Next Article in Journal
Developing a Comprehensive Framework for Assessing Airports’ Environmental Sustainability
Previous Article in Journal
Long-Term Landscape Changes in the Ojców National Park (Poland) and Its Surroundings: Implications for the Effectiveness of Buffer Zones
 
 
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Empowering Innovation: Advancing Social Entrepreneurship Policies in Croatia

by
Sanja Tišma
1,*,
Mira Mileusnić Škrtić
2,*,
Sanja Maleković
1,
Daniela Angelina Jelinčić
1 and
Ivana Keser
1
1
Institute for Development and International Relations IRMO, 10000 Zagreb, Croatia
2
Environmental Health Engineering, University of Applied Health Sciences, 10000 Zagreb, Croatia
*
Authors to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Sustainability 2024, 16(15), 6650; https://doi.org/10.3390/su16156650
Submission received: 9 June 2024 / Revised: 29 July 2024 / Accepted: 30 July 2024 / Published: 3 August 2024

Abstract

:
This paper examines the impact of public policy guidelines on social entrepreneurship in Croatia, focusing on regional disparities and the effectiveness of various policy areas. Using a mixed-method approach, this research highlights how these variations influence policy outcomes, particularly in terms of the diverse levels of support across regions. The findings reveal the necessity of adopting region-specific and policy-area-specific strategies to effectively nurture a robust social entrepreneurship ecosystem. Additionally, enhancing public awareness and education is found to be critical for fostering a supportive environment for social entrepreneurship.

1. Introduction

1.1. Background and Context

Social entrepreneurship has gained significant traction as an innovative approach to addressing social and environmental issues through sustainable business models. Unlike traditional enterprises, social enterprises prioritize social impact over profit maximization, striving to create value for society while maintaining financial viability [1]. This dual focus positions social entrepreneurship as a critical player in tackling complex global challenges such as poverty, inequality, and environmental degradation [2,3].
Public policy plays a crucial role in fostering a supportive environment for social entrepreneurship. Policies that provide legal recognition, financial support, and capacity-building opportunities are essential for the growth and sustainability of social enterprises [4]. In particular, the alignment of public policy with the needs and objectives of social enterprises can enhance their ability to scale and amplify their impact on local communities [5,6].
The existing body of research highlights the importance of an enabling policy framework for the success of social enterprises. Studies have shown that countries with well-developed social entrepreneurship ecosystems, supported by favorable public policies, tend to have more vibrant and impactful social enterprises [7]. For instance, in Europe, countries like the UK and Italy have implemented specific legal forms for social enterprises, which has led to increased visibility and support for the sector [8].
March and Olsen’s work [9] highlights how institutions create frameworks of meaning and action that influence political behavior. They argue that institutions provide the structures within which political actors operate, shaping their perceptions and actions. This perspective underscores the idea that policy outcomes are not just a result of individual decisions but are deeply embedded in institutional contexts. The authors discuss how different political ideologies, such as social and liberal politics, are rooted in institutional settings. For instance, social politics may emphasize collective welfare and equitable distribution of resources, while liberal politics may focus on individual rights and market efficiencies. Understanding these roots helps explain how different policy perspectives emerge and how they are supported or challenged within various institutional contexts. Furthermore, March and Olsen explore how institutions provide both constraints and opportunities for policy implementation. Institutions can either facilitate or hinder policy effectiveness, depending on how well the policies align with existing institutional structures and practices. This insight is crucial for understanding why policies might be implemented differently across regions or policy areas [9].
The historical and institutional contexts of Central and Eastern Europe play a significant role in shaping the opportunities for social policy and social enterprises. The region’s transition from communist rule to market economies and democratic governance has left a complex legacy that continues to influence contemporary social policies and the development of social enterprises. The legacy of communist regimes, characterized by centralized control and state ownership, has had a profound impact on the development of social policy and social enterprises. The centralized nature of the previous political system created a strong state presence in the economic and social spheres, which has led to entrenched bureaucratic practices and a strong orientation towards state-led solutions in many countries. The shift to market economies introduced new opportunities and challenges. While the transition facilitated the growth of private enterprises and market-driven policies, it also revealed gaps in social protection and support systems. This transition period necessitated the development of new social policies and mechanisms to address emerging social needs, leading to the rise of social enterprises as a means to fill these gaps. Jacobsson and Saxonberg’s [10] work offers a context for understanding how social movements in Central and Eastern Europe have evolved, which can be relevant for analyzing the support and effectiveness of social entrepreneurship policies in the region. This edited volume explores the transformation and development of social movements in Central and Eastern Europe, particularly in the context of the post-socialist transition [10]. The book critically examines the phenomenon of “NGO-ization”, where social movements increasingly adopt organizational forms and practices associated with non-governmental organizations (NGOs) [10].
The bureaucratic nature of post-communist institutions often leads to complex regulatory environments that can hinder the growth and effectiveness of social enterprises. The persistence of outdated administrative procedures and the slow adaptation of legal frameworks to support social entrepreneurship can pose challenges for new and emerging social enterprises. Many Central and Eastern European countries have had to overhaul their legal and regulatory frameworks to accommodate the needs of social enterprises. The pace and extent of these reforms vary by country, affecting the ease of starting and operating social enterprises. In countries where legal frameworks are more supportive and flexible, social enterprises tend to thrive better. Social capital varies significantly across different regions within Central and Eastern Europe. For example, Poland’s relatively higher levels of social capital, as discussed by Katarzyna Lasinska [11], might provide a more favorable environment for social enterprises compared to other countries in the region where social capital is weaker. This regional variation affects how social policies are implemented and how effectively social enterprises can operate and address local needs. Lasinska [11] examines the concept of social capital in the context of Eastern Europe, with a particular focus on Poland, and explores how social capital—defined as networks, norms, and social trust that facilitate coordination and cooperation—functions within the region and whether Poland presents a unique case. The author investigates the factors influencing the development of social capital in Eastern Europe, including historical legacies, socio-economic conditions, and institutional frameworks [11]. Understanding these historical and institutional contexts, along with the role of social capital, is crucial for designing effective social entrepreneurship policies. Croatia, like many other countries, has been actively exploring ways to promote social entrepreneurship and harness its potential for positive social impact [12].
However, the effectiveness of public policies varies significantly across different regions and contexts. While some policies have been successful in promoting social entrepreneurship, others have faced criticism for being overly bureaucratic or misaligned with the needs of social enterprises [13]. This variation underscores the need for a nuanced understanding of how different policy measures impact social entrepreneurship in diverse settings.
There are divergent views on the best approaches to supporting social entrepreneurship through public policy. One perspective argues that comprehensive legal and financial frameworks are essential to provide stability and resources for social enterprises [2]. In contrast, another view suggests that too much regulation can stifle innovation and flexibility, proposing instead that minimal intervention and market-driven solutions are more effective [14]. These perspectives reflect broader debates in public policy and economic theory regarding the balance between government intervention and market forces. Understanding the balance between supportive intervention and over-regulation is critical for designing policies that genuinely benefit social enterprises and the communities they serve [15,16,17,18].

