree
Total 90 100.0 100.0

Rules
Valid Cumulative
Frequency Percent
Percent Percent
Strongly
30 33.3 33.3 33.3
agree
Agree 38 42.2 42.2 75.6
Neutral 9 10.0 10.0 85.6
Valid
Disagree 7 7.8 7.8 93.3
Strongly
6 6.7 6.7 100.0
disagree
Total 90 100.0 100.0

Improve
Valid Cumulative
Frequency Percent
Percent Percent
Strongly
33 36.7 36.7 36.7
agree
Agree 38 42.2 42.2 78.9
Neutral 7 7.8 7.8 86.7
Valid
Disagree 7 7.8 7.8 94.4
Strongly
5 5.6 5.6 100.0
disagree
Total 90 100.0 100.0

351
Instability
Valid Cumulative
Frequency Percent
Percent Percent
Strongly
34 37.8 37.8 37.8
agree
Agree 30 33.3 33.3 71.1
Neutral 11 12.2 12.2 83.3
Valid
Disagree 10 11.1 11.1 94.4
Strongly
5 5.6 5.6 100.0
disagree
Total 90 100.0 100.0

Corruption
Valid Cumulative
Frequency Percent
Percent Percent
Strongly
28 31.1 31.1 31.1
agree
Agree 28 31.1 31.1 62.2
Neutral 15 16.7 16.7 78.9
Valid
Disagree 10 11.1 11.1 90.0
Strongly
9 10.0 10.0 100.0
disagree
Total 90 100.0 100.0

Social
Valid Cumulative
Frequency Percent
Percent Percent
Strongly
25 27.8 27.8 27.8
agree
Agree 35 38.9 38.9 66.7
Neutral 17 18.9 18.9 85.6
Valid
Disagree 8 8.9 8.9 94.4
Strongly
5 5.6 5.6 100.0
disagree
Total 90 100.0 100.0

Crime
Valid Cumulative
Frequency Percent
Percent Percent
Strongly
30 33.3 33.3 33.3
agree
Valid Agree 38 42.2 42.2 75.6
Neutral 9 10.0 10.0 85.6

352
Disagree 7 7.8 7.8 93.3
Strongly
6 6.7 6.7 100.0
disagree
Total 90 100.0 100.0

Taxation
Valid Cumulative
Frequency Percent
Percent Percent
Strongly
26 28.9 28.9 28.9
agree
Agree 36 40.0 40.0 68.9
Neutral 14 15.6 15.6 84.4
Valid
Disagree 10 11.1 11.1 95.6
Strongly
4 4.4 4.4 100.0
disagree
Total 90 100.0 100.0

Interest
Valid Cumulative
Frequency Percent
Percent Percent
Strongly
33 36.7 36.7 36.7
agree
Agree 31 34.4 34.4 71.1
Neutral 12 13.3 13.3 84.4
Valid
Disagree 10 11.1 11.1 95.6
Strongly
4 4.4 4.4 100.0
disagree
Total 90 100.0 100.0

Technology
Valid Cumulative
Frequency Percent
Percent Percent
Strongly
31 34.4 34.4 34.4
agree
Agree 34 37.8 37.8 72.2
Neutral 13 14.4 14.4 86.7
Valid
Disagree 7 7.8 7.8 94.4
Strongly
5 5.6 5.6 100.0
disagree
Total 90 100.0 100.0

353
Change
Valid Cumulative
Frequency Percent
Percent Percent
Strongly
33 36.7 36.7 36.7
agree
Agree 34 37.8 37.8 74.4
Neutral 10 11.1 11.1 85.6
Valid
Disagree 8 8.9 8.9 94.4
Strongly
5 5.6 5.6 100.0
disagree
Total 90 100.0 100.0

Competition
Valid Cumulative
Frequency Percent
Percent Percent
Strongly
30 33.3 33.3 33.3
agree
Agree 35 38.9 38.9 72.2
Valid Neutral 10 11.1 11.1 83.3
Disagree 11 12.2 12.2 95.6
Strongly
4 4.4 4.4 100.0
disagree