1.2. Research Purpose and Objectives

The research problem addressed in this study is to understand how regional variations and different policy areas influence the effectiveness and consistency of public policy guidelines on social entrepreneurship in Croatia.
The main objective of this study is to assess the social impact of public policy guidelines on social entrepreneurship in Croatia. The specific objectives are as follows:
  • To assess regional variations in the effectiveness of public policy guidelines on social entrepreneurship across Croatia;
  • To evaluate how support levels for social entrepreneurship policies vary among different policy areas;
  • To analyze the consistency of support levels across regions for different social entrepreneurship policy areas.
The research questions addressed in this study are likely to be structured around the assessment of public policies in social entrepreneurship in Croatia:
  • What is the level of support for various guidelines aimed at fostering social entrepreneurship in Croatia, and how does it vary across different regions and stakeholder groups?
  • How do different stakeholder groups perceive and prioritize the guidelines related to social entrepreneurship in Croatia?
  • What are the key challenges and opportunities identified by stakeholders in implementing social entrepreneurship policies?
  • To what extent are existing policies effective in promoting social entrepreneurship and addressing societal needs in Croatia?
  • How do variations in policy support levels across regions and stakeholder groups impact the growth and sustainability of social enterprises in Croatia?
  • What insights and recommendations can be drawn from the analysis to enhance the effectiveness of social entrepreneurship policies in Croatia?
This study tests the following hypotheses:
  • Regional Differences: There are significant regional differences in the perceptions of the effectiveness of public policy guidelines on social entrepreneurship.
    Regional disparities in economic development, social structures, and cultural contexts are common in many countries, including Croatia. These disparities can significantly influence how policies are perceived and implemented. Croatia, like many countries, has distinct regions (in this case, the City of Zagreb, Adriatic Croatia, and Pannonian Croatia) with varying economic conditions, historical contexts, and social needs. Understanding regional differences is crucial for crafting effective policies. What works in one region may not be as effective in another due to varying economic conditions, social structures, or cultural norms. If significant regional differences exist, it may justify allocating resources differently across regions to support social entrepreneurship more effectively. Recognizing regional differences allows policymakers to develop more targeted and contextually appropriate strategies for promoting social entrepreneurship. Addressing regional disparities in policy effectiveness can contribute to more balanced development across the country, potentially reducing economic and social inequalities.
  • Impact of Policy Area on Support: The level of support for social entrepreneurship policies varies significantly depending on the policy area.
    Social entrepreneurship intersects with various policy domains, including education, taxation, agriculture, and social services. Each of these areas has its own stakeholders, existing policy frameworks, and perceived importance in the broader social and economic context. The literature on social entrepreneurship often emphasizes the need for supportive ecosystems that span multiple policy areas. Understanding which policy areas receive more support can help in prioritizing efforts and resources in developing social entrepreneurship policies. If support varies significantly across policy areas, it highlights the need for an interdisciplinary approach to social entrepreneurship policy. Knowing which policy areas have more or less support can guide strategies for stakeholder engagement and coalition-building. Areas with lower support might indicate knowledge gaps or areas where the relevance of social entrepreneurship is not well understood, suggesting a need for education or awareness campaigns.
  • Regional Variability in Policy Support Consistency: There is a significant difference in the consistency of support levels across regions for different policy areas.
    This hypothesis combines elements of regional development theory with the multi-faceted nature of social entrepreneurship policy. It recognizes that not only might overall support for social entrepreneurship vary by region, but the consistency of that support across different policy areas might also vary. This can be influenced by factors such as regional economic specializations, social needs, or existing policy frameworks. Understanding how consistently different policy areas are supported across regions can help in developing more coherent national strategies that accommodate regional variations. Areas with high and consistent support across regions might indicate successful policy approaches that could be replicated. Inconsistent support across regions for certain policy areas might point to region-specific challenges or opportunities that need to be addressed. Analyzing consistency can facilitate cross-regional learning, where successful approaches in one region could be adapted for others. Understanding which policy areas have consistent support across regions versus those with high variability can inform more effective resource allocation and policy implementation strategies.
These hypotheses are set against the backdrop of growing interest in social entrepreneurship as a means to address social and environmental challenges while promoting economic development. The European Union, including Croatia, has been increasingly focusing on social entrepreneurship as part of its social economy initiatives. Understanding regional differences, policy area impacts, and consistency of support is crucial for developing effective policies that can foster a thriving social entrepreneurship ecosystem.
Despite existing research on social entrepreneurship policies, there is a limited understanding of how these policies perform across different regions and policy areas within Croatia. Specifically, there is a gap in the knowledge regarding the regional variations in policy effectiveness, the variability in support levels across policy areas, and the overall social impact of these policies. This study addresses these gaps by providing a comprehensive analysis of the effectiveness and consistency of public policy guidelines on social entrepreneurship across Croatia.
By analyzing regional variations and identifying key success factors, this research aims to provide evidence-based recommendations for policymakers. This study seeks to contribute to the broader discourse on social entrepreneurship by highlighting the interplay between policy and practice, and by offering insights into the most effective strategies for fostering a thriving social enterprise sector.
The main aim of this work is to assess the strength of social impacts resulting from the public policy guidelines related to state assets, tax policy, the legislative framework, youth, the education system, vulnerable groups and social services, agriculture, and communication channels in Croatia.
By assessing support levels across different regions and stakeholder groups, this research aims to identify variations and disparities, providing insights into regional and stakeholder-specific preferences and priorities.
This study’s findings will shed light on the extent to which these guidelines support the development of social entrepreneurship and its positive effects on local communities. The principal conclusions will offer targeted recommendations for enhancing public policy frameworks to better support social enterprises, ultimately contributing to the advancement of social and economic objectives in Croatia.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Research Design

The research methodology of this study incorporated well-established elements of social science research, including questionnaire design, sampling strategy, data collection procedures, and data analysis techniques, drawing from the methodologies of Creswell [19], Green et al. [20], and Mitchell et al. [21]. This study utilizes a mixed-methods research design, combining both quantitative and qualitative approaches, to assess the social impact of public policies on social entrepreneurship. The research methodology integrates a structured survey for data collection and advanced statistical analyses to evaluate policy effectiveness and stakeholder perspectives. Tailoring to the specific context of the study, adjustments were made to the questionnaire design by incorporating context-specific questions and addressing emerging issues relevant to social entrepreneurship in various regions of Croatia.

2.2. Data Collection

Survey Instrument

Data were collected through structured surveys administered to stakeholders involved in social entrepreneurship, including social entrepreneurs, support institutes, policymakers, and academic institutions. The confidentiality and anonymity of participants’ responses were maintained, and informed consent was obtained before collecting any data.
The surveys included questions addressing the impact of the guidelines on social entrepreneurship in various regions of Croatia, focusing on aspects such as regional variations, stakeholder perceptions, and the effectiveness of current policies.
The target population was determined by considering factors such as geographic location, sectoral representation, and stakeholder diversity [22].
Sampling techniques such as random sampling or stratified sampling were employed to ensure representation from different regions and stakeholder groups.
The survey instrument was developed based on the research objectives identified in the study. Key research questions were translated into survey items, which were carefully selected to capture relevant aspects of social entrepreneurship, communication channels, and stakeholder perceptions. The survey instrument underwent rigorous validation procedures, including pilot testing with a small sample of participants and expert review by researchers familiar with the field.
Surveys were administered using a mixed-method approach, with both online and in-person distribution methods employed to reach a diverse range of stakeholders. Data collection occurred during the period from February to August 2021, with reminders sent to participants to maximize response rates. To ensure data integrity, participants were informed about the purpose of the study and their consent was obtained before survey completion. A survey was conducted with a sample of 550 respondents from across the entire Republic of Croatia. To ensure the validity and reliability of the research findings, several measures were implemented. The survey instrument underwent rigorous validation procedures to assess its content validity. Inter-rater reliability checks were conducted for qualitative coding, with discrepancies resolved through consensus. Test–retest reliability assessments were performed to evaluate the stability of responses over time. Additionally, data quality checks were conducted to identify and address any inconsistencies or errors in the data.
The conducted survey analyzed the social impact [23] of the proposed guidelines (Figure 1) on a scale of low, medium, and high effectiveness. This analysis reveals how stakeholders across various regions in Croatia—namely the City of Zagreb, Adriatic Croatia, and Pannonian Croatia—perceive the significance and impact of these guidelines on social entrepreneurship (Figure 1).
These guidelines, evaluated for their social impact, help to identify specific areas where policy adjustments are necessary to cater to regional needs and enhance the overall ecosystem for social entrepreneurship in Croatia [24,25,26].

2.3. Data Analysis

2.3.1. Quantitative Analysis

Quantitative data from the survey were analyzed using Descriptive Statistics t-tests and Analysis of Variance (ANOVA).
The quantitative data analysis utilized statistical methods to determine the level of support for each guideline and identify patterns or trends across regions and stakeholder groups.
  • Descriptive Statistics:
Mean (M): Average score for responses to each policy guideline.
Standard Deviation (SD): Measures the variation in responses.
Frequency Distribution: Distribution of responses across different Likert scale categories.
Variance: Measure of variability in support levels across regions for each policy area.
  • t-tests:
Independent samples t-tests were used to compare mean support levels between two groups, particularly when examining:
  • Differences in support levels between specific regions (part of Hypothesis 1).
  • Differences in support levels between specific policy areas (part of Hypothesis 2).
The formula for the independent samples t-test is as follows:
t = ( x 1 ¯ x 2 ¯ ) / ( s 1 2 / n 1 + s 2 2 / n 2 )
where
  • x 1 ¯ , x 2 ¯ : Means of the two groups
  • s 1 2 , s 2 2 : Variances of the two groups
  • n1, n2: Sample sizes of the two groups
  • One-way ANOVA was employed to analyze the following:
  • Differences in support levels across the three regions: the City of Zagreb, Adriatic Croatia, and Pannonian Croatia (Hypothesis 1).
  • Differences in support levels across all policy areas (Hypothesis 2).
  • Differences in the consistency of support levels across regions for different policy areas (Hypothesis 3).
The general model for one-way ANOVA is as follows:
Yij = μ + αi + εij,
where
  • Yij: The jth observation in the ith group,
  • μ: The overall mean,
  • αi: The effect of the ith group,
  • εij: The random error term.
The F-statistic and p-value were calculated to determine statistical significance, with p < 0.05 considered statistically significant. To complement the ANOVA results, effect size measures (such as eta-squared or partial eta-squared) were calculated to quantify the magnitude of the differences between groups.

2.3.2. Qualitative Analysis

Qualitative analysis of the results of quantitative data gathering involves interpreting the findings beyond numerical values to gain deeper insights into the underlying reasons, perceptions, and contexts behind the quantitative results:
  • Contextual Interpretation: Researchers interpreted quantitative findings within broader contexts, considering socio-economic factors, cultural norms, and historical backgrounds to provide a nuanced understanding of the results.
  • Exploring Subgroup Differences: Analysis uncovered subgroup variations within the quantitative data, revealing unique perspectives or experiences across demographic variables or stakeholder groups.
  • Interpretation of Quantitative Patterns: When quantitative analysis indicated regional discrepancies in guideline support, qualitative analysis explored contextual factors or stakeholder perceptions contributing to these variations.

2.4. Reliability and Validity

2.4.1. Reliability

Reliability was assessed using Cronbach’s Alpha for internal consistency. A Cronbach’s Alpha coefficient greater than 0.7 indicates acceptable reliability.

2.4.2. Validity

Content validity was ensured through expert reviews of the survey questions to confirm that they accurately measure the intended constructs related to social entrepreneurship policies.

2.5. Limitations

Despite efforts to minimize bias and ensure data quality, several limitations should be acknowledged. Constraints related to the survey design and data collection methods may have influenced response rates or introduced response bias. Additionally, the cross-sectional nature of this study precludes causal inference, and future research could benefit from longitudinal or experimental designs to establish causality. While 550 responses were collected, the sample may not fully represent all regional or stakeholder perspectives. Efforts were made to mitigate these limitations through a well-designed survey and diverse respondent outreach. A significant limitation is the study’s geographic focus on specific Croatian regions—namely, the City of Zagreb, Adriatic Croatia, and Pannonian Croatia. This scope limits the generalizability of the findings and restricts the ability to compare and systematize knowledge across other regions or countries with similar contexts.

3. Results

The general assessments of the impact of key guidelines on social entrepreneurship in the Republic of Croatia indicate a consistent perception of relatively high impact across the majority of the key guidelines, with varying degrees of moderate and low impact (Figure 2). This suggests that the guidelines are generally viewed as influential in fostering social entrepreneurship within the Republic of Croatia, albeit with some variation in their perceived effectiveness.
The guidelines for the development of public policies in social entrepreneurship and state assets encompass the formulation of policies aimed at leveraging state assets to support social entrepreneurship initiatives. The relatively high percentage of respondents attributing high impact suggests that policies targeting the utilization of state assets for social entrepreneurship are perceived as effective. This could involve strategies such as asset transfer, leasing arrangements, or subsidies to social enterprises, which contribute to their sustainability and growth [27].
The guidelines for the development of public policies in social entrepreneurship and tax policy play a crucial role in shaping the operating environment for social enterprises. The high percentage of respondents attributing high impact indicates that tax policies designed to incentivize social entrepreneurship activities are perceived as effective. Such policies may include tax breaks, exemptions, or credits for social enterprises, thereby reducing their operational costs and facilitating their growth and impact [28].
A supportive legislative framework is essential for the growth and sustainability of social entrepreneurship. The moderate percentage of respondents attributing high impact suggests that while the legislative framework for social entrepreneurship in Croatia is perceived to have a positive effect, there may be room for improvement. This could involve streamlining regulations, introducing legal forms tailored to social enterprises, and clarifying legal ambiguities to provide greater certainty for social entrepreneurs.
Engaging youth in social entrepreneurship initiatives can contribute to societal innovation and address youth unemployment challenges. The relatively high percentage of respondents attributing high impact suggests that policies targeting youth involvement in social entrepreneurship are perceived as effective. This could involve initiatives such as youth entrepreneurship education, mentorship programs, and funding schemes tailored to young social entrepreneurs [29].
Integrating social entrepreneurship into the education system can foster a culture of social innovation and equip students with the skills and mindset needed to address social challenges [30]. The high percentage of respondents attributing high impact indicates that policies promoting the integration of social entrepreneurship into the education system are perceived as effective. This could involve curriculum development, teacher training, and partnerships between schools and social enterprises to provide real-world learning experiences.
Targeted policies addressing vulnerable groups and social services can enhance social inclusion and improve the well-being of marginalized communities [31]. The moderate percentage of respondents attributing high impact suggests that while such policies are perceived to have a positive effect, there may be opportunities for further enhancement. This could involve increasing funding for social services, expanding access to social entrepreneurship opportunities for vulnerable groups, and strengthening partnerships between social enterprises and social service providers.
Promoting social entrepreneurship in agriculture can contribute to sustainable rural development and support small-scale farmers and rural communities [32,33]. The relatively high percentage of respondents attributing high impact suggests that policies targeting social entrepreneurship in agriculture are perceived as effective. This could involve initiatives such as agricultural cooperatives, organic farming certification programs, and market access support for small-scale producers.
Effective communication channels and support institutions are essential for facilitating collaboration, knowledge sharing, and resource mobilization within the social entrepreneurship ecosystem [34]. The high percentage of respondents attributing high impact indicates that policies promoting the development of communication channels and support institutions are perceived as effective. This could involve initiatives such as networking events, online platforms, and capacity-building programs for social entrepreneurs and support organizations.
The general assessments of the impact of key guidelines on social entrepreneurship in the Republic of Croatia reflect the perceived effectiveness of policies targeting various aspects of the social entrepreneurship ecosystem. The data indicate subtle regional differences in stakeholder opinions, underscoring the need for tailored strategies to effectively implement and prioritize these guidelines according to localized needs.

3.1. Regional Differences in Perceptions of Public Policy Guidelines on Social Entrepreneurship in Croatia

To investigate the regional differences, we formulated the following hypotheses:
  • Null Hypothesis (H0): There are no significant regional differences in perceptions of the effectiveness of public policy guidelines;
  • Alternative Hypothesis (H1): There are significant regional differences in perceptions of the effectiveness of public policy guidelines.
Using a one-way ANOVA, we compared the “high” support percentages across three regions—the City of Zagreb, Adriatic Croatia, and Pannonian Croatia—for all guidelines. The results were as follows:
  • F-statistic: 4.651683267185842,
  • p-value: 0.011652764386575222.
The ANOVA results show a statistically significant difference between the regions (p-value < 0.05). This supports the hypothesis that there are significant regional differences in the perceptions of the effectiveness of public policy guidelines on social entrepreneurship.

3.2. Impact of Policy Area on Support of Public Policy Guidelines on Social Entrepreneurship in Croatia

To investigate the impact of policy areas on support of public policy guidelines, the following hypotheses are formulated:
  • Null Hypothesis (H0): The level of support for social entrepreneurship policies does not vary significantly by policy area;
  • Alternative Hypothesis (H1): The level of support for social entrepreneurship policies varies significantly by policy area.
To test this hypothesis, one-way ANOVA is used to compare the “high” support percentages across the different policy areas.
One-way ANOVA results:
  • F-statistic: 1.5157298037594724,
  • p-value: 0.16736707670946472.
The ANOVA results show no statistically significant difference between the policy areas (p-value > 0.05). This does not support the hypothesis that the level of support for social entrepreneurship policies varies significantly depending on the policy area.

3.3. Consistency of Support across Regions for Different Public Policy Guidelines on Social Entrepreneurship in Croatia

To investigate the consistency of support across regions for different public policy guidelines, we formulated the following hypotheses:
  • Null Hypothesis (H0): There is no significant difference in the consistency of support levels across regions for different policy areas when considering mean support levels;
  • Alternative Hypothesis (H1): There is a significant difference in the consistency of support levels across regions for different policy areas.
To test this hypothesis, we calculate the variance in support levels across the three regions for each policy area. A lower variance indicates more consistency across regions, while a higher variance suggests more regional disparity in support for that policy area.
The variances show the level of consistency in the support across regions for each policy area. Lower values indicate more consistency, while higher values suggest more regional disparity:
  • State Assets: 7.8410,
  • Tax Policy: 18.9004,
  • Legislative Framework: 13.1246,
  • Youth: 25.2454,
  • Education System: 119.6052,
  • Vulnerable Groups: 42.9820,
  • Agriculture: 16.9657,
  • Communication: 23.6459.
The education system has the highest variance (119.6052), indicating the most regional disparity in support levels. This suggests that perceptions of education system guidelines vary greatly across regions.
State assets have the lowest variance (7.8410), suggesting the most consistency in support across regions for this policy area.
The ANOVA test results (p-value = 0.9003) indicate that there is no statistically significant difference in the mean support levels across policy areas when considering regional variations.
We fail to reject the null hypothesis. However, the variance analysis reveals interesting patterns in the consistency of support across regions for each policy area. While the education system had high overall support, it also has the most regional variation. This suggests that perceptions of education-related guidelines differ substantially across regions. State assets guidelines have the most consistent support across regions, which could indicate that these guidelines are perceived similarly regardless of regional context.

3.4. Regional Variations and Policy Implications for Social Entrepreneurship in Croatia

Three key hypotheses were examined, each with important implications for policy formulation and implementation.
Firstly, the hypothesis regarding regional differences in perceptions of public policy effectiveness is confirmed. Significant regional variations exist in how effective public policy guidelines on social entrepreneurship are perceived. This suggests that the impact of these policies may differ from one region to another, highlighting the need for region-specific adjustments.
Secondly, the hypothesis concerning the impact of policy areas on support levels is not supported. The level of support for social entrepreneurship policies remains relatively consistent across different policy areas. This indicates that, despite regional disparities, the overall support for social entrepreneurship policies does not fluctuate significantly with changes in policy focus.
These conclusions underscore the importance of considering regional contexts when evaluating and implementing social entrepreneurship policies. Regional differences in perceptions suggest that a tailored approach to policy implementation could enhance effectiveness. Conversely, the uniformity in support across policy areas implies that policymakers can rely on a balanced approach to policy formulation without significant concern for variability in support levels.

3.4.1. The Development of Public Policies in Social Entrepreneurship and State Assets

Based on the conducted research on the social impact of guidelines for the development of public policies related to state assets (Figure 3), the following points were indicated:
  • Coordination Working Group (Guideline 1.1): Establishing a coordinated working group composed of stakeholders is viewed positively, but with regional variations. Higher support in certain regions indicates recognition of the importance of collaboration and coordination in promoting social entrepreneurship and managing state assets. However, the moderate to low levels of support in some areas suggest potential challenges in ensuring effective stakeholder engagement and cooperation.
    The descriptive statistics (frequency distribution analysis) for this guideline are as follows:
    • City of Zagreb: High impact (77.78%), moderate (11.11%), low (11.11%);
    • Adriatic Croatia: High impact (73.33%), moderate (12.22%), low (14.44%);
    • Pannonian Croatia: High impact (66.04%), moderate (15.09%), low (18.87%).
  • Education of Stakeholders (Guideline 1.2): Education is seen as highly impactful, especially in certain regions. Higher support in some regions may indicate greater awareness of the potential benefits of education and training in fostering innovation and project development.
    The descriptive statistics for this guideline are as follows:
    • City of Zagreb: High impact (88.89%), no moderate impact, low impact (11.11%);
    • Adriatic Croatia: High impact (72.22%), no moderate impact, low impact (12.22%);
    • Pannonian Croatia: High impact (64.15%), no moderate impact, low impact (20.75%).
  • Raising Public Awareness (Guideline 1.3): Public awareness efforts are crucial, but vary in perceived impact across regions. Higher support in some regions may indicate greater recognition of the importance of public awareness initiatives for promoting social entrepreneurship.
    The descriptive statistics for this guideline are:
    • City of Zagreb: High impact (61.11%), moderate impact (27.78%), low impact (11.11%);
    • Adriatic Croatia: High impact (67.78%), moderate impact (27.78%), low impact (4.44%);
    • Pannonian Croatia: High impact (75.47%), moderate impact (15.09%), low impact (9.43%).
According to the collected data, among respondents in the Republic of Croatia, there is a prevailing view that the guidelines for the development of public policies related to state assets have a significant impact on the further development of social entrepreneurship and the local community in which social entrepreneurs actively operate. The remaining respondents, who are divided between those who consider these guidelines to be relatively or minimally significant for the further development of social entrepreneurship and the local community in which social entrepreneurs actively operate, are in the minority.