Covid
Valid Cumulative
Frequency Percent
Percent Percent
Strongly
39 43.3 43.3 43.3
agree
Agree 35 38.9 38.9 82.2
Neutral 10 11.1 11.1 93.3
Valid
Disagree 3 3.3 3.3 96.7
Strongly
3 3.3 3.3 100.0
disagree
Total 90 100.0 100.0

Effects
Valid Cumulative
Frequency Percent
Percent Percent
Strongly
44 48.9 48.9 48.9
agree
Agree 28 31.1 31.1 80.0
Neutral 11 12.2 12.2 92.2
Valid
Disagree 5 5.6 5.6 97.8
Strongly
2 2.2 2.2 100.0
disagree
Total 90 100.0 100.0

354
APPENDIX 5: DESCRIPTIVE STATISTICS

Descriptive Statistics
N Minimum Maximum Mean Std. Deviation
Qualification 90 1.00 7.00 2.9556 1.34842
Age 90 1.00 5.00 2.5333 1.13375
Gender 90 1.00 2.00 1.5667 .49831
Location 90 1.00 3.00 2.0000 .82107
Type 90 1.00 5.00 2.7667 1.19032
Ownership 90 1.00 4.00 2.3222 .93410
Operations 90 1.00 5.00 2.5444 1.12341
Understanding 90 1.00 5.00 2.3556 1.20216
Information 90 1.00 5.00 2.6000 1.33071
Awareness 90 1.00 5.00 2.5444 1.34215
Involvement 90 1.00 5.00 2.7556 1.28353
Young 90 1.00 5.00 2.6889 1.14798
Unemployment 90 1.00 5.00 2.7000 1.17512
Influence 90 1.00 5.00 3.1333 1.21044
Activity 90 1.00 5.00 3.0333 1.12629
Level 90 1.00 5.00 2.4667 1.26491
Partnership 90 1.00 5.00 2.3444 1.21008
Support 90 1.00 5.00 2.0333 1.05415
Government 90 1.00 5.00 2.1000 1.15194
Platforms 90 1.00 5.00 2.4111 1.19826
Measurement 90 1.00 5.00 2.2889 1.22927
Apply 90 1.00 5.00 2.4889 1.22010
Identify 90 1.00 5.00 2.3667 1.30212
Invest 90 1.00 5.00 2.3889 1.27812
Access 90 1.00 5.00 1.9222 1.17299
Family 90 1.00 5.00 2.6556 1.35050
Process 90 1.00 5.00 2.2222 1.11957
Assistance 90 1.00 5.00 2.2000 1.15340
Management 90 1.00 5.00 2.1556 1.13089
Technical 90 1.00 5.00 2.2889 1.21085
Training 90 1.00 5.00 2.2556 1.17618

355
Marketing 90 1.00 5.00 2.4000 1.23434
Legal 90 1.00 5.00 2.1778 1.19529
Rules 90 1.00 5.00 2.1222 1.15950
Improve 90 1.00 5.00 2.0333 1.12629
Instability 90 1.00 5.00 2.1333 1.20112
Corruption 90 1.00 5.00 2.3778 1.30322
Social 90 1.00 5.00 2.2556 1.12740
Crime 90 1.00 5.00 2.1222 1.15950
Taxation 90 1.00 5.00 2.2222 1.11957
Interest 90 1.00 5.00 2.1222 1.15950
Technology 90 1.00 5.00 2.1222 1.13996
Change 90 1.00 5.00 2.0889 1.15772
Competition 90 1.00 5.00 2.1556 1.15058
Covid 90 1.00 5.00 1.8444 .98199
Effects 90 1.00 5.00 1.8111 1.00442
Valid N (listwise) 90