3.4.2. The Development of Public Policies in Social Entrepreneurship and Tax Policy

Based on the conducted research on the social impact of guidelines for the development of public policies related to tax policy, it was found that raising awareness about the importance and role of social entrepreneurship is considered to have a strong positive impact on the further development of social entrepreneurship and the local community in which social entrepreneurs actively operate, with the highest prevalence in Pannonian Croatia (73.58%). The view that establishing a unified body for the coordination and development of social entrepreneurship has a strong positive effect is most prevalent in the City of Zagreb (77.78%). Similarly, the opinion that creating a supportive general legislative act defining social enterprises, along with providing recommendations and proposals for amendments to the legislative framework of public policies, is most prevalent in Adriatic Croatia (77.78%). Mapping and in-depth analysis of enterprises, as well as the development of an official registry of social enterprises, are considered to have a strong positive impact primarily in Adriatic Croatia (77.22%).
Based on the conducted research on the social impact of guidelines for the development of public policies in social entrepreneurship and tax policy (Figure 4), the following points were indicated:
  • Specific Tax Reliefs and Exemptions for Social Entrepreneurs (Guideline 2.1): The relatively high levels of support across regions indicate recognition of the significance of tax incentives in fostering a conducive environment for social entrepreneurship.
    The City of Zagreb and Pannonian Croatia show higher support, possibly reflecting greater awareness of the potential benefits of tax reliefs and exemptions for social entrepreneurs in urban and rural settings. In contrast, Adriatic Croatia exhibits slightly lower but still moderate support, which may be attributed to differing economic structures and priorities in coastal regions.
    The data suggest that there is a consensus on the importance of further elaborating specific tax measures to support social entrepreneurship, indicating an opportunity for policymakers to prioritize this area in policy formulation.
  • Strengthening Specific Tax Reliefs and Exemptions (Guideline 2.2): The high levels of support across regions demonstrate a clear acknowledgment of the role of tax policies in incentivizing social entrepreneurship. Consistency in support levels across regions suggests a shared understanding of the importance of maintaining and potentially expanding existing tax incentives for social entrepreneurs.
    The data indicate that there is a strong consensus on the need to further elaborate and strengthen specific tax reliefs and exemptions for social entrepreneurs, highlighting a potential area for policy refinement and enhancement.
  • Strengthening Capacity to Raise Financial Resources (Guideline 2.3): The varying levels of support across regions suggest differences in perceptions regarding the effectiveness of policies aimed at strengthening the capacity of social entrepreneurs to raise financial resources. While the City of Zagreb exhibits relatively lower support (50%), the Adriatic and the Pannonian Croatia show higher levels of endorsement, possibly reflecting regional differences in access to financial markets and funding opportunities.
The data underscore the importance of targeted interventions to enhance financial literacy, access to capital, and networking opportunities for social entrepreneurs, particularly in regions where support levels are lower.

3.4.3. The Development of Public Policies in Social Entrepreneurship and Legislative Frameworks

Based on the conducted research on the social impact of guidelines for the development of public policies in social entrepreneurship and legislative frameworks (Figure 5), the following points were indicated:
  • Mapping and Analysis of Social Enterprises, and Development of an Official Registry (Guideline 3.1):
    The varying levels of support across regions suggest differing perceptions regarding the importance and feasibility of mapping and analyzing social enterprises and establishing an official registry.
    While support is generally high, there are notable disparities, with higher levels of endorsement in Adriatic Croatia compared to Pannonian Croatia, for instance.
    To address these disparities and enhance effectiveness, policymakers could explore the underlying reasons for differing levels of support and tailor strategies to overcome barriers to implementation. This could involve capacity-building initiatives, stakeholder consultations, and targeted investments in data collection and analysis infrastructure.
  • Creation of a Stimulating Legal Act Defining Social Enterprises (Guideline 3.2):
    The high levels of support across regions suggest a consensus on the importance of creating a legal framework that defines social enterprises and provides recommendations for amending the legislative framework.
    Notably, Adriatic Croatia exhibits particularly strong support for this guideline compared to other regions.
    To capitalize on this consensus and enhance effectiveness, policymakers should prioritize the development and implementation of a comprehensive legal act that provides clarity and incentives for social entrepreneurship. This could involve collaborating with stakeholders to identify key priorities and drafting legislation that addresses the specific needs and challenges of social enterprises.
  • Establishment of a Unified Coordination Body for Social Entrepreneurship (Guideline 3.3):
    The data indicate relatively high levels of support across regions for the establishment of a unified body for coordinating and developing social entrepreneurship.
    While there are slight variations in support levels, particularly in Adriatic Croatia and the Republic of Croatia, overall, there is a recognition of the importance of coordination in advancing social entrepreneurship initiatives.
    To leverage this support and enhance effectiveness, policymakers could focus on establishing clear governance structures, defining the roles and responsibilities of the coordination body, and ensuring representation from diverse stakeholders. This could facilitate cohesive and collaborative efforts in promoting social entrepreneurship across different sectors and regions.
  • Raising Public Awareness about Social Entrepreneurship (Guideline 3.4):
    The data indicate moderate to high levels of support for raising public awareness about the importance and role of social entrepreneurship.
    To maximize the impact of awareness-raising efforts, policymakers could develop targeted communication strategies that resonate with local communities and address region-specific concerns. This could involve leveraging diverse communication channels, collaborating with local influencers and media outlets, and integrating storytelling and testimonials to illustrate the tangible benefits of social entrepreneurship.

3.4.4. The Development of Public Policies in Social Entrepreneurship and Youth

Based on the conducted research on the social impact of guidelines for the development of public policies in social entrepreneurship and youth (Figure 6), the following points were indicated:
  • Mapping of Social Enterprises (Guideline 4.1):
    The data indicate varying levels of support for mapping social enterprises across regions.
    While the City of Zagreb shows the highest support, other regions exhibit moderate to high levels of endorsement.
    To enhance effectiveness, policymakers could prioritize investment in comprehensive mapping initiatives, ensuring accurate and up-to-date information to inform policy-making and resource allocation.
  • Clear Strategic Framework for Youth Employment and Social Entrepreneurship (Guideline 4.2):
    The high levels of support across regions indicate a consensus on the importance of establishing a clear strategic framework to encourage youth employment and social entrepreneurship.
    To maximize impact, policymakers should focus on developing comprehensive strategies that address the unique needs and aspirations of young people, integrating elements of education, skills development, mentorship, and access to finance.
  • Promotion and Visibility of Social Entrepreneurship Concept (Guideline 4.3):
    The data show strong support for promoting and enhancing the visibility of social entrepreneurship among entrepreneurs and citizens across regions.
    To capitalize on this support, policymakers could leverage communication strategies, public campaigns, and educational initiatives to raise awareness about the benefits and opportunities of social entrepreneurship, fostering a culture of innovation and social impact.
  • Reform of Active Labor Market Policies (Guideline 4.4):
    The data indicate relatively high levels of support for reforming active labor market policies, including the Croatian Employment Service, across regions.
    To ensure effectiveness, policymakers should prioritize evidence-based reforms that enhance the responsiveness, efficiency, and inclusivity of labor market policies, aligning them with the evolving needs of the workforce and the changing nature of work.
  • Reform of the Educational System (Guideline 4.5):
    The data highlight moderate to high levels of support for reforming the educational system to better prepare young people for entrepreneurship and employment opportunities. To drive meaningful change, policymakers should prioritize reforms that foster entrepreneurship education, practical skills development, and experiential learning opportunities within the formal education system, equipping students with the tools and mindset needed for success in the 21st-century economy [35].

3.4.5. The Development of Public Policies in Social Entrepreneurship and the Education System

According to a conducted study on the strength of social impact guidelines for the development of public policies related to the educational system, it is indicated that the standpoint advocating for educational system reform, fostering educational community engagement, and the necessity for greater visibility and promotion of socially beneficial learning has a significant positive effect on entrepreneurship development, most prominently observed in the City of Zagreb (77–100%). Based on the conducted research on the social impact of guidelines for the development of public policies in social entrepreneurship and tax policy (Figure 7), the following points were indicated:
  • Greater Visibility and Promotion of Service-Learning (Guideline 5.1):
    The data indicate moderate to high levels of support for the necessity of greater visibility and promotion of service-learning across regions.
    While the City of Zagreb exhibits the highest support, other regions also show notable endorsement, highlighting the perceived importance of integrating service-learning into educational curricula.
    To enhance effectiveness, policymakers could prioritize initiatives that promote experiential learning opportunities, community engagement, and social impact projects within schools and universities, fostering a culture of civic responsibility and active citizenship among students.
  • Encouraging the Educational Community in Social Engagement (Guideline 5.2):
    The data show strong support for encouraging the educational community in social engagement, with the City of Zagreb demonstrating particularly high levels of endorsement.
    Other regions also exhibit moderate to high levels of support, indicating a recognition of the role of educational institutions in promoting social entrepreneurship and community development.
    To leverage this support, policymakers could implement incentives, recognition programs, and capacity-building initiatives to empower educators and students to engage in social entrepreneurship and community service activities, fostering a culture of social innovation and collaboration within educational settings.
  • Reform of the Educational System (Guideline 5.3):
    The data reveal widespread support for the reform of the educational system across regions, with the City of Zagreb showing unanimous endorsement.
    Other regions also demonstrate notable levels of support, underscoring the perceived importance of updating educational curricula and methodologies to better prepare students for the challenges and opportunities of the 21st century.
    To capitalize on this consensus, policymakers should prioritize evidence-based reforms that promote entrepreneurship education, critical thinking skills, digital literacy, and socio-emotional learning within the educational system. This could involve curriculum revisions, teacher training programs, and partnerships with industry and civil society to ensure relevance and responsiveness to evolving societal needs.

3.4.6. The Development of Public Policies in Social Entrepreneurship, Vulnerable Groups, and Social Services

Based on the conducted research on the social impact of guidelines for the Development of public policies in social entrepreneurship, vulnerable groups, and social services (Figure 8), the following points were indicated:
  • Ensuring Participatory Involvement of Citizens (Guideline 6.1):
    The data reveal moderate levels of support for ensuring participatory and systematic involvement of citizens in projects related to social entrepreneurship and vulnerable groups across regions.
    While support varies slightly between regions, there is a general recognition of the importance of citizen engagement in social initiatives.
    To enhance effectiveness, policymakers could prioritize mechanisms for meaningful citizen participation, such as community forums, stakeholder consultations, and participatory budgeting processes. This could foster ownership, accountability, and sustainability of social projects while addressing the diverse needs and perspectives of vulnerable groups.
  • Adherence to Evaluation Guidelines of the Strategy for Social Entrepreneurship (Guideline 6.2):
    The data indicate moderate to high levels of support for acting in accordance with evaluation guidelines of the Strategy for Social Entrepreneurship in the segment of vulnerable groups and social services.
    There is a consensus on the importance of monitoring and evaluating social entrepreneurship initiatives to ensure their effectiveness and impact.
    To maximize the utility of evaluation guidelines, policymakers could invest in capacity-building for data collection and analysis, establish transparent reporting mechanisms, and use evaluation findings to inform evidence-based decision-making and policy adjustments.
  • Direction of Local and Regional Governments Towards Supporting Social Associations (Guideline 6.3):
    The data show relatively high levels of support for directing local and regional self-government units towards raising awareness of social entrepreneurship and supporting social associations and cooperatives.
    This indicates a recognition of the role of local governance in fostering a conducive environment for social entrepreneurship and community development.
    To capitalize on this support, policymakers could provide targeted incentives, capacity-building support, and technical assistance to local governments to enhance their engagement with social associations and cooperatives. This could involve sharing best practices, facilitating networking opportunities, and streamlining administrative procedures to facilitate collaboration and resource mobilization.

3.4.7. The Development of Public Policies in Social Entrepreneurship in Agriculture

Based on the conducted research on the social impact of guidelines for the development of public policies in social entrepreneurship in agriculture (Figure 9), the following points were indicated:
  • Complementarity of Measures for Social Entrepreneurship in Agriculture (Guideline 7.1):
    The data indicate moderate to high levels of support for ensuring complementarity of measures and initiatives linked to development policies relevant for social entrepreneurship in agriculture across regions.
    This suggests a recognition of the need for coordinated efforts and synergy between various policy measures to support social entrepreneurship in agriculture effectively.
    To enhance effectiveness, policymakers could prioritize collaboration and coordination among relevant stakeholders, aligning policies, programs, and resources to create a supportive ecosystem for social entrepreneurs in agriculture.
  • Strengthening Agricultural Cooperatives (Guideline 7.2):
    The data reveal moderate to high levels of support for strengthening agricultural cooperatives, with the City of Zagreb and Pannonian Croatia showing particularly strong endorsement.
    This indicates recognition of the role of cooperatives in fostering collaboration, sharing resources, and empowering farmers, especially in regions with a strong agricultural base.
    To capitalize on this support, policymakers could invest in capacity-building programs, provide financial incentives, and facilitate networking opportunities to strengthen the resilience and sustainability of agricultural cooperatives.
  • Enhancing Community-Led Local Development (CLLD) and Supporting Local Action Groups (LAGs) (Guideline 7.3):
    The data show moderate to high levels of support for enhancing CLLD and supporting LAGs with relevant results, with Pannonian Croatia demonstrating particularly strong endorsement.
    This suggests a recognition of the importance of bottom-up approaches and community engagement in driving local development initiatives.
    To leverage this support, policymakers could provide technical assistance, training, and funding opportunities to empower LAGs, enabling them to lead inclusive and participatory development processes that address the specific needs and priorities of rural communities.
  • Strengthening Support for Social Entrepreneurship in Agriculture at All Governance Levels (Guideline 7.4):
    The data indicate high levels of support for strengthening support for social entrepreneurship in agriculture across all governance levels, with the City of Zagreb showing unanimous endorsement.
    This underscores the importance of multi-level governance frameworks and coordinated action to create an enabling environment for social entrepreneurship in agriculture.
    To translate this support into tangible outcomes, policymakers could implement targeted policies, allocate dedicated funding, and establish support mechanisms at the local, regional, and national levels to facilitate the growth and success of social enterprises in agriculture.
  • Exploitation of Developmental Potential for Social Entrepreneurship in Agriculture (Guideline 7.5):
    The data reveal moderate to high levels of support for enhancing the exploitation of developmental potential for further development of social entrepreneurship in agriculture.
    This suggests a recognition of untapped opportunities and the need to leverage agricultural resources and innovation for social and economic development.
    To unlock this potential, policymakers could promote research and innovation, facilitate access to markets and finance, and provide targeted support for value-added agricultural activities and sustainable business models that benefit both farmers and local communities.

3.4.8. The Development of Public Policies in Communication Channels of Social Entrepreneurship and Public Policy Holders and Support Institutes

Based on the conducted research on the social impact of guidelines for the development of public policies in communication channels of social entrepreneurship and public policy holders and support institutes (Figure 10), the following points were indicated:
  • Improving Management Quality for Communication Channels (Guideline 8.1):
    The data indicate high levels of support for improving management quality to strengthen communication channels across all regions, particularly in the City of Zagreb and Pannonian Croatia.
    This suggests a recognition of the importance of effective management in facilitating communication and collaboration between stakeholders in the social entrepreneurship ecosystem.
    To capitalize on this support, policymakers could prioritize capacity-building programs, provide training in communication and leadership skills, and establish clear governance structures to enhance the effectiveness of communication channels.
  • Strengthening Networking, Media Representation, and Information Dissemination (Guideline 8.2):
    The data reveal moderate to high levels of support for strengthening networking, media representation, and information dissemination among social entrepreneurs across regions.
    This underscores the importance of leveraging communication channels to foster connections, raise awareness, and share knowledge and best practices within the social entrepreneurship community.
    To enhance effectiveness, policymakers could invest in networking events, create platforms for knowledge exchange, and collaborate with media outlets to amplify the voices of social entrepreneurs and showcase their impact.
  • Intensifying Cooperation across Sectors (Guideline 8.3):
    The data indicate moderate to high levels of support for intensifying cooperation between social entrepreneurs, the economy, the public sector, and the academic community across regions.
    This highlights the recognition of the value of cross-sectoral collaboration in driving innovation, scaling impact, and addressing complex social challenges.
    To leverage this support, policymakers could facilitate platforms for multi-stakeholder dialogue, incentivize collaboration through funding mechanisms, and promote joint initiatives that harness the strengths of different sectors to achieve common goals.

4. Discussion

4.1. Comparison with Previous Studies

These findings align with existing literature, affirming the positive role of public policy in enhancing social entrepreneurship. Prior studies have emphasized the importance of supportive legislative frameworks and financial incentives in promoting social enterprises [4,7]. This study corroborates these findings, highlighting tax reliefs and exemptions as being crucial for the growth of social entrepreneurship, consistent with Bacq and Janssen [18], who noted financial support as being critical for the sustainability of social enterprises.
Additionally, the emphasis on education and awareness-raising aligns with Nicholls [2], who underscored the need for building a supportive ecosystem through education and advocacy. The results indicate that guidelines related to education and public awareness are pivotal in fostering a robust social entrepreneurship environment.
There are differing views regarding the most effective strategies for promoting social entrepreneurship. Some researchers advocate for bottom-up approaches driven by local community needs, suggesting these are more effective than top-down policy implementations [36]. The regional analysis in this study, which shows varying perceptions of guideline effectiveness across different Croatian regions, highlights the complexity of implementing uniform policies and suggests the need for tailored approaches that consider regional specificities, as supported by Lepoutre, Justo, Terjesen, and Bosma [37].
Another debate concerns the balance between regulation and flexibility. Excessive regulation is argued to potentially stifle innovation within social enterprises [38]. The support for establishing a unified body for coordination and development in this study suggests stakeholders value structured oversight. However, the preference for general guidelines in Adriatic Croatia (75.56%) indicates a desire for flexibility within a regulated framework, supporting the notion of adaptive governance [39].