356
APPENDIX 6: CORRELATION ANALYSIS

357
APPENDIX 7: CHI SQUARE TEST

Test Statistics
Chi-Square df Asymp. Sig.
Qualification 51.244a 6 .000
b
Age 26.667 4 .000
c
Gender 1.600 1 .000
Location 1.000d 2 .000
Type 31.889b 4 .000
e
Ownership 23.333 3 .000
b
Operations 37.889 4 .000
Understanding 22.889b 4 .000
Information 16.000b 4 .003
b
Awareness 14.889 4 .005
b
Involvement 16.111 4 .003
Young 20.000b 4 .000
Unemployment 23.000b 4 .000
b
Influence 33.778 4 .000
b
Activity 23.667 4 .000
Level 23.556b 4 .000
Partnership 32.111b 4 .000
b
Support 50.111 4 .000
b
Government 40.889 4 .000
Platforms 35.444b 4 .000
Measurement 24.667b 4 .000
b
Apply 18.000 4 .001
b
Identify 25.333 4 .000
Invest 24.667b 4 .000
Access 61.222b 4 .000
b
Family 15.111 4 .004
b
Process 40.778 4 .000
Assistance 40.667b 4 .000
Management 45.444b 4 .000
b
Technical 38.778 4 .000
b
Training 38.556 4 .000

358
Marketing 39.444b 4 .000
b
Legal 47.222 4 .000
Rules 49.444b 4 .000
b
Improve 57.556 4 .000
b
Instability 37.889 4 .000
b
Corruption 19.667 4 .001
Social 33.778b 4 .000
Crime 49.444b 4 .000
b
Taxation 36.889 4 .000
b
Interest 38.333 4 .000
Technology 41.111b 4 .000
b
Change 45.222 4 .000
b
Competition 41.222 4 .000
b
Covid 69.111 4 .000
Effects 69.444b 4 .000

359
APPENDIX 8: RELIABILITY TEST

Scale: ALL VARIABLES

Case Processing Summary


N %
Cases Valid 90 100.0
a
Excluded 0 .0
Total 90 100.0
a. Listwise deletion based on all variables in the
procedure.

Reliability Statistics
Cronbach's
Alpha N of Items
.886 4

Scale: ALL VARIABLES

Case Processing Summary


N %
Cases Valid 90 100.0
Excludeda 0 .0
Total 90 100.0
a. Listwise deletion based on all variables in the
procedure.

Reliability Statistics
Cronbach's
Alpha N of Items
.759 5

360
Scale: ALL VARIABLES

Case Processing Summary


N %
Cases Valid 90 100.0
Excludeda 0 .0
Total 90 100.0
a. Listwise deletion based on all variables in the
procedure.

Reliability Statistics
Cronbach's
Alpha N of Items
.808 4

Scale: ALL VARIABLES

Case Processing Summary


N %
Cases Valid 90 100.0
Excludeda 0 .0
Total 90 100.0
a. Listwise deletion based on all variables in the
procedure.

Reliability Statistics
Cronbach's
Alpha N of Items
.895 4

Scale: ALL VARIABLES

Case Processing Summary


N %
Cases Valid 90 100.0
a
Excluded 0 .0
Total 90 100.0
a. Listwise deletion based on all variables in the
procedure.

361
Reliability Statistics
Cronbach's
Alpha N of Items
.726 4

Scale: ALL VARIABLES

Case Processing Summary


N %
Cases Valid 90 100.0
Excludeda 0 .0
Total 90 100.0
a. Listwise deletion based on all variables in the
procedure.

Reliability Statistics
Cronbach's
Alpha N of Items
.891 4
Scale: ALL VARIABLES

Case Processing Summary


N %
Cases Valid 90 100.0
Excludeda 0 .0
Total 90 100.0
a. Listwise deletion based on all variables in the
procedure.

Reliability Statistics
Cronbach's
Alpha N of Items
.906 14

362
APPENDIX 9: FACTOR ANALYSIS
B8
KMO and Bartlett's Test
Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin Measure of Sampling Adequacy. .816
Bartlett's Test of Sphericity Approx. Chi-Square 194.090
df 6
Sig. .000

Communalities
Initial Extraction
Understanding 1.000 .728
Information 1.000 .781
Awareness 1.000 .755
Involvement 1.000 .718
Extraction Method: Principal Component
Analysis.

Total Variance Explained


Initial Eigenvalues Extraction Sums of Squared Loadings
Component Total % of Variance Cumulative % Total % of Variance Cumulative %
1 2.982 74.553 74.553 2.982 74.553 74.553
2 .455 11.374 85.927
3 .301 7.524 93.450
4 .262 6.550 100.000
Extraction Method: Principal Component Analysis.