4.2. Implications of Findings

The findings of this study illuminate various aspects of social entrepreneurship in Croatia, revealing significant regional differences and diverse stakeholder perceptions of public policy guidelines. The implications of these findings extend beyond regional preferences and highlight broader trends and opportunities for enhancing social entrepreneurship through policy interventions and innovative approaches.
This study’s findings have broad implications for policymakers and practitioners in social entrepreneurship. Policymakers could benefit from exploring innovative financing mechanisms [40], such as social impact bonds and crowdfunding platforms, to address the diverse needs and challenges faced by social entrepreneurs across different regions. The data highlight the importance of integrating tax policies with broader strategies to support social entrepreneurship and foster inclusive economic growth. By further elaborating specific tax reliefs and exemptions, strengthening financial capacity-building initiatives, and promoting cross-sectoral collaboration, policymakers can create an enabling environment that empowers social entrepreneurs to drive positive social change and sustainable development.
Regional variations suggest that policy implementation and effectiveness should be tailored to specific contexts. While support levels are generally consistent across policy areas, there are notable differences in how these policies are supported across regions. This indicates that a one-size-fits-all approach may not be effective, particularly for areas with high regional variability such as the education system.
The consistent support for state assets guidelines across regions presents an opportunity to implement nationwide policies effectively. For areas with significant regional differences, such as the education system and vulnerable groups, policymakers should consider region-specific approaches, or conduct further research to understand these disparities.
Policymakers and government agencies can utilize these findings to inform evidence-based policymaking and prioritize initiatives that bolster social entrepreneurship within the legislative framework. Social entrepreneurs and organizations working in social innovation can advocate for policy changes and investments that foster an enabling environment for their initiatives [1,41,42]. Social entrepreneurs and organizations working in the field of social innovation can advocate for policy changes and investments that create an enabling environment for their initiatives.
Civil society organizations, research institutions, and advocacy groups can leverage this research to raise awareness, promote dialogue, and mobilize support for policies that advance social entrepreneurship and inclusive economic growth. Young people, entrepreneurs, and social enterprises can advocate for policy changes and investments that create an enabling environment for youth employment and entrepreneurship [43].
Educational institutions, training providers, and employment agencies can leverage this research to enhance their programs and services, better aligning them with the needs and aspirations of young people and the labor market. Educators and students can advocate for greater support and resources for service-learning, social engagement, and educational reforms that foster creativity, innovation, and social responsibility [44].
Vulnerable groups and marginalized communities can benefit from increased citizen participation in social initiatives, ensuring that their voices are heard and their needs are addressed in policy-making processes [45].
The strong support for public awareness campaigns and education initiatives underscores the importance of these elements in building a supportive ecosystem. Policymakers are advised to invest in these areas to enhance the visibility and understanding of social entrepreneurship. Improved communication channels and networking opportunities can benefit social entrepreneurs and organizations by providing access to resources, building partnerships, and amplifying their impact [46].
Policymakers and government agencies can utilize these findings to inform strategies and prioritize investments in communication infrastructure and capacity-building initiatives that support the growth of the social entrepreneurship sector [47].
Farmers, agricultural cooperatives, and rural communities can particularly benefit from policies and programs designed to support social entrepreneurship, enhance agricultural productivity, and promote inclusive rural development. Targeted interventions can address the unique needs and challenges faced by these groups, thereby fostering greater economic and social resilience in rural areas. Researchers, academia, and civil society organizations can use the insights from this research to advocate for policy reforms, generate new knowledge, and mobilize resources for sustainable and inclusive agriculture and rural development initiatives. By aligning their efforts with evidence-based findings, these groups can play a crucial role in advancing social entrepreneurship and addressing the specific challenges in the agricultural sector [48,49].
Support institutes, including academic institutions, business incubators, and NGOs, can leverage this research to tailor their support services and programs to meet the evolving needs of social entrepreneurs and foster a vibrant ecosystem of innovation and collaboration.
The regional variations in support for public policy guidelines emphasize the importance of contextualized policy design. For instance, the strong support for public awareness initiatives in Pannonian Croatia suggests a high level of community engagement and recognition of the potential impact of social enterprises. This contrasts with Zagreb’s focus on structured support mechanisms, such as coordinating bodies and educational initiatives, reflecting its urban context and higher organizational capacities.
These differences underscore the necessity of tailoring policies to regional needs and conditions. Policymakers should engage with local stakeholders to tailor policies that address specific regional needs and contexts, fostering greater community engagement and ensuring policies effectively address local challenges.

4.3. Role of Digital Technologies

Digital technologies play a pivotal role in enhancing social entrepreneurship by providing innovative solutions to longstanding challenges and opening new avenues for growth and impact. Their influence can be seen in several key areas:
Access to Information and Resources: Digital platforms facilitate access to essential information and resources for social entrepreneurs. Online databases, educational resources, and networking platforms enable entrepreneurs to acquire knowledge, connect with peers, and access funding opportunities more efficiently [50,51].
  • Market Reach and Scalability: Digital marketing and e-commerce platforms allow social enterprises to reach broader markets and scale their operations beyond local boundaries. This expanded reach can significantly enhance the financial sustainability and impact of social enterprises [52,53].
  • Operational Efficiency: Digital tools, such as project management software, customer relationship management (CRM) systems, and financial management applications, streamline operations and improve efficiency. These tools help social enterprises manage resources more effectively and focus on their core mission [54,55].
  • Impact Measurement: Digital technologies facilitate the collection and analysis of data on social impact. Advanced analytics and data visualization tools enable social enterprises to measure their impact more accurately, providing insights that can guide strategic decisions and demonstrate value to stakeholders [56].
  • Innovation and Collaboration: Digital platforms support innovation by enabling collaboration across geographical boundaries. Social entrepreneurs can leverage digital tools to co-create solutions, share best practices, and collaborate with diverse stakeholders, fostering a culture of innovation and continuous improvement [57,58,59,60].
Despite the potential benefits, several challenges need to be addressed to fully harness the power of digital technologies in social entrepreneurship:
  • Digital Divide: Disparities in digital access and literacy can limit the benefits of digital technologies for some regions and groups. Efforts should be made to bridge this digital divide through targeted interventions and capacity-building initiatives [58].
  • Data Security and Privacy: The increasing reliance on digital tools raises concerns about data security and privacy. Social enterprises must implement robust data protection measures to safeguard sensitive information and maintain stakeholder trust [59].

4.4. Future Research Directions

Future research should focus on longitudinal studies to assess the long-term impact of these public policy guidelines on social entrepreneurship outcomes. Comparative studies across different countries with varying policy frameworks could provide deeper insights into the most effective strategies for supporting social entrepreneurship [61,62,63,64].
Another promising area for future research is the role of digital and communication technologies in enhancing the visibility and effectiveness of social enterprises. As digital platforms become increasingly integral to business operations, understanding their impact on social entrepreneurship could offer new avenues for policy intervention and support.

5. Conclusions

This study assessed the social impact of public policy guidelines on social entrepreneurship in Croatia, examining their regional variations and stakeholder perceptions. The primary aim was to determine the support levels for these guidelines and to identify challenges and opportunities for policy implementation. The findings contribute significantly to understanding the social entrepreneurship dynamics in Croatia and offer practical insights for policymakers.
The analysis revealed several key insights into the support and perception of public policy guidelines aimed at fostering social entrepreneurship:
  • Regional Variations in Support: The level of support for various guidelines varied significantly across different regions. Pannonian Croatia showed the highest support for public awareness initiatives, indicating a strong belief in the importance of raising awareness about social entrepreneurship’s role and benefits. Adriatic Croatia demonstrated a strong preference for guidelines related to general policy issues, reflecting regional priorities and socio-economic conditions.
  • Stakeholder Perceptions: Different stakeholder groups, including local authorities, social entrepreneurs, and community organizations, exhibited varied perceptions and priorities regarding the guidelines. In Zagreb, the emphasis was on establishing a coordinating body and providing education to stakeholders, highlighting the region’s focus on structured support and capacity building.
  • Challenges and Opportunities: Key challenges identified include the need for more comprehensive legislative frameworks and financial incentives to support social enterprises. Opportunities lie in enhancing public awareness and education, which are seen as critical for fostering a supportive ecosystem for social entrepreneurship.
  • Effectiveness of Existing Policies: This study found that existing policies are moderately effective in promoting social entrepreneurship and addressing societal needs. However, there is a need for more targeted and region-specific policies to enhance their impact.
  • Impact of Policy Support Levels: Variations in policy support levels across regions and stakeholder groups significantly impact the growth and sustainability of social enterprises. Regions with higher support levels tend to have more vibrant and sustainable social entrepreneurship ecosystems.
The results of this study have several practical implications:
  • Policy Design and Implementation: Policymakers should consider regional specificities when designing and implementing social entrepreneurship policies. Tailored approaches that address local needs and priorities are more likely to succeed.
  • Education and Awareness: Investing in public awareness campaigns and educational programs can significantly enhance the visibility and understanding of social entrepreneurship. These efforts can help build a supportive ecosystem and encourage more individuals to engage in social enterprises.
  • Legislative and Financial Support: Strengthening legislative frameworks and providing financial incentives are crucial for supporting the growth of social enterprises. Policymakers should focus on creating enabling environments that facilitate the sustainability of social enterprises.
Future research should explore longitudinal studies to assess the long-term impact of public policy guidelines on social entrepreneurship. Comparative studies across different countries can provide deeper insights into effective strategies and best practices. Additionally, investigating the role of digital technologies in enhancing social entrepreneurship could offer new avenues for policy intervention and support.
In conclusion, this study provides a comprehensive analysis of the social impact of public policy guidelines on social entrepreneurship in Croatia. The findings offer valuable insights for policymakers and contribute to the broader understanding of how to effectively support and promote social entrepreneurship. Future research should continue to explore these areas to further enhance policy effectiveness and support the growth of social enterprises.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, S.T., S.M., D.A.J. and I.K.; methodology and formal analysis, M.M.Š. and S.T.; results and discussion, S.T., S.M., D.A.J., I.K. and M.M.Š.; investigation, S.T., S.M., D.A.J. and I.K.; resources, S.T. and M.M.Š.; writing—original draft preparation, S.T. and M.M.Š.; writing—review and editing, S.T. and M.M.Š.; visualization, S.T. and M.M.Š. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research was funded by the Ministry of Science, Education and Youth of the Republic of Croatia through the project BORE—Essence and Colors of Sustainable Regional Development in the Republic of Croatia. This funding was provided under the Program Agreement (Class: 643-02/23-01/00016, Reg. No.: 533-03-23-0002, dated 8 December 2023) between the Ministry of Science, Education and Youth and the Institute for Development and International Relations (IRMO), Zagreb, Croatia. The specific allocation for this project was outlined in the Decision on Allocation of Financial Resources (IRMO, Class: 402-03/23-01/18, Reg. No.: 251-768-08-23-5, dated 11 December 2023).

Institutional Review Board Statement

Not applicable.

Informed Consent Statement

Not applicable.

Data Availability Statement

The original contributions presented in the study are included in the article, further inquiries can be directed to the corresponding author.

Acknowledgments

The authors wish to thank the editor and three anonymous reviewers for their constructive feedback for improving the manuscript.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

References

  1. Doherty, B.; Haugh, H.; Lyon, F. Social enterprises as hybrid organizations: A review and research agenda. Int. J. Manag. Rev. 2014, 16, 417–436. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Nicholls, A. The legitimacy of social entrepreneurship: Reflexive isomorphism in a pre-paradigmatic field. Entrep. Theory Pract. 2010, 34, 611–633. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Saebi, T.; Foss, N.J.; Linder, S. Social entrepreneurship research: Past achievements and future promises. J. Manag. 2019, 45, 70–95. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Kerlin, J.A. Defining social enterprise across different contexts: A conceptual framework based on institutional factors. Nonprofit Volunt. Sect. Q. 2013, 42, 84–108. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. European Commission; Directorate-General for Employment; Social Affairs and Inclusion; Carini, C.; Borzaga, C.; Chiomento, S.; Franchini, B.; Galera, G.; Nogales, R. Social Enterprises and Their Ecosystems in Europe—Comparative Synthesis Report; European Commission: Brussels, Belgium, 2020; Available online: https://data.europa.eu/doi/10.2767/567551 (accessed on 31 May 2024).
  6. Liptrap, J.S. The social enterprise company in Europe: Policy and theory. J. Corp. Law Stud. 2020, 20, 495–539. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Defourny, J.; Nyssens, M. Fundamentals for an International Typology of Social Enterprise Models. VOLUNTAS Int. J. Volunt. Nonprofit Organ. 2017, 28, 2469–2497. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Costa, E.; Andreaus, M. Social impact and performance measurement systems in an Italian social enterprise: A participatory action research project. J. Public Budg. Account. Financ. Manag. 2020, 33, 289–313. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. March, J.G.; Olsen, J.P. Rediscovering Institutions: The Organizational Basis of Politics; Free Press: New York, NY, USA, 1989. [Google Scholar]
  10. Jacobsson, K.; Saxonberg, S. (Eds.) Beyond NGO-Ization: The Development of Social Movements in Central and Eastern Europe; Routledge: London, UK, 2013. [Google Scholar]
  11. Lasinska, K. Social Capital in Eastern Europe: Poland an Exception? Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2013. [Google Scholar]
  12. Baturina, D. ‘The New Kid in Town’: Towards Shaping the Understanding of Social Entrepreneurship in Croatia. In Social Enterprise Developments in the Balkans: Joint Volume by the Balkan Social Enterprise Research Network; Baglioni, S., Roy, M., Mazzei, M., Srbijanko, J.K., Bashevska, M., Eds.; Reactor—Research in Action: Skopje, North Macedonia, 2017; pp. 81–99. [Google Scholar]
  13. Bacq, S.; Eddleston, K.A. A resource-based view of social entrepreneurship: How stewardship culture benefits scale of social impact. J. Bus. Ethics 2018, 152, 589–611. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Nicholls, A.; Teasdale, S. Neoliberalism by stealth? Exploring continuity and change within the UK social enterprise policy paradigm. Policy Politics 2017, 45, 323–341. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Saadaoui, S.; Belgaroui, R. Social Entrepreneurship: Concept Clarification. In Economics & Strategic Management of Business Process (ESMB): Proceedings of the International Conference on Business, Economics, Marketing & Management Research (BEMM’13); Volume 2, pp. 36–40. Available online: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/349088499_Social_entrepreneurship_concept_clarification (accessed on 31 May 2024).
  16. Bacq, S.; Wasieleski, D.M.; Weber, J. Preface—Social Entrepreneurship: Origins, Trends, and Future Directions. In Social Entrepreneurship (Business and Society 360); Wasieleski, D.M., Weber, J., Eds.; Emerald Group Publishing Limited: Bingley, UK, 2021; pp. xi–xviii. [Google Scholar]
  17. Hertel, C.; Bacq, S.; Lumpkin, G. Social Performance and Social Impact in the Context of Social Enterprises—A Holistic Perspective. 2020. Available online: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/343126135_Social_Performance_and_Social_Impact_in_the_Context_of_Social_Enterprises-A_Holistic_Perspective (accessed on 31 May 2024).
  18. Bacq, S.; Janssen, F. The multiple faces of social entrepreneurship: A review of definitional issues based on geographical and thematic criteria. Entrep. Reg. Dev. 2011, 23, 373–403. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Creswell, J.W. Research Design: Qualitative, Quantitative, and Mixed Methods Approaches, 3rd ed.; Knight, V., Connely, S., Eds.; Sage Publications: Thousand Oaks, CA, USA, 2009. [Google Scholar]
  20. Greene, J.C.; Kreider, H.; Mayer, E. Combining Qualitative and Quantitative Methods in Social Inquiry. In Research Methods in the Social Sciences; Somekh, B., Lewin, C., Eds.; Sage Publications: Thousand Oaks, CA, USA, 2005; pp. 274–282. [Google Scholar]
  21. Mitchell, M.L.; Jolley, J.M. Research Design Explained, 7th ed.; Potter, J., Rosenberg, R., Eds.; Wadsworth Cengage Learning: Belmont, MA, USA, 2010. [Google Scholar]
  22. Defourny, J.; Nyssens, M.; Brolis, O. Testing the Relevance of Major Social Enterprise Models in Western Europe. In Social Enterprise in Western Europe; Defourny, J., Nyssens, M., Eds.; Routledge: New York, NY, USA, 2021; pp. 333–350. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Bejaković, P. Vodič za Analizu Socijalnih Utjecaja; Institut za Javne Financije: Zagreb, Croatia, 2009; Available online: https://dokumen.tips/documents/vodic-za-analizu-socijalnih-utjecaja-ijfhr-socijalnihnadalje-kroz-analizu.html?page=12 (accessed on 31 May 2024).
  24. Tišma, S.; Maleković, S.; Jelinčić, D.A.; Mileusnić Škrtić, M.; Keser, I. From Science to Policy: How to Support Social Entrepreneurship in Croatia. J. Risk Financ. Manag. 2022, 15, 23. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Vidović, D.; Baturina, D. Social Enterprise in Croatia. In Social Enterprise in Central and Eastern Europe: Charting New Territories; Routledge: London, UK, 2021; pp. 40–55. [Google Scholar]
  26. Wirth, S.; Tschumi, P.; Mayer, H.; Bandi Tanner, M. Change agency in social innovation: An analysis of activities in social innovation processes. Reg. Stud. Reg. Sci. 2023, 10, 33–51. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Baturina, D.; Mihály, M.; Haska, E.; Ciepielewska-Kowalik, A.; Kiss, J.; Agolli, A.; Bashevska, M.; Srbijanko, J.; Rakin, D.; Radojičić, V. The Role of External Financing in the Development of Social Entrepreneurship in CEE Countries. In Social Enterprise in Central and Eastern Europe; Routledge: London, UK, 2021; pp. 218–234. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Watson, G.; Kaeding, N. Tax Policy and Entrepreneurship: A Framework for Analysis; FISCAL FACT No. 647; Tax Foundation: Washington, DC, USA, 2019; Available online: https://files.taxfoundation.org/20190403131203/Tax-Policy-and-Entrepreneurship-A-Framework-for-Analysis1.pdf (accessed on 31 May 2024).
  29. Jelinčić, D.A. Procjena društvenog utjecaja smjernica za razvoj javnih politika—društveno poduzetništvo i mladi. In Dijalogom do Hrvatske Mreže za Društveno Poduzetništvo; Centar za Ruralni Razvoj CERURA HR: Sinj, Croatia, 2023; Available online: https://www.socialbiz.cerura.hr/images/Science/Intervencije/7_ADU_DP_i_mladi.pdf (accessed on 31 May 2024).
  30. Kraus, S.; McDowell, W.; Ribeiro-Soriano, D.E.; Rodríguez-García, M. The role of innovation and knowledge for entrepreneurship and regional development. Entrep. Reg. Dev. 2021, 33, 175–184. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Pavel, R. Social entrepreneurship and vulnerable groups. J. Community Posit. Pract. 2011, 2, 59–77. [Google Scholar]
  32. Pallavi, G.; Santosh, D.T.; Ashoka, N. Agricultural Entrepreneurship: Exploring Opportunities, Challenges, and Impacts. In Recent Advances in Agricultural Sciences and Technology; Biradar, N., Shah, R.A., Ahmad, A., Eds.; Dilpreet Publishing House: New Delhi, India, 2023; pp. 599–608. [Google Scholar]
  33. Gadanakis, Y.; Campos-González, J.; Jones, P. Linking Entrepreneurship to Productivity: Using a Composite Indicator for Farm-Level Innovation in UK Agriculture with Secondary Data. Agriculture 2024, 14, 409. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Gossel, B.M. Analogies in Entrepreneurial Communication and Strategic Communication: Definition, Delimitation of Research Programs and Future Research. Int. J. Strateg. Commun. 2022, 16, 134–156. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Lepoutre, J.; Justo, R.; Terjesen, S.; Bosma, N. Designing a Global Standardized Methodology for Measuring Social Entrepreneurship Activity: The Global Entrepreneurship Monitor Social Entrepreneurship Study. Small Bus. Econ. 2013, 40, 693–714. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Santos, F.M. A positive theory of social entrepreneurship. J. Bus. Ethics 2012, 111, 335–351. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Young, O.R. Institutional Dynamics: Emergent Patterns in International Environmental Governance; MIT Press: Cambridge, MA, USA, 2012; p. 240. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Killian, S.; O’Regan, P. Taxation and Social Enterprise: Constraint or Incentive for the Common Good. J. Social. Entrep. 2018, 10, 1–18. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Kolaković, M.; Turuk, M.; Turčić, I. Social Entrepreneurship: Perspective of Croatia. In Entrepreneurship Development in the Balkans: Perspective from Diverse Contexts; Ramadani, V., Kjosev, S., Sergi, B.S., Eds.; Emerald Publishing: Bingley, UK, 2023; pp. 113–130. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Wolk, A. Advancing Social Entrepreneurship: Recommendations for Policy Makers and Government Agencies. In Advancing Innovation for Social Impact; Kreitz, K., Ebinger, C.G., Eds.; The Aspen Institute and Rootcause: Washington, DC, USA, 2008; Available online: https://www.aspeninstitute.org/wp-content/uploads/files/content/docs/pubs/AdvSocEntrp%20FINAL.pdf (accessed on 31 May 2024).