Component Matrixa
Component
1
Understanding .853
Information .884
Awareness .869
Involvement .847
Extraction Method: Principal
Component Analysis.
a. 1 components extracted.

363
B9
KMO and Bartlett's Test
Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin Measure of Sampling Adequacy. .727
Bartlett's Test of Sphericity Approx. Chi-Square 124.212
df 10
Sig. .000

Communalities
Initial Extraction
Young 1.000 .391
Unemployment 1.000 .424
Influence 1.000 .751
Activity 1.000 .671
Level 1.000 .364
Extraction Method: Principal Component
Analysis.

Total Variance Explained


Initial Eigenvalues Extraction Sums of Squared Loadings
Component Total % of Variance Cumulative % Total % of Variance Cumulative %
1 2.600 52.007 52.007 2.600 52.007 52.007
2 .834 16.679 68.686
3 .694 13.884 82.570
4 .614 12.285 94.855
5 .257 5.145 100.000
Extraction Method: Principal Component Analysis.

Component Matrixa
Component
1
Young .625
Unemployment .651
Influence .866
Activity .819
Level .603
Extraction Method: Principal
Component Analysis.
a. 1 components extracted.

364
B10
KMO and Bartlett's Test
Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin Measure of Sampling Adequacy. .724
Bartlett's Test of Sphericity Approx. Chi-Square 130.414
df 6
Sig. .000

Communalities
Initial Extraction
Partnership 1.000 .491
Support 1.000 .697
Government 1.000 .680
Platforms 1.000 .691
Extraction Method: Principal Component
Analysis.

Total Variance Explained


Initial Eigenvalues Extraction Sums of Squared Loadings
Component Total % of Variance Cumulative % Total % of Variance Cumulative %
1 2.558 63.957 63.957 2.558 63.957 63.957
2 .756 18.898 82.855
3 .392 9.802 92.657
4 .294 7.343 100.000
Extraction Method: Principal Component Analysis.

Component Matrixa
Component
1
Partnership .701
Support .835
Government .824
Platforms .831
Extraction Method: Principal
Component Analysis.
a. 1 components extracted.

365
B11
KMO and Bartlett's Test
Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin Measure of Sampling Adequacy. .826
Bartlett's Test of Sphericity Approx. Chi-Square 218.760
df 6
Sig. .000

Communalities
Initial Extraction
Measurement 1.000 .748
Apply 1.000 .835
Identify 1.000 .817
Invest 1.000 .654
Extraction Method: Principal Component
Analysis.

Total Variance Explained


Initial Eigenvalues Extraction Sums of Squared Loadings
Component Total % of Variance Cumulative % Total % of Variance Cumulative %
1 3.053 76.328 76.328 3.053 76.328 76.328
2 .469 11.724 88.051
3 .269 6.713 94.764
4 .209 5.236 100.000
Extraction Method: Principal Component Analysis.

Component Matrixa
Component
1
Measurement .865
Apply .914
Identify .904
Invest .808
Extraction Method: Principal
Component Analysis.
a. 1 components extracted.

366
B12
KMO and Bartlett's Test
Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin Measure of Sampling Adequacy. .709
Bartlett's Test of Sphericity Approx. Chi-Square 76.010
df 6
Sig. .000

Communalities
Initial Extraction
Access 1.000 .542
Family 1.000 .446
Process 1.000 .607
Assistance 1.000 .630
Extraction Method: Principal Component
Analysis.

Total Variance Explained


Initial Eigenvalues Extraction Sums of Squared Loadings
Component Total % of Variance Cumulative % Total % of Variance Cumulative %
1 2.225 55.634 55.634 2.225 55.634 55.634
2 .806 20.150 75.784
3 .532 13.292 89.076
4 .437 10.924 100.000
Extraction Method: Principal Component Analysis.

Component Matrixa
Component
1
Access .736
Family .668
Process .779
Assistance .794
Extraction Method: Principal
Component Analysis.
a. 1 components extracted.

367
B13 (Internal)
KMO and Bartlett's Test
Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin Measure of Sampling Adequacy. .794
Bartlett's Test of Sphericity Approx. Chi-Square 220.516
df 6
Sig. .000

Communalities
Initial Extraction
Management 1.000 .764
Technical 1.000 .830
Training 1.000 .809
Marketing 1.000 .625
Extraction Method: Principal Component
Analysis.

Total Variance Explained


Initial Eigenvalues Extraction Sums of Squared Loadings
Component Total % of Variance Cumulative % Total % of Variance Cumulative %
1 3.028 75.708 75.708 3.028 75.708 75.708
2 .480 11.993 87.701
3 .325 8.117 95.818
4 .167 4.182 100.000
Extraction Method: Principal Component Analysis.

Component Matrixa
Component
1
Management .874
Technical .911
Training .899
Marketing .791
Extraction Method: Principal
Component Analysis.
a. 1 components extracted.

368
B13(External)
KMO and Bartlett's Test
Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin Measure of Sampling Adequacy. .809
Bartlett's Test of Sphericity Approx. Chi-Square 737.582
df 91
Sig. .000

Communalities
Initial Extraction
Legal 1.000 .683
Rules 1.000 .642
Improve 1.000 .613
Instability 1.000 .680
Corruption 1.000 .673
Social 1.000 .664
Crime 1.000 .568
Taxation 1.000 .614
Interest 1.000 .666
Technology 1.000 .700
Change 1.000 .714
Competition 1.000 .668
Covid 1.000 .821
Effects 1.000 .739
Extraction Method: Principal Component
Analysis.

369
Rotated Component Matrixa
Component
1 2 3
Legal .802
Rules .757
Improve .540 .555
Instability .720
Corruption .742
Social .774
Crime .715
Taxation .570
Interest .643
Technology .800
Change .785
Competition .714
Covid .748
Effects .669
Extraction Method: Principal Component Analysis.
Rotation Method: Varimax with Kaiser Normalization.
a. Rotation converged in 7 iterations.

370
Component Transformation Matrix
Component 1 2 3
1 .596 .582 .554
2 .195 .564 -.802
3 -.779 .586 .223
Extraction Method: Principal Component Analysis.
Rotation Method: Varimax with Kaiser Normalization.

371
APPENDIX 10: BIVARIATE RESULTS OF HYPOTHESES

Correlations
Society's Social
perception networking
Society's Pearson 1 .444**
perception Correlation
Sig. (2-tailed) 000
N 90 90
**
Social Pearson .444 1
networking Correlation
Sig. (2-tailed) 000
N 90 90
**. Correlation is significant at the 0.00 level (2-tailed).

Correlations
Social
Impact
Measureme Social
nt networking
Social Impact Pearson 1 .313**
Measurement Correlation
Sig. (2-tailed) .003
N 90 90
Social networking Pearson .313** 1
Correlation
Sig. (2-tailed) .003
N 90 90
**. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).

Correlations

372
social Internal
networking environment
social Pearson 1 .475**
networking Correlation
Sig. (2-tailed) 000
N 90 90
Internal Pearson .475** 1
environment Correlation
Sig. (2-tailed) 000
N 90 90
**. Correlation is significant at the 0.00 level (2-tailed).

Correlations
Social
Impact
Managemen Internal
t environment
Social Impact Pearson 1 .525**
Management Correlation
Sig. (2-tailed) 000
N 90 90
Internal environment Pearson .525** 1
Correlation
Sig. (2-tailed) 000
N 90 90
**. Correlation is significant at the 0.00 level (2-tailed).

Correlations
Financial External
resources environment
Financial Pearson 1 .480**
resources Correlation
Sig. (2-tailed) 000
N 90 90

373
External Pearson .480** 1
environment Correlation
Sig. (2-tailed) 000
N 90 90
**. Correlation is significant at the 0.00 level (2-tailed).

Correlations
Social
Impact
External Measureme
environment nt
External environment Pearson 1 .328**
Correlation
Sig. (2-tailed) .002
N 90 90
Social Impact Pearson .328** 1
Measurement Correlation
Sig. (2-tailed) .002
N 90 90
**. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).

374
APPENDIX 11: TURNITIN REPORT

375
376
377
378
379
380
381
382
383
384
385
386
387
388
389
390
391
392
393
394
395
APPENDIX 12: EDITOR’S REPORT

396

You might also like