  41. Patel, A.; Ambati, N.R. Policy Ecosystem of Social Entrepreneurship for Sustainable and Resilient Development: A Doctrinal Review. In Proceedings of the 2nd International Symposium on Disaster Resilience and Sustainable Development, Virtual, 24–25 June 2021; Pal, I., Kolathayar, S., Tawhidul Islam, S., Mukhopadhyay, A., Ahmed, I., Eds.; Lecture Notes in Civil, Engineering. Springer: Singapore, 2023; Volume 294, pp. 229–242. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Berg-Postweiler, J.; Leicht-Scholten, C. Investigating the Institutional Embedding of Social Innovation at Five Leading Technical Universities in Europe. J. Social. Entrep. 2024, 1–28. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Verick, S.S. The Challenge of Youth Employment: New Findings and Approaches. Ind. J. Labour Econ. 2023, 66, 421–437. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Shahid, M.S.; Ghadah, A. Social entrepreneurship education: A conceptual framework and review. Int. J. Manag. Educ. 2021, 19, 100533. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Indarti, N.; Anggadwita, G.; Purnomo, R.A.; Tomlins, R. Breaking Barriers! Social Entrepreneurship in Empowering People with Disabilities. J. Social. Entrep. 2024, 1–35. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Austin, J.; Stevenson, H.; Wei–Skillern, J. Social and Commercial Entrepreneurship: Same, Different, or Both? Entrep. Theory Pract. 2006, 30, 1–22. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Richter, R.; Fink, M.; Lang, R.; Maresch, D. Rural Social Enterprise: An Emerging Strategic Action Field. In Social Entrepreneurship and Innovation in Rural Europe, 1st ed.; Defourny, J., Hulgård, L., Nogales, R., Eds.; Routledge: New York, NY, USA, 2020; pp. 142–169. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Deže, J.; Sudarić, T.; Tolić, S. Social Innovations for the Achievement of Competitive Agriculture and the Sustainable Development of Peripheral Rural Areas. Economies 2023, 11, 209. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. OECD. Assessing the framework conditions for social innovation in rural areas. In OECD Local Economic and Employment Development (LEED) Papers; No. 2024/04; OECD Publishing: Paris, France, 2024; Available online: https://www.oecd-ilibrary.org/content/paper/74367d76-en (accessed on 31 May 2024). [CrossRef]
  50. Si, S.; Hall, J.; Suddaby, R.; Ahlstrom, D.; Wei, J. Technology, entrepreneurship, innovation and social change in digital economics. Technovation 2023, 119, 102484. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Nambisan, S.; Wright, M.; Feldman, M. The digital transformation of innovation and entrepreneurship: Progress, challenges and key themes. Res. Policy 2019, 48, 103773. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Gupta, P.; Chauhan, S.; Paul, J.; Jaiswal, M.P. Social entrepreneurship research: A review and future research agenda. J. Bus. Res. 2020, 113, 209–229. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. He, T.; Liu, M.J.; Phang, C.W.; Luo, J. Toward social enterprise sustainability: The role of digital hybridity. Technol. Forecast. Social. Chang. 2022, 175, 121360. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. Kallmuenzer, A.; Mikhaylov, A.; Chelaru, M.; Czakon, W. Adoption and performance outcome of digitalization in small and medium-sized enterprises. Rev. Manag. Sci. 2024, 1–28. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  55. Menter, M. From technological to social innovation: Toward a mission-reorientation of entrepreneurial universities. J. Technol. Transf. 2023, 49, 104–118. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  56. Rosário, A.T.; Dias, J.C. How has data-driven marketing evolved: Challenges and opportunities with emerging technologies. Int. J. Inf. Manag. Data Insights 2023, 3, 100203. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  57. Schöning, M. Social Entrepreneurs as Main Drivers of Social Innovation. In Social Innovation. CSR, Sustainability, Ethics & Governance; Osburg, T., Schmidpeter, R., Eds.; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2013; pp. 111–118. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  58. Chandna, V. Social entrepreneurship and digital platforms: Crowdfunding in the sharing-economy era. Bus. Horiz. 2022, 65, 21–31. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  59. Kraus, S.; Vonmetz, K.; Bullini Orlandi, L.; Zardini, A.; Rossignoli, C. Digital entrepreneurship: The role of entrepreneurial orientation and digitalization for disruptive innovation. Technol. Forecast. Social. Chang. 2023, 193, 122638. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  60. Sufyan, M.; Degbey, W.Y.; Glavee-Geo, R.; Zoogah, B.D. Transnational digital entrepreneurship and enterprise effectiveness: A micro-foundational perspective. J. Bus. Res. 2023, 160, 113802. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  61. Fang, W.; Zhou, L.; Shi, Q. Inclusion We Stand, Divide We Fall: Digital Inclusion from Different Disciplines for Scientific Collaborations. In Wisdom, Well-Being, Win-Win. iConference 2024. Lecture Notes in Computer Science; Sserwanga, I., Joho, H., Ma, J., Hansen, P., Wu, D., Koizumi, M., Gilliland, A.J., Eds.; Springer Nature: Cham, Switzerland, 2024; Volume 14596, pp. 398–409. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  62. Wang, C.; Zhang, N.; Wang, C. Managing privacy in the digital economy. Fundam. Res. 2021, 1, 543–551. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  63. Fernández-Guadaño, J.; Diez, R.M. Social Entrepreneurship Impact in Ten EU Countries with Supportive Regulations. J. Knowl. Econ. 2023, 1–18. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  64. Han, Z.; Li, G.; Zhang, X. Comparison of social entrepreneurship courses in different disciplines: Teaching approach and learning process. Entrep. Educ. 2023, 6, 245–271. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Figure 1. The guidelines evaluated for social impact. Authors.
Figure 1. The guidelines evaluated for social impact. Authors.
Sustainability 16 06650 g001
Figure 2. The assessments of the impact of key guidelines on social entrepreneurship in the Republic of Croatia. Authors.
Figure 2. The assessments of the impact of key guidelines on social entrepreneurship in the Republic of Croatia. Authors.
Sustainability 16 06650 g002
Figure 3. The assessments of the impact of guidelines on the development of public policies in social entrepreneurship and state assets across regions. Authors.
Figure 3. The assessments of the impact of guidelines on the development of public policies in social entrepreneurship and state assets across regions. Authors.
Sustainability 16 06650 g003
Figure 4. The assessments of the impact of guidelines on the development of public policies in social entrepreneurship and tax policy. Authors.
Figure 4. The assessments of the impact of guidelines on the development of public policies in social entrepreneurship and tax policy. Authors.
Sustainability 16 06650 g004
Figure 5. The assessments of the impact of guidelines on the development of public policies in social entrepreneurship and legislative frameworks. Authors.
Figure 5. The assessments of the impact of guidelines on the development of public policies in social entrepreneurship and legislative frameworks. Authors.
Sustainability 16 06650 g005
Figure 6. The assessments of the impact of guidelines on the development of public policies in social entrepreneurship and youth. Authors.
Figure 6. The assessments of the impact of guidelines on the development of public policies in social entrepreneurship and youth. Authors.
Sustainability 16 06650 g006
Figure 7. The assessments of the impact of guidelines on the development of public policies in social entrepreneurship and the education system. Authors.
Figure 7. The assessments of the impact of guidelines on the development of public policies in social entrepreneurship and the education system. Authors.
Sustainability 16 06650 g007
Figure 8. The assessments of the impact of guidelines on the development of public policies in social entrepreneurship, vulnerable groups, and social services. Authors.
Figure 8. The assessments of the impact of guidelines on the development of public policies in social entrepreneurship, vulnerable groups, and social services. Authors.
Sustainability 16 06650 g008
Figure 9. The assessments of the impact of guidelines on the development of public policies in social entrepreneurship in agriculture. Authors.
Figure 9. The assessments of the impact of guidelines on the development of public policies in social entrepreneurship in agriculture. Authors.
Sustainability 16 06650 g009
Figure 10. The assessments of the impact of guidelines on the development of public policies in communication channels of social entrepreneurship and public policy holders and support institutes. Authors.
Figure 10. The assessments of the impact of guidelines on the development of public policies in communication channels of social entrepreneurship and public policy holders and support institutes. Authors.
Sustainability 16 06650 g010
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Tišma, S.; Mileusnić Škrtić, M.; Maleković, S.; Jelinčić, D.A.; Keser, I. Empowering Innovation: Advancing Social Entrepreneurship Policies in Croatia. Sustainability 2024, 16, 6650. https://doi.org/10.3390/su16156650

AMA Style

Tišma S, Mileusnić Škrtić M, Maleković S, Jelinčić DA, Keser I. Empowering Innovation: Advancing Social Entrepreneurship Policies in Croatia. Sustainability. 2024; 16(15):6650. https://doi.org/10.3390/su16156650

Chicago/Turabian Style

Tišma, Sanja, Mira Mileusnić Škrtić, Sanja Maleković, Daniela Angelina Jelinčić, and Ivana Keser. 2024. "Empowering Innovation: Advancing Social Entrepreneurship Policies in Croatia" Sustainability 16, no. 15: 6650. https://doi.org/10.3390/su16156650

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop