Next Article in Journal
Methods and Technologies for Supporting Knowledge Sharing within Learning Communities: A Systematic Literature Review
Next Article in Special Issue
The Role of the Agglomeration Economy and Innovation Ecosystem in the Process of Competency Development and Growth of Small and Medium-Sized Enterprises
Previous Article in Journal
Corporate Social Responsibility and Financial Performance: A Relationship Mediated by Stakeholder Satisfaction
Previous Article in Special Issue
Examining the Relationship between Green Mindfulness, Spiritual Intelligence, and Environmental Self Identity: Unveiling the Path to Green Entrepreneurial Intention
 
 
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Review

Addressing Poverty through Social Entrepreneurship for Sustainable Development: A Comprehensive Bibliometric Analysis

by
Md. Tota Miah
1,2,*,
Zoltán Lakner
3 and
Mária Fekete-Farkas
1,3
1
Doctoral School of Economic and Regional Sciences, Hungarian University of Agriculture and Life Sciences (MATE), Páter Károly u. 1, 2100 Gödöllő, Hungary
2
Department of Business Administration, Varendra University, Rajshahi 6204, Bangladesh
3
Institute of Agriculture and Food Economics, Hungarian University of Agriculture and Life Sciences (MATE), Páter Károly u. 1, 2100 Gödöllő, Hungary
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Adm. Sci. 2024, 14(1), 16; https://doi.org/10.3390/admsci14010016
Submission received: 30 September 2023 / Revised: 1 January 2024 / Accepted: 13 January 2024 / Published: 17 January 2024

Abstract

:
The increasing social and environmental challenges, particularly poverty, have brought social entrepreneurship, a highly researched domain, to the attention of academicians. It has emerged as a critical issue in the context of economic development and societal well-being. The current study presents a comprehensive bibliometric analysis in the field of social entrepreneurship and poverty alleviation to explain the current state, geographical performance, and future research agenda. Utilizing VOS viewer (version 1.6.20) and R Studio software (version 4.3.2), 461 final articles were examined and extracted from the Web of Science database, covering the period from 1998 to 2022. The findings reveal a significant increase in research activity in this field since 2009, indicating a growing demand for it as a solution to social challenges. Notably, the years 2021–2022 witnessed a remarkable 55% surge in research output. The Sustainability Journal ranks first as the most productive source, followed by the Journal of Cleaner Production. The most prolific authors are Nina Kolleck from Germany, David Littlewood, and Diane Holt from the UK. Additionally, this study assesses the geographic distribution of research contributions, highlighting regions with relatively lower research performance, such as South Asian and African countries. Leading in this domain are the UK, Spain, the USA, and European institutions. Co-citation patterns reveal four thematic clusters: (1) dynamics of social entrepreneurship; (2) sustainable entrepreneurial ecosystem; (3) social entrepreneurship for social innovation; and (4) integrated sustainable entrepreneurship, shedding light on critical aspects and the intellectual structure of this domain. Finally, keyword co-occurrence analysis identifies emerging research areas, e.g., entrepreneurial development, the role of higher education, enterprise collaboration, inclusive growth, and socio-economic empowerment. This research provides valuable insights for policymakers, researchers, and practitioners committed to achieving sustainable social change.

1. Introduction

Social entrepreneurship has increasingly become an integral aspect of social innovation and sustainable development, offering a means to tackle challenging social problems (Phillips et al. 2015; Holland et al. 2018). In recent years, it has been a subject of academic exploration, gathering researchers’ attention because of its potential economic prosperity and social benefits (Diochon 2013; Starnawska 2016). Poverty is considered a major challenge for any country to create a more equitable and sustainable future (Tundys et al. 2021; Moyo et al. 2022). Currently, the poverty rate (9.2%) impacts approximately 659 million individuals in the world population. The COVID-19 pandemic, the Russian invasion of Ukraine, and the cost-of-living crisis have further exacerbated poverty rates and hindered progress towards the United Nations’ Sustainable Development Goals of ending poverty by 2030 (Nchasi et al. 2022; Ozili 2022). Particularly, Sub-Saharan Africa faces a daunting challenge, with an estimated 59.33% of its population living in extreme poverty and 24.43% in South Asia, as shown in Table 1. According to Bruton et al. (2013) and Sutter et al. (2019), poverty is a multifaceted issue of resource scarcity, social exclusion, and systemic failures, which is crucial for economic growth. Kroll et al. (2019) found that poverty reduction is statistically linked to favoring the progress of other SDGs. For example, SDG 3 (good health and well-being), 4 (quality education), 5 (gender equality), 6 (clean water and sanitation), and 10 (reduced inequalities). Therefore, in the face of rising global poverty and socio-environmental concerns, social entrepreneurship can play a significant role as a potential driver of social innovation and economic development (Ho and Yoon 2022). It aims to prioritize stakeholders over shareholders to address global concerns within capitalism while operating profitably (Vansandt et al. 2009). Alvord et al. (2004) say that social entrepreneurship specifically targets marginalized individuals and communities, prioritizing poverty alleviation and protecting the environment. Luke and Chu (2013) describe the term as an approach that places a strong focus on creating and implementing socially driven initiatives that bring positive changes to society. However, Azmat (2013) portrays social entrepreneurship as a catalyst for sustainable development in developing countries, challenging the idea of a trade-off between poverty reduction and environmental sustainability. Thus, the concept involves not only addressing social issues but also adapting and responding to the unique contextual influences and challenges present in the environment where these ventures operate (Rivera-Santos et al. 2015).
For nearly two decades, this domain has been a highly researched area, yet the majority of research is conceptual rather than empirical. It intersects with areas of interest to management scholars, such as entrepreneurship and public or non-profit organizations, leading to a substantial body of knowledge (Saebi et al. 2019). Though it traces its roots back to the 1950s, it emerged in response to the growing inability of governments and the public sector to address complex social welfare challenges (Klarin and Suseno 2022). However, the impact of social entrepreneurship has already been practiced in developing and emerging countries. For instance, a study by Najafizada and Cohen (2017) discovered that social entrepreneurship initiatives involving carpet weavers in Afghanistan enabled individuals to access improved education and training opportunities, which ultimately created more employment prospects. Yunus et al. (2012) posit that large corporations can contribute to poverty alleviation through social business models that integrate social concerns into the company’s core values and offerings. Another study conducted by Mohammed and Ndulue (2017) in Nigeria found a significant positive relationship between social entrepreneurship and poverty reduction. This research highlighted the key factors of low-cost waste collection infrastructure, recycling for environmental sustainability, and the provision of social welfare, all of which contributed to creating employment opportunities and reducing poverty. In addition, numerous review studies on social entrepreneurship have previously been conducted to understand the domain. However, most of these studies analyzed different aspects, including trends, key themes, influential authors, and emerging areas of research (Chaudhuri et al. 2020; Brambilla et al. 2021; Dettori and Floris 2021). Despite extensive reviews, many key questions remain unanswered, such as how the field of social entrepreneurship has evolved to play a role in alleviating poverty and fostering a sustainable society. To provide a comprehensive understanding of the current state of research, its implications for society, and the gaps in research based on the geographical distribution of scientific publications, this study aims to investigate the following research objectives by using citation, co-citation networks, and keyword co-occurrences for future research directions.
(1)
To determine the growth and trend analysis of the scientific production of research articles in social entrepreneurship and poverty alleviation.
(2)
To analyze the growth of scientific production and the impact of authors, institutions, and journals to assess their influence in this field.
(3)
To investigate the geographical distribution of research publications to identify regional emphases.
(4)
To identify the intellectual structure of social entrepreneurship research to reveal its underlying patterns and connections.
(5)
To identify key themes and future trends through co-occurrence analysis and keyword clustering.
Our bibliometric study contributes in several ways to the existing literature. The annual scientific production, which shows a 55% increase in this field in recent years, indicates high research interest among researchers, social entrepreneurs, and NGOs across developing and poor countries. Most importantly, our regional trend shows a clear research gap in South Asia and Sub-Saharan African countries, where they showed insignificant research performance compared to other regions. The current study also identified the top journals, authors, and their collaboration, which are crucial to determining scientific production and providing important information to direct future studies on social entrepreneurship. Our co-citation analysis delved into four important themes (the dynamics of social entrepreneurship, sustainable entrepreneurial ecosystems for social change, social entrepreneurship for social innovation, and integrated sustainable entrepreneurship) to understand how social entrepreneurship, poverty alleviation, and sustainable development are interconnected and evolving. Finally, this research contributes theoretically by extracting important factors and emerging research fields such as entrepreneurial development, higher education strategy reform, sustainable innovation and collaboration in enterprises, responsible innovation for inclusive business, and the socio-economic empowerment nexus. Overall, the findings will help academicians, policymakers, and NGOs learn about current and past research insights, as well as future research interests and directions. Our sample consists of 461 articles from the Web of Science database. R Studio and the VOS viewer application were used to analyze and visualize the data. The objectives of this research have driven the remaining part of this study. Following the introduction, Section 2 introduces the literature reviews, and Section 3 describes the materials and methods, e.g., bibliometric method, choice of database, keyword selection, and data analysis. Section 4 shows the results and analysis of the bibliometrics, which are descriptive statistics of the dataset, co-citation analysis, and the co-occurrence of the keywords. Section 5 provides a discussion of the findings and avenues for future research potential. Section 6 ends with the conclusion, limitations, and implications.

2. Literature Reviews

2.1. Summary of Social Entrepreneurship Research

Social entrepreneurship has garnered increasing interest from researchers due to its significant social and economic impact. It has become a prominent focus in both academic research and practical application (Rey-Martí et al. 2016). Gaining insights into existing literature, research methodologies, and key findings is crucial for the current research to understand the domain. This section provides an overview of previous studies related to social entrepreneurship, summarizing their key attributes and findings. Appendix A presents a concise summary of these papers, including the authors’ names, research types, databases used, periods of study, the number of papers analyzed, and their key findings. The findings provide a comprehensive overview of the field’s development and current state. It can be observed that several authors (Hota 2023; Kaushik et al. 2023) employed a bibliometric approach; they differ in their focus, emphasizing the ecosystem, exploring latent themes, and providing a structured review, respectively. Satar et al. (2023) also used bibliometrics but focused on co-authorship and keywords. In contrast, Zhang et al. (2023) conducted a systematic review approach to identify publication trends in tourism and hospitality social entrepreneurship. Phan Tan (2022) employs co-citation and bibliographic coupling analysis, while Costa and Miragaia (2022) concentrate on barriers to female entrepreneurship in the sports industry. Ambad (2022) conducts systematic reviews and meta-analyses to identify antecedents of social entrepreneurial intention, while Dettori and Floris (2021) perform bibliometrics to identify prolific contributors in the technology-related aspect of social entrepreneurship. However, this compilation of research papers serves as a valuable reference point for understanding this research domain. The findings and methodologies presented in these papers offer insights that are highly relevant to our research objectives. In conclusion, the summary not only highlights key research papers in the field of social entrepreneurship but also presents the variety of research methodologies employed and the richness of the findings. This provides a solid foundation for our research to understand current trends and emerging areas in the field.

2.2. Poverty and Sustainable Development

Poverty and sustainable development have been focal points in academic research and policymaking, particularly in the context of the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals (Ogwumike and Ozughalu 2016; Guo and Liu 2022). Sustainable development, as defined in the report of Brundtland et al. (1987), is the process of satisfying current needs while safeguarding the capacity of future generations. Griggs et al. (2014) delve deeper into this notion, placing particular emphasis on the interdependence of environmental, social, and economic sustainability. Afterwards, Piwowarski et al. (2022) underscore the prospective character of the approach, which seeks to eradicate poverty while simultaneously promoting economic development, social justice, and environmental preservation. The primary and core objective of the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals is the eradication of extreme poverty globally by 2030. This goal carries enormous significance as it strongly impacts the execution of the other goals, including those pertaining to economic and environmental matters (Leal Filho et al. 2021). The concept of poverty is intricate and diverse, comprising aspects from the social, economic, political, and psychological spheres (Sachs 2005). He defines it as an absence of overall well-being that has an impact on the quality of life of those affected. According to Ferrone and Chzhen (2018), poverty is a multifaceted notion that extends beyond a basic deficiency in income, as evidenced by subsistence levels below $1.25 per day. Chzhen et al. (2018) argue that a more comprehensive understanding of poverty is consistent with the sustainable development goal of eradicating poverty in all its forms by 2030. They recognize that poverty encompasses various aspects that impact an individual’s well-being and are not limited to financial constraints. Indicators that encompass the economic and social aspects of households and individuals, such as their financial situation, vulnerability to material deprivation, and availability of essential services, collectively constitute poverty (Palimaka and Karas 2022). Nevertheless, achieving this target is not devoid of obstacles, such as the need for robust political commitment, tranquility, and equitable economic restructuring (Kamruzzaman 2016). Poverty reduction is an imperative component of sustainable development and requires the utmost government attention (Liu et al. 2015). The interrelated nature of the Sustainable Development Goals emphasizes the vital role of poverty alleviation as a key component in attaining the overall goals. Entrepreneurship programs need to focus on the development of creativity and innovation in order to tackle this issue (Obinna and Blessing 2020). However, there is an increasing understanding of the significance of social entrepreneurship in progressing sustainability and instigating social change (Mort and Hume 2009).

3. Materials and Methods

3.1. Bibliometric Analysis

Bibliometric analysis is a popular and rigorous method of exploring and analyzing large volumes of scientific data (Donthu et al. 2021). It quantitatively assesses vast scientific publications from institutions or countries and evaluates qualitative research aspects. Dolhey (2019). This approach also gives a detailed picture of the current state of this research and is increasingly used when evaluating various aspects of fields, e.g., the number of authors, institutions, journals, etc. (Choudhri et al. 2015; Coronado et al. 2021; Talukder and Lakner 2023). Several authors (Tunger and Eulerich 2018; Ardito et al. 2019) suggest that bibliometric analysis can help researchers investigate emerging areas in a field through mapping the intellectual structure of a journal, identifying key publications, and evaluating overall research performance. Bibliometric studies, apart from traditional literature reviews, are considered a valuable tool for understanding and evaluating scientific research performance in several ways. Firstly, they contribute to the existing literature and allow researchers to assess current trends and future research prospects (Linnenluecke et al. 2020). Secondly, they use quantitative methods to evaluate scientific research, focusing on aspects such as authorship patterns, degree of collaboration, and citation analysis (Roy and Basak 2013). Thirdly, they introduce objectivity and rigor into the evaluation of scientific literature, mitigating researcher bias (Zupic and Čater 2014). Lastly, they are increasingly used in this research evaluation and ranking of institutions and universities (Ellegaard and Wallin 2015). Therefore, in our study, three different methods of bibliometric analysis (e.g., citation, co-citation, and keyword co-occurrence) were performed to provide the current state of this research, geographical contributions, intellectual structures, and future directions in the area of social entrepreneurship.

3.2. Choice of Database and Keyword Selection

Figure 1 presents the literature search strategy, inclusion, and exclusion processes. The Web of Science database was used for searching the articles published during 1998–2022. It contains highly prestigious journals, historical data coverage, and data consistency and is therefore frequently used in bibliometric studies in business and social science research (Tiberius et al. 2020; Martins et al. 2022). Due to the purpose of this study, Web of Science was selected for more impactful studies, particularly longitudinal studies and detailed citation analyses other than the Scopus database (Falagas et al. 2008; Mongeon and Paul-Hus 2016). Previous studies have also adopted this robust dataset for the same reason (Hota 2023; Dettori and Floris 2021). A combined search string, TS = ((“social entrepren*” OR “social business” OR “social innovat*” OR “social ventures”) AND (“poverty alleviat*” OR “poverty eradicat*” OR “poverty reduc*” OR “sustainable change” OR “sustainable development” OR “sustainable society”)), was constructed and run using the advanced search option available in the database. The ‘TS’ field in WoS covers titles, abstracts, author keywords, and Keywords Plus. The Boolean “OR” and “AND” operators were used for searching for more relevant literature. The ‘OR’ operator connects synonyms or related terms within each thematic area, broadening the search scope. For instance, (“social entrepren*”) OR (“social business”) captures various forms of social entrepreneurship. The ‘AND’ operator then intersects only those studies that address both social entrepreneurship and aspects of poverty alleviation or sustainable development (Fauzi et al. 2022). Truncation symbols like asterisk (*), quotation marks (“”) are used to search for different word variations. For example, “entrepren*” retrieves entrepreneur, entrepreneurship, and similar variations. Quotation marks (“”) are employed to search for exact phrases, ensuring precision (Granados et al. 2011). The keywords relating to poverty and sustainable development were selected to encompass the broad scope of social entrepreneurship, focusing on its role in both poverty alleviation and sustainable development (Pizzi et al. 2020). These terms, while not synonymous, are crucial to understanding the multifaceted nature of social entrepreneurship. The intrinsic link between poverty alleviation and sustainable development is underscored by their integration into the United Nations’ Sustainable Development Goals, especially Goal 1 (No Poverty) (Department of Economic and Social Affairs 2023). The terms reflect different strategies towards poverty, e.g., alleviation implies immediate actions, eradication suggests completely ending poverty, and reduction refers to long-term strategies. The search criteria were restricted to peer-reviewed articles, excluding conference proceedings, books, and book chapters, to ensure the quality and validity of this research. Such academic articles undergo a rigorous peer-review process. These are characterized by their scientific methodologies and reliance on empirical studies, offering reliable and current information (Sitompul et al. 2023; Fauzi et al. 2022). Furthermore, the study included articles that were published until 2022 to consider the full calendar year. The broad search strategy identified a total of 572 articles after searching keywords in the title, abstract, and author keywords. Later 89 articles were excluded because of inclusion criteria (English language article, time span, and Web of Science index). In addition, 22 articles were found irrelevant to the social entrepreneurship field. The data were cleaned using Microsoft Excel by considering keywords that did not appear in the title, abstracts, anonymous authors, and articles that did not focus on related fields. Only articles published in English were selected because it is the dominant language for scientific communication and provides the widest accessibility for research findings (Sharma et al. 2023). Finally, 461 articles indexed in the Social Sciences Citation Index (SSCI), Emerging Source Citation Index (ESCI), and Science Citation Index Expanded (Sci-Expanded) were considered. These databases index high-quality research articles and high-impact peer-reviewed articles.

3.3. Data Analysis

The current study has adopted two techniques of bibliometric analysis to meet our research objectives. Firstly, performance analysis was conducted based on citation and author-related data, which assessed different parameters, for example, authors, affiliations, countries, journals, etc. As a result, descriptive statistics were analyzed because performance analysis is descriptive in nature and examines the research constituents in a given field (Donthu et al. 2021; Narin and Hamilton 1996). Secondly, a science mapping analysis was run, which draws its data from network mapping of the social and cognitive structure of research areas. It is also known as bibliometric mapping or scientometric mapping and is used as a methodology to visually present and analyze the structure and dynamics of scientific knowledge (van Eck and Waltman 2010; Leydesdorff and Rafols 2011). The techniques for science mapping include citation analysis, co-citation analysis, bibliographic coupling, co-word analysis, and co-authorship analysis. Such techniques, when combined with network analysis, are instrumental in presenting the bibliometric structure and the intellectual structure of this research field. Science mapping is a valuable tool for understanding the landscape of scientific research and can provide valuable insights for decision-makers in academia, industry, and government (Pathak and Muralidharan 2018). Based on these two techniques, this study relied on R Studio and VOS Viewer as the main software to conduct the analysis. The VOS viewer presents intellectual networks and cluster graphs through co-citation analysis. This open-source software is used to create and display bibliometric networks and perform the co-occurrence structure by keyword analysis and keyword clustering (Xu et al. 2018; Kraus et al. 2014). Previous studies also adopted this tool to construct and view bibliometric maps and other graphical representations (Alcaide-Ruiz and Bravo-Urquiza 2023; Satar et al. 2023). On the other hand, R Studio was developed, which is a popular statistical software among academics and data scientists that effectively supports bibliometric and graphical analysis by incorporating integrated data visualization tools via biblioshiny (Dervis 2019; Büyükkidik 2022). Since R is freely accessible and open-source, it is straightforward to comprehend and utilize. When conducting bibliometric analysis using R, the Biblioshiny package, dedicated to bibliometric analysis, was installed and processed the data that were created by Aria and Cuccurullo (2017).

4. Results and Analysis

This section provides a descriptive overview of this research evolution in social entrepreneurship and poverty alleviation. The evolution of articles, the most productive journals and authors, and institutions have been analyzed. Citation analysis is a useful tool for evaluating research impact and performance. It has been used in various fields, including management and accounting research, to assess the impact of journals and articles (Brown and Gardner 1985). According to Moed (2009), it is a key methodology in evaluating bibliometrics, which aims to construct indicators of research performance from a quantitative statistical analysis of scientific-scholarly documents. Citations are used to evaluate the scientific impact of an author, institution, journal, discipline, or country’s output (Grégoire et al. 2006). This study further identifies the most influential countries, the geographical distribution of research, and their contributions.

4.1. Evolution of Social Entrepreneurship Research

Figure 2 shows the evolution of the field based on the yearly publication growth and average citation per year. The graph spans from 1998 to 2022 and showcases the number of articles published on this topic each year. The initial years, particularly 1998–2006, show limited activity, with only one article published each year, indicating the nascent nature of the field at the time. However, from 2009 onward, there has been a noticeable surge in publications, reflecting a growing interest in social entrepreneurship research in addressing social challenges. Notably 2010 stands out with high average citations of 17.93, which suggests impactful research during that period. Conversely, years like 2001 and 2003 demonstrate lower average citations, underscoring the field’s varying impact over time. This trend points to an emerging field that gradually gained scholarly attention because the number of articles consistently exceeded 40 per year after 2019. However, during the 24 years of scientific publications, there were numerous topics studied. For example, before the COVID-19 pandemic, most scientific articles emphasized integrating sustainability and social responsibility into entrepreneurship and economic development (Littlewood and Holt 2018; Zaefarian et al. 2015). They are likely influenced by global challenges like climate change and inequality (Aoyama and Parthasarathy 2018; Mongelli and Rullani 2017). Before 2019, social entrepreneurship research was based on localized issues like food security, local economic conditions, the role of education, and entrepreneurs (Mura et al. 2019; Kirwan et al. 2013). But afterwards, sustainable development, social entrepreneurship, and the role of innovation in addressing environmental and societal challenges have been the focal points of research (Dahles et al. 2020). However, the overall scenario shows the progression of social entrepreneurship research in recent years (2021–2022), with a 55% increase to become a focal point of academic research. It is likely that scientific production during this period was influenced by global phenomena like the COVID-19 pandemic. In contrast, the most cited articles were “Entrepreneurship in and around institutional voids: A case study from Bangladesh” by Mair and Marti (2009) and “Building Social Business Models: Lessons from the Grameen Experience” by Yunus et al. (2010). These articles received 772 and 627 global citations, respectively. The potential of innovative business models and entrepreneurial endeavors to tackle intricate social problems constituted their primary contribution.

4.2. Important Journals in the Field

Our final sample contains 461 articles published in 209 journals. Approximately 42% of these articles were published in the top 15 journals, which were identified based on the number of articles. Table 2 shows the 2022 impact factors, cite-scores, and average Web of Science citations of the articles. A journal’s impact factor (JIF) is an indicator of the journal’s quality and explains the number of citations typically received by the articles in the journal. According to the 2022 impact factors, the “Journal of Cleaner Production” stands out with an impressive impact factor of 11.1, contributing to the highest average citation of 15,541 in the domain of social entrepreneurship research. This journal emphasizes cleaner production methods and practical applications across various sectors, maintaining a transdisciplinary stance with a clear goal of sustainable development and sustainability. “Business Strategy and the Environment” ranks highest with an impact factor of 13.4, representing around 15.59% of the total impact factor share, making it a valuable resource for understanding the strategic approaches of this field. Such a top journal narrows its focus to the interplay between business strategies and environmental improvement, covering topics such as green finance, circular economy, and eco-innovation. “Technological Forecasting and Social Change”, with an impact factor of 12.0 and about 13.96% of the total impact factor, offers insights into technology-driven social entrepreneurship’s impact on poverty. While sustainability has the highest number of publications (91), the impact factor is 3.9, which indicates low-impact research. “Sustainability” offers a broader scope, addressing technical, environmental, cultural, economic, and social aspects of human sustainability and aligning with the United Nations’ 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development. However, despite their varied angles, most journals contribute to the common goal of sustainable development, environmental management, and the integration of sustainability in both theory and practice by integrating technical, environmental, social, and economic aspects. The top journals mentioned in Table 2 publish research in social entrepreneurship for several reasons. Firstly, they emphasize an interdisciplinary approach, integrating economic, social, and environmental aspects into their studies. This comprehensive perspective allows for a more nuanced understanding of how entrepreneurship can contribute to broader societal goals. Secondly, these journals focus on addressing global challenges such as poverty reduction, which is a crucial element of the United Nations’ Sustainable Development Goals. Social entrepreneurship is increasingly recognized as a vital pathway to developing business strategies that are not only profitable but also environmentally sustainable and socially responsible, thereby contributing effectively to achieving these goals.

4.3. Top Authors in Social Entrepreneurship

Table 3 depicts the output of the top 10 authors and their impact on social entrepreneurship research, including the total number of citations (TC), the h-index (h), and the m-index (m) for the local dataset, extracted from Biblioshiny. The H-index depicts numerically the productivity of a researcher. For example, an h-index of 5 indicates that the researcher has published at least 5 papers with 5 citations. The G index is calculated on the basis of the distribution of citations received in a publication by a researcher. The M-index, also known as the m-quotient or m-parameter, is a bibliometric index used to assess the balance between a researcher’s h-index and g-index. It was proposed as a way to provide additional insight into the distribution of an author’s citations among their publications. A total of 1207 authors contributed to the 461 articles in this study. The table shows the authors who contributed a minimum of two articles. Diane Holt ranks first, with four publications in different journals, and her articles received the highest citation (344). David Littlewood is the second-most-cited author (330). Both authors have the common paper “Social Entrepreneurship in South Africa: Exploring the Influence of Environment”, published in 2018 in the Journal of Business and Society by Sage Publisher. They are affiliated with the University of Essex, UK. In their research, they identified the need for a deeper understanding of how the environment impacts social entrepreneurship and suggested that different environmental factors significantly affect the development and success of social entrepreneurial ventures. Kelleck Nina is the most prolific author in terms of the number of articles. She contributed to six articles and received a total of 99 citations. The most cited work conducted by Nina is “Social Network Analysis in Innovation Research: Using a Mixed Methods Approach to Analyze Social Innovations”, which was published by the European Journal of Futures Research in 2013. Several authors, including Jaeger-Erben M, Lombardi M, Miller D, Nijnik M, Sorea D, Agarwal S, and Agrawal V, exhibit similar h-index and g-index values, ranging from 2 to 3. These authors have a lower level of impact when compared to the top-ranked authors. Their m-index values vary, reflecting different patterns of citation distribution relative to their h-indices. However, they all have made contributions to their respective fields, with varying numbers of publications and total citations.

4.4. Top Institutions in Social Entrepreneurship Research

The co-authorship network in social entrepreneurship research includes 297 institutions from 45 countries. Limiting to a maximum of 25 organizations per publication and setting a threshold of at least 3 publications and 2 citations per organization, 22 institutions were identified. The number of publications and citations of an institution indicates its research influence on social entrepreneurship. Table 4 presents the top 10 institutions in this domain based on the number of documents and citations. Harvard University stands out with six documents and 431 citations, reflecting the quality and impact of its research in areas like sustainable development in India, educational initiatives for health, and financial risk management for social entrepreneurship in emerging economies, highlighting the financial risk between social and commercial entrepreneurship and the role of universities in sustainability (Popkova and Sergi 2021; Purcell et al. 2019). In contrast, the University of Valencia, with the highest number of documents (7) but fewer citations (26), suggests a need for increased impact and visibility of its research. However, the University of Valencia and Valencia Polytechnic University in Spain contribute significantly, focusing on social innovation in food networks, sustainable practices in Mexican sugarcane clusters, and the impact of socio-demographic factors on entrepreneurship, Fab Labs for social innovation, and indigenous entrepreneurship practices (Gallego-Bono and Tapia-Baranda 2022; Morales et al. 2021). In the UK, the University of Oxford, University of Essex, and University of Sussex cover important areas like European food poverty, sustainable consumption, and the impact of social enterprises on Sustainable Development Goals (Michaelis 2003; Galli et al. 2018). Overall, each university contributes unique insights into sustainable development and social entrepreneurship, with common themes like sustainability, innovation, and social impact. The universities contribute to the academic field by advancing knowledge and practice in social entrepreneurship and sustainable development.

4.5. Country-Wise and Geographical Research Contribution

As shown in Table 5, this section details this research contribution to social entrepreneurship by the top 10 countries. The author’s corresponding country of residence serves as the foundation for this analysis. The United Kingdom’s 43 published articles in the lead demonstrate its strong dedication to this field and show a moderately high MCP ratio of 0.349, which suggests significant levels of international cooperation. In numerous contexts, their research emphasized social innovation and entrepreneurship, energy solutions, sustainability, and poverty reduction (Mahmuda et al. 2014). Furthermore, they emphasized the significance of sustainable development, policy implications, and hybrid value creation in addressing global challenges. Both Spain and the United States have the same number of articles (41), and their high MCP ratio demonstrates their strong commitment to global research networks. Social innovation, entrepreneurship, and education in diverse contexts, including rural and industrial development, environmental sustainability, and business performance, were also their principal research interests (Govigli et al. 2022; Puente et al. 2021). Collaborative research and affiliations exist between both nations and the majority of European countries, including Germany, the Netherlands, Denmark, Switzerland, and others. In contrast, Italy exhibits a notable emphasis on national affairs through its 35 articles and 25 SCP, indicating a substantial capacity for improvement in terms of international cooperation (as indicated by its MCP ratio of 0.286). Despite having 31 articles, Germany, which has a comparable number of SCPs to Italy, has a lower MCP ratio of 0.194, indicating a more restricted level of international engagement. China, boasting a substantial MCP ratio of 0.448 and 29 articles, demonstrates a balanced approach that underscores its commitment to cultivating international research collaborations. The Netherlands, boasting a substantial MCP ratio of 0.474 and 19 articles, demonstrates a notable commitment to international cooperation. With 13 articles, Brazil’s research output is moderate, but the country maintains a respectable MCP ratio of 0.385, which demonstrates its dedication to international research networks. India has a respectable SCP count of 10 with 14 articles, but its MCP ratio of 0.286 indicates room for further international collaboration. Malaysia, on the other hand, has a lower MCP ratio of 0.25 and a smaller number of publications (12 articles), indicating that increased international collaboration is necessary to bolster the impact of its research.
On the other hand, Figure 3 demonstrates the geographical production of research in the field of social entrepreneurship research across various regions. It clearly shows that Europe leads with a substantial 260 articles, followed by Southeast Asia with 67 and North America with 60. In contrast, South America, South Asia, Oceania, and Africa exhibit fewer research articles, with counts of 28, 21, 15, and 10, respectively. According to previous studies by Defourny and Nyssens (2010), Europe has a stronger tradition of academic research, with well-established institutions and programs focusing on social issues. Resource availability, funding dedicated to academic research, and access to a broad network of scholars drive more research. Furthermore, research in Europe often has a direct link to policy-making, which drives studies in areas like social entrepreneurship (Clewett and Davenport 2022). However, developing nations, for example, African countries, face unique challenges, e.g., access to finance and poor policy are the major challenges (Meyer 2021). In South Africa, the social and solidarity economy policy is yet to be implemented, and there is no legal framework for social enterprises, which affects how social entrepreneurship is practiced and perceived in the country (Visser 2011).

4.6. Co-Citation Analysis

Co-citation analysis is a bibliometric method used to identify and quantify the connections between two documents based on the frequency with which they are cited together by a third article (Small 1973). This means that the two works share a conceptual similarity or are used together for further research. It can also provide insights into the intellectual structure of a particular field, the influence of specific works or authors, and emerging trends or research themes (Callon et al. 1991). In our study, of the 26,940 cited references, 79 met the threshold of 13 minimum citations of cited references. Table 6 provides data and outlines a collection of the top five documents with their respective citation counts and total link strengths. Notably, documents such as “Mair j., 2006” and “Austin j., 2006” emerge as highly cited documents, which are 71 and 53, respectively, signifying their contribution to the social entrepreneurship field. “Mair j, 2006” also exhibits the highest total link strength at 163, indicating robust co-citation relationships. These findings suggest the substantial influence of these documents in shaping the discourse on social entrepreneurship’s impact on poverty alleviation. In addition, Figure 4 illustrates the co-citation network of social entrepreneurship. Each cluster is identified and elaborated upon using the authors’ inductive interpretation. The creation of the cluster was accomplished using the VOS viewer software, and the co-citation analysis was conducted in full counting mode. This is detailed in Table 7, where the outcomes of the co-citation analysis are synthesized, presenting four themes. Among the themes, the red cluster represents the dynamics of the social entrepreneurship theme, describing the fundamental concepts of social entrepreneurship and its impact on tackling social problems. This cluster is particularly dense, with many nodes close together in a yellow and green cluster and connected by thick lines. This cluster is led by highly cited authors, e.g., Mair, Austin, and Zahra. The citation map suggests that the articles of these authors are frequently co-cited and potentially hold a central or significant position within this research landscape. Because the larger the bubble, the more citations an article has received, and the thicker the lines, the stronger the citation relationships. In addition, the red, green, and yellow clusters are mostly interconnected, which explains the common theme of a sustainable entrepreneurial ecosystem and integrated sustainable entrepreneurship (social, environmental, and economic aspects). Most of the authors from the green and yellow clusters co-cited the top authors from the red cluster. The blue cluster is less closely related to the other clusters. The authors (e.g., Cajaiba-Santana, Mulgan, etc.) of this cluster emphasize the importance of social innovation to drive change. They concluded that social entrepreneurship can translate innovative ideas into tangible solutions that can contribute to the betterment of communities.

4.7. Co-Occurrence Analysis of Keywords

Keyword co-occurrence refers to the phenomenon where specific keywords or terms appear together in scholarly publications, such as academic papers and articles. This analysis involves identifying and quantifying the frequency with which pairs or groups of keywords appear in the same documents (Su and Lee 2010). It is a valuable technique in bibliometrics to understand knowledge mapping, research trend identification, and content analysis (Radhakrishnan et al. 2017). Researchers and institutions can gain a deeper understanding of the structure and dynamics of scientific knowledge and insights about future research trends and collaboration networks (Bornmann et al. 2018; Cheng et al. 2018). The network structure of keyword co-occurrence results is displayed in Figure 5. The current study used VOS viewer to identify the most frequently used keywords and set the minimum threshold at seven occurrences on a sample of 461 articles. A total of 95 keywords had reached the threshold after excluding country names and acronyms. Table 8 presents the top 15 keywords in the co-occurrence analysis. The keyword “social entrepreneurship” holds the highest frequency at 162 occurrences, followed by “social innovation” with 125 appearances. Among other frequently used keywords are “sustainable development”, “entrepreneurship”, “governance”, “hybrid organization”, “policy”, “management”, and “social enterprise”. Subsequent to this, a co-occurrence analysis of keywords was conducted to identify thematic clusters (Table 9). Using this technique, five distinct clusters were identified, each of which contains a unique combination of keywords in a specified color. Keywords consisting of red and yellow clusters indicate the strongest theme. The clusters show interrelated concepts such as social innovation, social enterprise, social entrepreneurs, policy, social change, etc. They collectively indicate the significance of developing entrepreneurial mindsets regardless of gender and culture. Whereas, the keywords in the yellow cluster emphasize the strong link between the role of social innovation and sustainable development. Keywords in this cluster suggest sustainable innovation and foster collaboration among various stakeholders. Other clusters (blue and purple) also shared some common areas of social entrepreneurship, especially inclusive business growth and social business, and were closest to the red cluster. Both clusters have a significant impact and are emerging research domains. For example, corporate social responsibility, innovative business models, and sustainability practices drive social entrepreneurs’ commitment to create value for the community. The green cluster is less closely related but has a significant impact, for example, on the role of higher education, particularly universities, in supporting social entrepreneurs through the development of innovative ideas, technology, incubator models, and partnerships with various stakeholders. However, the degree to which keywords tend to group together is taken as an indication of how frequently they express similar ideas.

5. Discussion

Social entrepreneurship embraces an innovative approach with a wide range of activities, such as organization and individuals’ collaboration, integration of sustainability, and social innovation in business, which are effective for building cohesive communities. Social entrepreneurs can achieve social value while generating profits. Previous research by Muklish Lateh (2018) highlighted that social entrepreneurship development and poverty alleviation have a close link. It has the potential to stimulate employment, promote education, enhance gender equality, and offer a long-lasting solution to poverty (Bruton et al. 2021). Given this priority, the current study conducted this bibliometric analysis to state the current state of the field and present several gaps for future research. As shown in the results, the number of scientific productions between the years 1998–2022 and the geographical distribution of research among different regions and countries have clearly shown the growing development of social entrepreneurship research. The descriptive analysis indicates scholarly attention because the overall trajectory shows a 55% increase in research activities in recent years (2021–2022). Based on the geographical research contribution, South Asian and African countries exhibit fewer research productions and performances. India (14), Pakistan (3), and Bangladesh (4) have very few research contributions in this field compared to other Asian countries. China leads the top position with 29 publications in that region. Most of the African countries have publications between 1 and 4, showing the least performance based on regional performance. On the other hand, the UK is leading with 43 articles in the European region, and the USA has 41 publications in North America. Our research suggests the need for potential collaboration between academicians, institutions, and other social enterprises in developing countries, mostly in South Asian and Sub-Saharan Africa, to strengthen their research impact in addressing local poverty through social entrepreneurship initiatives. Since Sub-Saharan Africa is the world’s most impoverished region, it requires introducing innovative solutions to achieve social impact while generating financial returns to facilitate growth and alleviate poverty. According to the World Bank (2023), in 2019, Sub-Saharan Africa alone was home to over 60% of the world’s extremely poor, and South Asia and Sub-Saharan Africa combined accounted for 81% of the world’s poor living below the $3.65 per day poverty line. It is assumed that extreme poverty will not be eradicated in those regions by 2030 and that we cannot achieve UN SDG 1 on the current development agenda. But through high growth and income redistribution towards the poor segment of society, the poverty rate can be reduced to low levels. Previous research’s found different implications through social entrepreneurship. For example, Bansal et al. (2020) examined the role of social entrepreneurs in sustainable development, particularly in the context of Indian government policy and sustainable development goals. Goyal et al. (2020) employed multiple case studies and found three social entrepreneurial strategies, such as leveraging digital technologies, forging extensive partnerships, and focusing on accessible, affordable, and known social innovations. On the other hand, Rosca et al. (2020) explored women’s roles in social entrepreneurship in India and Colombia to underscore the unique challenges faced by women, their journeys, and their decision-making abilities. In developing countries like Bangladesh, Egypt, and Spain, scale and sustainability can be achieved while maintaining their social missions by creating value networks and integrating resource strategies (Mair and Schoen 2007). In Indonesia, social entrepreneurship growth is likely to hinge on indigenous economic empowerment, Islamic identity in social enterprises, and social activism (Idris and Hijrah Hati 2013). In addition, social enterprises play an increasingly vital role in addressing social needs in Sub-Saharan Africa by gaining leaders’ trust and advancing social missions, as stated by Thorgren and Omorede (2018). For example, in Kenya, servant leadership helps to foster sustainable farming communities through cultural learning and understanding local norms (Martin and Novicevic 2010). Thus, our descriptive findings suggest more social entrepreneurship efforts and academic research with the collaboration of NGOs, governments, and educational institutions for conducting fruitful research in developing countries, which can play a significant role in achieving several SDGs.
In addition, the co-citation network highlights the most influential paper, “Social entrepreneurship research: A source of explanation, prediction, and delight”, published in the Journal of world business” by Mair and Marti (2006), which has 71 citations. This paper distinguishes social entrepreneurship from other types, emphasizing its role in driving social change and promoting social value over direct financial gains for entrepreneurs. Additionally, our analysis identifies four key themes that elucidate the intellectual structure, organization, interconnection, and evolution of the social entrepreneurship and poverty alleviation fields. These insights are valuable for researchers and scholars mapping the social entrepreneurship landscape. The first theme, “Dynamics of Social Entrepreneurship”, highlights the definitional challenges of social entrepreneurship identified by authors like Austin et al. (2006) and Dacin et al. (2011). This reflects the complexity and multifaceted nature of social entrepreneurship, leading to a lack of consensus on its definition. Battilana and Dorado (2010) explore the concept of hybridity in social enterprises, operating at the intersection of profit-making and social impact, distinguishing them from traditional businesses and non-profits. Peredo and McLean (2006) emphasize the central role of value creation in social entrepreneurship for addressing social issues and impacting society positively. This theme also uncovers challenges in defining the purpose of social entrepreneurship, necessitating collective action and innovative business processes (Choi and Majumdar 2014; Montgomery et al. 2012). Additionally, Bacq and Janssen (2011) highlight those regional differences in the perception of social entrepreneurship, particularly between the US and Europe, influenced by cultural, historical, and institutional factors. Moreover, social entrepreneurship, characterized by innovative solutions, hybrid models, cross-sector collaboration, and social value creation, can achieve financial sustainability and contribute to poverty reduction, as suggested by Santos (2012). “Sustainable Entrepreneurial Ecosystems” emerges as a second theme, highlighting the concept of bricolage as a resourceful strategy employed by resource-constrained firms to overcome institutional limitations. The significance of institutions, legitimacy, and inclusion in market building play a pivotal role in addressing social exclusion to generate value and promote sustainable local development. Social entrepreneurship has high importance and can collectively contribute to establishing entrepreneurial ecosystems (Seelos and Mair 2005). However, our findings suggest that the entrepreneurship ecosystem can foster innovation, inclusivity, and sustainable development by reducing poverty, and it has been an emerging research field for developing countries (Peredo and Chrisman 2006). Moreover, our third theme, “Social Entrepreneurship for Social Innovation”, suggests that social entrepreneurship plays a crucial role in the application of social innovation to alleviate poverty. Social entrepreneurs, as highlighted by Eichler and Schwarz (2019), are among the key innovators that drive social change. They create innovative solutions to address pressing social issues, often focusing on improving health, well-being, and rural development (Pol and Ville 2009). These efforts align with the emphasis on social innovation’s potential for positive transformation and sustainable development (Seyfang and Haxeltine 2012). Finally, “Integrated Sustainable Entrepreneurship” as the fourth theme highlights the multifaceted relationship with sustainability. Belz and Binder (2017) laid out a comprehensive process model for sustainable entrepreneurship, integrating ecological, social, and economic objectives sequentially. Sustainable entrepreneurship is an avenue for creating future products while conserving nature and the community (Shepherd and Patzelt 2011). They proposed a research agenda to further the field, encompassing economic, institutional, and psychological perspectives. In tandem, Shane and Venkataraman (2000) provide a conceptual framework for entrepreneurship, laying a foundation applicable to social entrepreneurship’s understanding. Building on this, Yunus et al. (2010) stress the need for social business models alongside conventional ones, citing the Grameen Group’s pioneering role in this domain. Later, Yunus et al. (2021) introduced the New Sustainable Recovery Approach, which leverages the social economy and business for post-COVID-19 sustainable human development, emphasizing socio-economic actions guided by enhanced social and environmental consciousness. But Belcher et al. (2022) shifted the focus to institutions, highlighting the crucial role of formal and informal regulations, cognitive norms, and resource support for social entrepreneurship. Addressing collaborative efforts, Schaltegger et al. (2018) emphasized collaborative entrepreneurship’s role in coordinating sustainability initiatives across diverse fields and sectors. Nga and Shamuganathan (2010) delve into personality traits; for example, openness and agreeableness might impact social entrepreneurship start-up intentions. Overall, this theme contributes to a comprehensive understanding of social entrepreneurship, showcasing its linkages with sustainability, institutional influences, personality traits, collaborative approaches, and the transformative potential of entrepreneurship to drive positive social, environmental, and economic change.
The keyword co-occurrence analysis identifies the four emerging research topics within the field of social entrepreneurship. The result shows that “entrepreneurial development”, which includes keywords such as social enterprise, hybrid organizations, sustainable entrepreneurship, culture, gender role, and economy, underscores the potential of social entrepreneurship to uplift marginalized groups by providing opportunities and promoting gender equality. Prior research (Uzuegbunam et al. 2021; Engle et al. 2011; Hechavarría and Brieger 2022) found that cultural context and gender, especially social influence, parental entrepreneurial experience, and cultural norms of a nation, have a significant impact on the success of entrepreneurs. The findings offer a roadmap for exploring the multidimensional landscape of social entrepreneurship. On the other hand, there is a high need for higher education strategy reform for sustainable development in developing countries. The keywords “education for sustainable development”, “challenges”, “higher education”, “leadership”, “programs”, and “poverty reduction” suggest a strong link between education, sustainable practices, and poverty alleviation. Because Higher education in universities can support social entrepreneurs through various means. For example, in the UK, universities support social enterprise initiatives by introducing social enterprise programs (Calvo et al. 2020). In Turkey, Hatipoglu (2021) evaluated university-based platforms in support of social entrepreneurship so that universities can contribute to the improvement of the ecosystem by integrating with teaching and research. Several authors (Bloom 2009; Tejedor et al. 2019) proposed web 2.0 technologies, an incubator model, and a social entrepreneurship lab that can provide students with an environment to think through their ideas and apply them. Overall, our research recommends the vital role of universities in supporting social entrepreneurs through curricular and co-curricular programs, technology, incubator models, and partnerships with various stakeholders. One of the important emerging research topics is “Responsible Innovation for Inclusive Business Growth”, which highlights innovative business models, corporate social responsibility practices, and inclusive economic development within emerging markets. Social entrepreneurs’ commitment to legitimacy, ethical responsibility, and sustainable development goals creates meaningful value for marginalized communities (Dey and Steyaert 2012; Kummitha and Majumdar 2015). In addition, the pattern of keywords such as sustainable development, collaboration, transitions, governance, and policy constitute the important area “sustainable innovation and collaboration in enterprises”. It reflects a holistic view of social entrepreneurship as a means to drive sustainable innovation, foster collaboration across sectors, and harness the power of enterprises to alleviate poverty. For example, Karlsson et al. (2010) emphasized the importance of "Triple Heliz” collaboration between companies, research, and the public sector, focusing on environmental dimensions. Because social entrepreneurship often thrives on collaboration among various stakeholders, including NGOs, governments, businesses, academics, and local communities, to pool resources, expertise, and perspectives to address poverty comprehensively (Greco 2023), finally, our research contributes to building the “socio-economic empowerment nexus”, which means how social entrepreneurs positively impact society and the economy. Keywords, for example, community engagement, growth, resilience, human capital, institutional variables that drive societal development, and women’s empowerment (Haugh and Talwar 2016; Méndez-Picazo et al. 2021). In summary, our research identifies emerging areas that need further investigation. The findings suggest social entrepreneurs, policymakers, academics, non-governmental organizations, and other social organizations collaborate on these areas. To mitigate extreme poverty in developing nations, especially those in Sub-Saharan Africa and South Asia, it is crucial to develop knowledge in social innovation, the entrepreneurship ecosystem, strategies for higher education, cultural norms, the role of women in entrepreneurship, policy coordination, structural transformation, hybrid organization development, and technological advancement.

6. Conclusions and Implications

The current study entailed a comprehensive bibliometric analysis in the field of social entrepreneurship and poverty alleviation for sustainable development. This study was performed on 461 final articles from the Web of Science database, spanning the years 1998 to 2022. The findings reveal several important insights into the evolution, key journals, influential papers, intellectual structure, thematic clusters, and geographical emphases within this field. This study has made a significant contribution to the current body of literature on social entrepreneurship. Firstly, it observed a significant increase in research activity on social entrepreneurship and poverty alleviation from 2009 onwards, indicating the growing recognition of its importance in addressing social challenges and United Nations SDG goals. This trend reflects the field’s emergence and gradual maturation, with a 55% increase in research activity in recent years (2021–2022). Overall, it shows an increasing interest in and importance of social entrepreneurship. Secondly, this study identified the most influential journals in the field, highlighting their diverse range of subjects, including environmental sciences, sustainable technology, business, regional planning, and social sciences. Journals like “Journal of Cleaner Production”, “Business Strategy and the Environment”, and “Technological Forecasting and Social Change” emerged as influential outlets for research relevant to social entrepreneurship’s role in poverty reduction. In addition, Sustainability Journal has the most published papers (91) among all academic journals. Kolleck Nina is the most prolific author in terms of number of publications (6), with a total citation count of 99. In terms of total citations, Diane Hold received 343 citations with 5 publications, indicating significant contributions in this field. Thirdly, the descriptive analysis highlighted the geographic performance of research output by countries where UK, Spain, USA, and European institutions hold the top positions in conducting social entrepreneurship research. It clearly shows that Europe leads with a substantial 260 articles. This analysis also indicates a lack of research activity in South Asian (Bangladesh, Pakistan) and African countries (Kenya, Ghana, Senegal, Tanzania, Uganda, and Zambia). Only India and China stood within the top 10 positions compared to all other Asian countries. Fourthly, it examined co-citation patterns to identify key documents and themes in the field. Four thematic clusters emerged: (1) the dynamics of social entrepreneurship; (2) a sustainable entrepreneurial ecosystem for social change; (3) social entrepreneurship for social innovation; and (4) integrated sustainable entrepreneurship. Lastly, the keyword co-occurrence in this study reveals the emerging research areas and poses some challenges. Entrepreneurial development, sustainable development and higher education strategies, sustainable innovation and collaboration in enterprises, responsible innovation for inclusive business growth, and the socio-economic empowerment nexus are the potential domains of further research. These also reveal some important factors; for example, cultural norms, gender roles, new business models, collaboration among governments, NGOs, and stakeholders, and institutional roles collectively play an important role in promoting sustainable social entrepreneurship. In many societies, for example, in India and Colombia, women face unique challenges in making decisions for their entrepreneurial journey. Traditional gender roles and stereotypes restrict women’s access to resources, networks, and entrepreneurial opportunities. Furthermore, the expectations placed on individuals based on cultural norms, such as family responsibilities and societal roles, can conflict with the demands of running a social enterprise. Therefore, our research suggests collaboration among government, NGOs, and other stakeholders’ roles in addressing these challenges to create a more inclusive and equitable environment for social entrepreneurship, enabling individuals from all backgrounds to contribute to sustainable development goals. In conclusion, social entrepreneurship can play a significant role in reducing poverty and bringing about sustainable change in society. It can help in achieving SDG 1 (no poverty) and other SDGs, such as 2 (zero hunger), 3 (good health and well-being), 4 (quality education), 5 (gender equality), and 8 (decent work and economic growth), by empowering vulnerable groups, promoting sustainable innovation practices, developing entrepreneurial ecosystems, and building sustainable and innovative business models.

7. Limitations

While this research provides valuable insights into the fields of social entrepreneurship and poverty alleviation, it is not without limitations. The analysis is based on a sample of 461 articles, which may not represent the entire breadth of research in the field. There may be relevant studies not included in the sample, as books, book chapters, and conference proceedings were excluded. The analysis covers articles published until December 2022. Research trends and influential papers may have evolved beyond this timeframe, and newer developments may not be reflected. The identification of thematic clusters and their interpretation involve some subjectivity. Different researchers may categorize and interpret the data differently. The findings may not be generalizable to all regions and contexts, as social entrepreneurship and poverty alleviation are highly context-dependent. Despite these limitations, this research offers a valuable overview of the field of social entrepreneurship and provides a foundation for further exploration and research in the domains of poverty alleviation and sustainable change. Researchers and practitioners can use these insights to inform their work and contribute to the ongoing contribution to this field.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, M.F.-F. and M.T.M.; methodology, Z.L. and M.T.M.; software, Z.L. and M.T.M.; validation, Z.L.; formal analysis, M.T.M.; investigation, M.T.M. and Z.L.; resources, M.T.M. and M.F.-F.; data curation, M.T.M. and Z.L.; writing—original draft preparation, M.T.M.; writing—M.T.M. editing, Z.L. and M.F.-F.; visualization, M.T.M.; supervision, M.F.-F. and Z.L. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research received no external funding.

Institutional Review Board Statement

Not applicable.

Informed Consent Statement

Not Applicable.

Data Availability Statement

The corresponding author will provide the datasets used in research upon valid request.

Acknowledgments

We thank the Hungarian University of Agriculture and Life Sciences and the Doctoral School of Economic and Regional Sciences for their support to this research. We also thank the editor and the anonymous reviewers for their insightful and constructive comments.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

Appendix A

Table A1. Representative summary of review works on social entrepreneurship.
Table A1. Representative summary of review works on social entrepreneurship.
AuthorsTypeDatabasePeriod of StudyNumber of PapersKey Findings
(Trabskaia et al. 2023)BibliometricScopus2009–2022357Analyzed social entrepreneurship ecosystem, focusing on publication growth, key journals, top authors, leading countries and universities, notable papers, collaboration networks, and scholar co-citations.
(Kaushik et al. 2023)Integrated bibliometric and machine learningWeb of Science and Scopus1989–20223844Identified latent themes and trends in social entrepreneurship literature, categorizing them into three areas: (1) individual attributes and motivation, (2) organizational actions, and (3) institutional conditions and development, encompassing 21 sub-topics for deeper field insight.
(Hota 2023)bibliometric and structured review approachWeb of Science1990–20202517Contributed significantly to social entrepreneurship research in four key areas: (1) revealing the intellectual structure (2) examining the longitudinal development (3) analyzing recent trends and (4) providing directions for future research.
(Satar et al. 2023)Bibliometric analysisScopus1996–2022300Presented key contributions of authors, institutions, countries, journals and knowledge structure by co-authorship analysis and co-occurrence of keyword analysis in social entrepreneurship and inclusive development
(Zhang et al. 2023)Systematic reviewWeb of Science, ScienceDirect and EBSCONot given 89Mapped the current publication trends, reveal the formation path and identify the future research directions of on tourism and hospitality social entrepreneurship in developing countries. Classified four themes: antecedents, processes, effects and challenges.
(Da Costa et al. 2022)SystematicWeb of Science and ScopusNot given19Found several barriers to female entrepreneurship in the sports industry and identified the development of skills, abilities and higher education as a fundamental tool for stimulating female entrepreneurship.
(Ambad 2022)Systematic reviews and Meta-AnalysesScopus2010–202056Identified nine themes for antecedents of social entrepreneurial intention (1) perceived desirability and feasibility, (2) attitude, subjective norms and perceived behavioral control, (3) prior experience, (4) emotional factors, (5) self-efficacy, (6) personality, (7) support systems, (8) skills and competencies and (9) motivational factors.
(Dettori and Floris 2021)Bibliometric analysisWeb of Science1990–20193064Identified the most prolific authors, journals, countries and institutions that have contributed to the technology in social entrepreneurship.
(García-Jurado et al. 2021)Latent semantic analysis (LSA)Scopus2005–2016882Determined the conceptual development of social entrepreneurship and identify the most interesting research trends highlighting the measurement of social impact, venture philanthropy and hybrid organizations.
(Tan et al. 2021)Co-citation analysis as well as bibliographic couplingWeb of Science1988–20211122Suggested current research directions, emerging trends, and conceptual structure.
(Gupta et al. 2020)Systematic reviewsScopus, Google Scholar2007–2018188Summarized recent social entrepreneurship research, classifying it into five themes: entrepreneurial orientation, innovation, human resources, business strategy, and challenges for social entrepreneurs.
(Chaudhuri et al. 2020)BibliometricScopus2006–2020128Found significant growth in the number of publications in the research domain of social business enterprise.
(Hota et al. 2020)Citation, co-citation, and social network analysis,Web of Science1996–20171296Identified overall perspective of the social entrepreneurship field, its influential works and analysing scholarly communication between these works.
(Arango-Botero et al. 2020)Bibliometric and systematic literature reviewNot given1990–2013357Highlighted the importance for social enterprises to prioritize innovation, sustainability, and community transformation.
(Dionisio 2019)Bibliometric study EBSCO, Scopus and Google Scholar2005–2017154Studied the evolution of social entrepreneurship, focusing on key authors, institutions, geographies, research methods, data techniques, and main topics using Gartner’s framework.
(Bansal et al. 2019)SystematicWeb of Science1 March 2018173Highlighted the role of social entrepreneurship in triggering social change and attaining sustainable development.
(Aliaga-Isla and Huybrechts 2018)Systematic review and memetic analysisWoS, Scopus and Google ScholarNot given45Identified three main categories like, entity types, entrepreneurial opportunities and intentions by synthesizing and analyzing social entrepreneurship definitions.
(Ferreira et al. 2017)bibliometric analysis based on co-citations.Web of Science1994–2014204Provided a detailed overview of social entrepreneurship research, covering social value, well-being, internationalization, and institutional perspectives.
(Rey-Martí et al. 2016)Bibliometric analysisWeb of Science2003–20152922Presented leading research areas, countries, and languages in social entrepreneurship; determined its research inception year, key journals, and influential authors.

References

  1. Aguilar, R. Andres Castaneda, Carolina Diaz-Bonilla, Tony H. M. J. Fujs, Dean Jolliffe, Aphichoke Kotikula, Christoph Lakner, Gabriel Lara Ibarra, Daniel G. Mahler, Veronica S. Montalva Talledo, Minh C. Nguyen, and et al. 2023. March 2023 Update to the Poverty and Inequality Platform (PIP): What’s New. Global Poverty Monitoring Technical Note, no. 27. Washington, DC: World Bank Group. Available online: https://documents1.worldbank.org/curated/en/099923403272329672/pdf/IDU089370bcb048b9044fd0ab49037249b87aef6.pdf (accessed on 31 December 2023).
  2. Alcaide-Ruiz, María Dolores, and Francisco Bravo-Urquiza. 2023. Board’s Financial Expertise: A Bibliometric Analysis and Future Research Agenda. Management Review Quarterly, 1–26. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Aliaga-Isla, Rocío, and Benjamin Huybrechts. 2018. From ‘Push Out’ to ‘Pull In’ Together: An Analysis of Social Entrepreneurship Definitions in the Academic Field. Journal of Cleaner Production 205: 645–60. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Alvord, Sarah H., L. David Brown, and Christine W. Letts. 2004. Social Entrepreneurship and Societal Transformation: An Exploratory Study. The Journal of Applied Behavioral Science 40: 260–82. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Ambad, Sylvia Nabila Azwa. 2022. A Systematic Literature Review on Social Entrepreneurial Intention: Citation, Thematic Analyses and Future Research Directions. Developments in Corporate Governance and Responsibility 18: 93–124. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Aoyama, Yuko, and Balaji Parthasarathy. 2018. When Both the State and Market Fail: Inclusive Development and Social Innovation in India. Area Development and Policy 3: 330–48. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Arango-Botero, Diana, Martha Luz, and Benjumea Arias. 2020. Social Entrepreneurship: Dynamics and Current Trends. A Quarterly Journal SCMS Journal of Indian Management. Available online: https://www.scms.edu.in/uploads/journal/April-June-2020.pdf (accessed on 30 December 2023).
  8. Ardito, Lorenzo, Veronica Scuotto, Manlio Del Giudice, and Antonio Messeni Petruzzelli. 2019. A Bibliometric Analysis of Research on Big Data Analytics for Business and Management. Management Decision 57: 1993–2009. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Aria, Massimo, and Corrado Cuccurullo. 2017. Bibliometrix: An R-Tool for Comprehensive Science Mapping Analysis. Journal of Informetrics 11: 959–75. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Austin, James, Howard Stevenson, and Jane Wei–Skillern. 2006. Social and Commercial Entrepreneurship: Same, Different, or Both? Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice 30: 1–22. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Azmat, Fara. 2013. Sustainable Development in Developing Countries: The Role of Social Entrepreneurs. International Journal of Public Administration 36: 293–304. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Bacq, Sophie, and Frank Janssen. 2011. The Multiple Faces of Social Entrepreneurship: A Review of Definitional Issues Based on Geographical and Thematic Criteria. Entrepreneurship & Regional Development 23: 373–403. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Bansal, Sanchita, Isha Garg, and Anshita Yadav. 2020. Can Social Entrepreneurship Help Attain Sustainable Development Goals: A Study of India. World Review of Entrepreneurship, Management and Sustainable Development 16: 172. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Bansal, Sanchita, Isha Garg, and Gagan Deep Sharma. 2019. Social Entrepreneurship as a Path for Social Change and Driver of Sustainable Development: A Systematic Review and Research Agenda. Sustainability 11: 1091. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Battilana, Julie, and Silvia Dorado. 2010. Building Sustainable Hybrid Organizations: The Case of Commercial Microfinance Organizations. Academy of Management Journal 53: 1419–40. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Belcher, Brian M, Rachel Claus, Rachel Davel, and Stephanie M. Jones. 2022. Evaluating and Improving the Contributions of University Research to Social Innovation. Social Enterprise Journal 18: 51–120. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Belz, Frank Martin, and Julia Katharina Binder. 2017. Sustainable Entrepreneurship: A Convergent Process Model. Business Strategy and The Environment 26: 1–17. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Bloom, Paul N. 2009. Overcoming Consumption Constraints Through Social Entrepreneurship. Journal of Public Policy and Marketing 28: 128–34. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Bornmann, Lutz, Robin Haunschild, and Sven E Hug. 2018. Visualizing the Context of Citations Referencing Papers Published by Eugene Garfield: A New Type of Keyword Co-Occurrence Analysis. Scientometrics 114: 427–37. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Brambilla, Norma, Sandra Aparecida dos Santos, and Edson Pinheiro de Lima. 2021. Social Entrepreneurship and Innovation Social: A Systematic Review Publications in the Last Ten Years. World Sustainability Series; Cham: Springer, pp. 525–39. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Brown, Lawrence D., and John C. Gardner. 1985. Using Citation Analysis to Assess the Impact of Journals and Articles on Contemporary Accounting Research (CAR). Journal of Accounting Research 23: 84. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Brundtland, Gro Harlem, Mansour Khalid, Susanna Agnelli, Saleh A. Al-Athel, Bernard Chidzero, Lamine Mohammed Fadika, Volker Hauff, Istvan Lang, Shijun Ma, and Margarita Morino de Botero. 1987. Our Common Future; by World Commission on Environment and Development. Available online: https://sustainabledevelopment.un.org/content/documents/5987our-common-future.pdf (accessed on 30 December 2023).
  23. Bruton, Garry D., David J. Ketchen, and R. Duane Ireland. 2013. Entrepreneurship as a Solution to Poverty. Journal of Business Venturing 28: 683–89. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Bruton, Garry D., Jayarethanam Pillai, and Naiheng Sheng. 2021. Transitional Entrepreneurship: Establishing the Parameters of the Field. Journal of Developmental Entrepreneurship 26: 2150015. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Büyükkidik, Serap. 2022. A Bibliometric Analysis: A Tutorial for the Bibliometrix Package in R Using IRT Literature. Journal of Measurement and Evaluation in Education and Psychology 13: 164–93. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Cajaiba-Santana, Giovany. 2014. Social Innovation: Moving the Field Forward. A Conceptual Framework. Technological Forecasting and Social Change 82: 42–51. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Callon, Michel, Jean Pierre Courtial, and Francoise Laville. 1991. Co-Word Analysis as a Tool for Describing the Network of Interactions between Basic and Technological Research: The Case of Polymer Chemsitry. Scientometrics 22: 155–205. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Calvo, Sara, Fergus Lyon, Andres Morales, and Jeremy Wade. 2020. Educating at Scale for Sustainable Development and Social Enterprise Growth: The Impact of Online Learning and a Massive Open Online Course (MOOC). Sustainability 12: 3247. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Chaudhuri, Ranjan, Demetris Vrontis, Gitesh Chavan, and S. M. Riad Shams. 2020. Social Business Enterprises as a Research Domain: A Bibliometric Analysis and Research Direction. Journal of Social Entrepreneurship 14: 186–200. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Cheng, Fei-Fei, Yu-Wen Huang, Hsin-Chun Yu, and Chin-Shan Wu. 2018. Mapping Knowledge Structure by Keyword Co-Occurrence and Social Network Analysis: Evidence from Library Hi Tech between 2006 and 2017. Library Hi Tech 36: 636–50. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Choi, Nia, and Satyajit Majumdar. 2014. Social Entrepreneurship as an Essentially Contested Concept: Opening a New Avenue for Systematic Future Research. Journal of Business Venturing 29: 363–76. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Choudhri, Asim F., Adeel Siddiqui, Nickalus R. Khan, and Harris L. Cohen. 2015. Understanding Bibliometric Parameters and Analysis. RadioGraphics 35: 736–46. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Chzhen, Yekaterina, Zlata Bruckauf, and Emilia Toczydlowska. 2018. Monitoring Progress towards Sustainable Development: Multidimensional Child Poverty in the European Union. Journal of Poverty and Social Justice 26: 129–50. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Clewett, Kenny, and Claire Davenport. 2022. What Is the Future of Social Entrepreneurship in Europe? November 3. Available online: https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2022/11/what-is-the-future-of-social-entrepreneurship-in-europe/ (accessed on 30 December 2023).
  35. Cohen, Boyd, and Monika I. Winn. 2007. Market Imperfections, Opportunity and Sustainable Entrepreneurship. Journal of Business Venturing 22: 29–49. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Coronado, Freddy C., José M. Merigó, and Christian A. Cancino. 2021. Business and Management Research in Latin America: A Country-Level Bibliometric Analysis. Edited by Ernesto Leon-Castro, Fabio Blanco-Mesa, Victor Alfaro-Garcia, Anna M Gil-Lafuente, and Jose M Merigo. Journal of Intelligent & Fuzzy Systems 40: 1865–78. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Costa, Carla, and Dina Alexandra Marques Miragaia. 2022. A Systematic Review of Women’s Entrepreneurship in the Sports Industry: Has Anything Changed? Gender in Management 37: 988–1008. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Da Costa, Luana Folchini, Fabiano Larentis, and Mayron Dalla Santa de Carvalho. 2022. Social Sustainability as a Consequence of Corporate Social Innovation Practices: Highlighting the Main Factors at Private Companies. International Journal of Innovation and Sustainable Development 16: 109–32. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Dacin, M Tina, Peter A Dacin, and Paul Tracey. 2011. Social Entrepreneurship: A Critique and Future Directions. Organization Science 22: 1203–13. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Dahles, Heidi, Sothy Khieng, Michiel Verver, and Ireen Manders. 2020. Social Entrepreneurship and Tourism in Cambodia: Advancing Community Engagement. Journal of Sustainable Tourism 28: 816–33. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Dean, Thomas J, and Jeffery S McMullen. 2007. Toward a Theory of Sustainable Entrepreneurship: Reducing Environmental Degradation through Entrepreneurial Action. Journal of Business Venturing 22: 50–76. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Defourny, Jacques, and Marthe Nyssens. 2010. Conceptions of Social Enterprise and Social Entrepreneurship in Europe and the United States: Convergences and Divergences. Journal of Social Entrepreneurship 1: 32–53. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Department of Economic and Social Affairs, United Nations. 2023. Poverty Eradication. Available online: https://sdgs.un.org/topics/poverty-eradication (accessed on 31 December 2023).
  44. Dervis, Hamid. 2019. Bibliometric Analysis Using Bibliometrix an R Package. Journal of Scientometric Research 8: 156–60. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Dettori, Angela, and Michela Floris. 2021. Technology in Social Entrepreneurship Studies: A Bibliometric Analysis (1990–2019). International Journal of Business and Management 16: 41. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Dey, Pascal, and Chris Steyaert. 2012. Social Entrepreneurship: Critique and the Radical Enactment of the Social. Social Enterprise Journal 8: 90–107. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Diochon, Monica. 2013. Social Entrepreneurship and Effectiveness in Poverty Alleviation: A Case Study of a Canadian First Nations Community. Journal of Social Entrepreneurship 4: 302–30. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Dionisio, Marcelo. 2019. The Evolution of Social Entrepreneurship Research: A Bibliometric Analysis. Social Enterprise Journal 15: 22–45. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Dolhey, Shivam. 2019. A Bibliometric Analysis of Research on Entrepreneurial Intentions from 2000 to 2018. Journal of Research in Marketing and Entrepreneurship 21: 180–99. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Donthu, Naveen, Satish Kumar, Debmalya Mukherjee, Nitesh Pandey, and Weng Marc Lim. 2021. How to Conduct a Bibliometric Analysis: An Overview and Guidelines. Journal of Business Research 133: 285–96. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Eichler, Georg M., and Erich J. Schwarz. 2019. What Sustainable Development Goals Do Social Innovations Address? A Systematic Review and Content Analysis of Social Innovation Literature. Sustainability 11: 522. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Ellegaard, Ole, and Johan A. Wallin. 2015. The Bibliometric Analysis of Scholarly Production: How Great Is the Impact? Scientometrics 105: 1809–31. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Engle, Robert L., Christopher Schlaegel, and Nikolay Dimitriadi. 2011. Institutions and Entrepreneurial Intent: A Cross-Country Study. Journal of Developmental Entrepreneurship 16: 227–50. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. Falagas, Matthew E, Eleni I Pitsouni, George A Malietzis, and Georgios Pappas. 2008. Comparison of PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, and Google Scholar: Strengths and Weaknesses. The FASEB Journal 22: 338–42. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  55. Fauzi, Muhammad Ashraf, Puteri Fadzline Muhamad Tamyez, and Senthil Kumar. 2022. Social Entrepreneurship and Social Innovation in ASEAN: Past, Present, and Future Trends. Journal of Social Entrepreneurship, 1–23. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  56. Ferreira, João José M., Cristina I. Fernandes, Marta Peris-Ortiz, and Vanessa Ratten. 2017. Female Entrepreneurship: A Co-Citation Analysis. International Journal of Entrepreneurship and Small Business 31: 325–40. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  57. Ferrone, Lucia, and Yekaterina Chzhen. 2018. How to Reach the Sustainable Development Goal 1.2? Simulating Different Strategies to Reduce Multidimensional Child Poverty in Two Middle-Income Countries. Child Indicators Research 11: 711–28. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  58. Gallego-Bono, Juan R., and Mariar Tapia-Baranda. 2022. Industrial Ecology and Sustainable Change: Inertia and Transformation in Mexican Agro-Industrial Sugarcane Clusters. European Planning Studies 30: 1271–91. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  59. Galli, Francesca, Aniek Hebinck, and Bridin Carroll. 2018. Addressing Food Poverty in Systems: Governance of Food Assistance in three European Countries. Food Security 10: 1353–70. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  60. García-Jurado, Alejandro, José Javier Pérez-Barea, and Rodrigo Nova. 2021. A New Approach to Social Entrepreneurship: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. Sustainability 13: 2754. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  61. Govigli, Valentino Marini, Mercedes Rois-Diaz, Michael den Herder, Rosalind Bryce, Diana Tuomasjukka, and Elena Gorriz-Mifsud. 2022. The Green Side of Social Innovation: Using Sustainable Development Goals to Classify Environmental Impacts of Rural Grassroots Initiatives. Environmental Policy and Governance 32: 459–77. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  62. Goyal, Sandeep, Anirudh Agrawal, and Bruno S. Sergi. 2020. Social Entrepreneurship for Scalable Solutions Addressing Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) at BoP in India. Qualitative Research in Organizations and Management: An International Journal 16: 509–29. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  63. Granados, Maria L., Vlatka Hlupic, Elayne Coakes, and Souad Mohamed. 2011. Social Enterprise and Social Entrepreneurship Research and Theory: A Bibliometric Analysis from 1991 to 2010. Social Enterprise Journal 7: 198–218. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  64. Greco, Fabio. 2023. Start-Up Ecosystems and Institutions: The Role of Universities and Academic Entrepreneurship. In Startup Ecosystems: Components for an Interpretative Model and International Benchmarks. Berlin and Heidelberg: Springer, pp. 51–64. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  65. Grégoire, Denis A., Martin X. Noël, Richard Déry, and Jean-Pierre Béchard. 2006. Is There Conceptual Convergence in Entrepreneurship Research? A Co-Citation Analysis of Frontiers Entrepreneurship Research, 1981–2004. Entrepreneurship: Theory and Practice 30: 333–73. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  66. Griggs, David, Mark Stafford Smith, Johan Rockström, Marcus C. Öhman, Owen Gaffney, Gisbert Glaser, Norichika Kanie, Ian Noble, Will Steffen, and Priya Shyamsundar. 2014. An Integrated Framework for Sustainable Development Goals. Ecology and Society 19: 1–24. Available online: http://www.jstor.org/stable/26269703 (accessed on 30 December 2023). [CrossRef]
  67. Guo, Yuanzhi, and Yansui Liu. 2022. Sustainable Poverty Alleviation and Green Development in China’s Underdeveloped Areas. Journal of Geographical Sciences 32: 23–43. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  68. Gupta, Parul, Sumedha Chauhan, Justin Paul, and Mahadeo P. Jaiswal. 2020. Social Entrepreneurship Research: A Review and Future Research Agenda. Journal of Business Research 113: 209–29. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  69. Hall, Jeremy K., Gregory A. Daneke, and Michael J. Lenox. 2010. Sustainable Development and Entrepreneurship: Past Contributions and Future Directions. Journal of Business Venturing 25: 439–48. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  70. Hatipoglu, Burcin Kalabay. 2021. Community-Based Social Enterprises and Social Innovation: The Case of Women’s Cooperatives in Turkey. In Social Entrepreneurship. Leeds: Emerald Publishing Limited, vol. 5, pp. 97–118. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  71. Haugh, Helen M., and Alka Talwar. 2016. Linking Social Entrepreneurship and Social Change: The Mediating Role of Empowerment. Journal of Business Ethics 133: 643–58. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  72. Hechavarría, Diana M., and Steven A. Brieger. 2022. Practice Rather than Preach: Cultural Practices and Female Social Entrepreneurship. Small Business Economics 58: 1131–51. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  73. Ho, Jae-Yun, and Semee Yoon. 2022. Ambiguous Roles of Intermediaries in Social Entrepreneurship: The Case of Social Innovation System in South Korea. Technological Forecasting and Social Change 175: 121324. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  74. Holland, Joseph H., William Hatcher, and V. Brooks Poole. 2018. Social Entrepreneurship in Trujillo, Peru: The Case of Nisolo. Community Development 49: 312–23. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  75. Hota, Pradeep Kumar. 2023. Tracing the Intellectual Evolution of Social Entrepreneurship Research: Past Advances, Current Trends, and Future Directions. Journal of Business Ethics 182: 637–59. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  76. Hota, Pradeep Kumar, Balaji Subramanian, and Gopalakrishnan Narayanamurthy. 2020. Mapping the Intellectual Structure of Social Entrepreneurship Research: A Citation/Co-Citation Analysis. Journal of Business Ethics 166: 89–114. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  77. Idris, Aida, and Rahayu Hijrah Hati. 2013. Social Entrepreneurship in Indonesia: Lessons from the Past. Journal of Social Entrepreneurship 4: 277–301. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  78. Kamruzzaman, Palash. 2016. A Critical Note on Poverty Eradication Target of Sustainable Development Goals. European Journal of Sustainable Development 5: 87–110. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  79. Karlsson, Reine, Mikael Backman, and AnnaKarin Djupenström. 2010. Sustainability Considerations and Triple-Helix Collaboration in Regional Innovation Systems. In Facilitating Sustainable Innovation through Collaboration: A Multi-Stakeholder Perspective. Dordrecht: Springer, pp. 17–39. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  80. Kaushik, Vineet, Shobha Tewari, Sreevas Sahasranamam, and Pradeep Kumar Hota. 2023. Towards a Precise Understanding of Social Entrepreneurship: An Integrated Bibliometric–Machine Learning Based Review and Research Agenda. Technological Forecasting and Social Change 191: 122516. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  81. Kirwan, James, Brian Ilbery, Damian Maye, and Joy Carey. 2013. Grassroots Social Innovations and Food Localisation: An Investigation of the Local Food Programme in England. Global Environmental Change-Human and Policy Dimensions 23: 830–37. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  82. Klarin, Anton, and Yuliani Suseno. 2022. An Integrative Literature Review of Social Entrepreneurship Research: Mapping the Literature and Future Research Directions. Business and Society 62: 565–611. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  83. Kraus, Sascha, Matthias Filser, Michele O’Dwyer, and Eleanor Shaw. 2014. Social Entrepreneurship: An Exploratory Citation Analysis. Review of Managerial Science 8: 275–92. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  84. Kroll, Christian, Anne Warchold, and Prajal Pradhan. 2019. Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs): Are We Successful in Turning Trade-Offs into Synergies? Palgrave Communications 5: 140. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  85. Kummitha, Rama Krishna Reddy, and Satyajit Majumdar. 2015. Dynamic Curriculum Development on Social Entrepreneurship–A Case Study of TISS. The International Journal of Management Education 13: 260–67. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  86. Lateh, Muklis. 2018. Social Entrepreneurship Development and Poverty Alleviation—A Literature Review. MAYFEB Journal of Business and Management 2: 1–11. Available online: https://mayfeb.com/index.php/BUS/article/view/57 (accessed on 30 December 2023).
  87. Leal Filho, Walter, Violeta Orlovic Lovren, Markus Will, Amanda Lange Salvia, and Fernanda Frankenberger. 2021. Poverty: A Central Barrier to the Implementation of the UN Sustainable Development Goals. Environmental Science & Policy 125: 96–104. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  88. Leydesdorff, Loet, and Ismael Rafols. 2011. Indicators of the Interdisciplinarity of Journals: Diversity, Centrality, and Citations. Journal of Informetrics 5: 87–100. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  89. Linnenluecke, Martina K, Mauricio Marrone, and Abhay K Singh. 2020. Conducting Systematic Literature Reviews and Bibliometric Analyses. Australian Journal of Management 45: 175–94. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  90. Littlewood, David, and Diane Holt. 2018. Social Entrepreneurship in South Africa: Exploring the Influence of Environment. Business & Society 57: 525–61. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  91. Liu, Qian-Qian, Man Yu, and Xiao-Lin Wang. 2015. Poverty Reduction within the Framework of SDGs and Post-2015 Development Agenda. Advances in Climate Change Research 6: 67–73. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  92. Luke, Belinda, and Vien Chu. 2013. Social Enterprise versus Social Entrepreneurship: An Examination of the ‘why’ and ‘How’ in Pursuing Social Change. International Small Business Journal 31: 764–84. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  93. Mahmuda, Ismat, Angathevar Baskaran, and Jatin Pancholi. 2014. Financing Social Innovation for Poverty Reduction: A Case Study of Microfinancing and Microenterprise Development in Bangladesh. Science Technology and Society 19: 249–73. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  94. Mair, Johanna, and Ignasi Marti. 2006. Social Entrepreneurship Research: A Source of Explanation, Prediction, and Delight. Journal of World Business 41: 36–44. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  95. Mair, Johanna, and Ignasi Marti. 2009. Entrepreneurship in and around Institutional Voids: A Case Study from Bangladesh. Journal of Business Venturing 24: 419–35. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  96. Mair, Johanna, and Oliver Schoen. 2007. Successful Social Entrepreneurial Business Models in the Context of Developing Economies: An Explorative Study. International Journal of Emerging Markets 2: 54–68. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  97. Martin, Jeanette S., and Milorad Novicevic. 2010. Social Entrepreneurship among Kenyan Farmers: A Case Example of Acculturation Challenges and Program Successes. International Journal of Intercultural Relations 34: 482–92. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  98. Martins, Tânia, Alexandra Braga, Marisa R Ferreira, and Vítor Braga. 2022. Diving into Social Innovation: A Bibliometric Analysis. Administrative Sciences 12: 56. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  99. Méndez-Picazo, María-Teresa, Miguel-Angel Galindo-Martín, and Maria-Soledad Castaño-Martínez. 2021. Effects of Sociocultural and Economic Factors on Social Entrepreneurship and Sustainable Development. Journal of Innovation & Knowledge 6: 69–77. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  100. Meyer, Natanya. 2021. A Theoretical Analysis of Social Entrepreneurship: The Case of Poland and South Africa. Journal of Eastern European and Central Asian Research (JEECAR) 8: 133–48. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  101. Michaelis, Laurie. 2003. Sustainable Consumption and Greenhouse Gas Mitigation. Climate Policy 3: S135–S146. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  102. Moed, Henk F. 2009. New Developments in the Use of Citation Analysis in Research Evaluation. Archivum Immunologiae et Therapiae Experimentalis 57: 13–18. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  103. Mohammed, Umaru Danladi, and Ifeyinwa Theresa Ndulue. 2017. Impact of Social Entrepreneurship on Poverty Reduction in Nigeria: A Study of Wecyclers Social Entrepreneurship Ltd. International Journal of Development Strategies in Humanities, Management and Social Sciences 7: 63–73. Available online: https://socialchangeinnovators.com/file/?f=773 (accessed on 30 December 2023).
  104. Mongelli, Luca, and Francesco Rullani. 2017. Inequality and Marginalisation: Social Innovation, Social Entrepreneurship and Business Model Innovation: The Common Thread of the DRUID Summer Conference 2015. Industry and Innovation 24: 446–67. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  105. Mongeon, Philippe, and Adèle Paul-Hus. 2016. The Journal Coverage of Web of Science and Scopus: A Comparative Analysis. Scientometrics 106: 213–28. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  106. Montgomery, A. Wren, Peter A. Dacin, and M. Tina Dacin. 2012. Collective Social Entrepreneurship: Collaboratively Shaping Social Good. Journal of Business Ethics 111: 375–88. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  107. Morales, Andres, Sara Calvo, Jose Manuel Guaita Martinez, and Jose Maria Martin Martin. 2021. Hybrid Forms of Business: Understanding the Development of Indigenous Social Entrepreneurship Practices. Journal of Business Research 124: 212–22. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  108. Mort, Gillian Sullivan, and Margee Hume. 2009. Special Issue: Sustainability, Social Entrepreneurship and Social Change. Australasian Marketing Journal 17: 189–91. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  109. Moyo, Clement, Syden Mishi, and Ronney Ncwadi. 2022. Human Capital Development, Poverty and Income Inequality in the Eastern Cape Province. Development Studies Research 9: 36–47. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  110. Mulgan, Geoff. 2006. The Process of Social Innovation. Innovations: Technology, Governance, Globalization 1: 145–62. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  111. Mura, Giulia, Ida Castiglioni, Nunzia Borrelli, Mirella Ferrari, and Davide Diamantini. 2019. Recycling Food to Promote Social Inclusion. An Empirical Evidence. Revista De Cercetare Si Interventie Sociala 65: 325–37. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  112. Najafizada, Said Ahmad Maisam, and Maurie J. Cohen. 2017. Social Entrepreneurship Tackling Poverty in Bamyan Province, Afghanistan. World Development Perspectives 5: 24–26. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  113. Narin, Francis, and Kimberly S. Hamilton. 1996. Bibliometric Performance Measures. Scientometrics 36: 293–310. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  114. Nchasi, Goodluck, Carolyn Mwasha, Moshi Moshi Shaban, Rose Rwegasira, Benardine Mallilah, Joshua Chesco, Anastasiia Volkova, and Ashraf Mahmoud. 2022. Ukraine’s Triple Emergency: Food Crisis amid Conflicts and COVID-19 Pandemic. Health Science Reports 5: e862. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  115. Nga, Joyce Koe Hwee, and Gomathi Shamuganathan. 2010. The Influence of Personality Traits and Demographic Factors on Social Entrepreneurship Start Up Intentions. Journal of Business Ethics 95: 259–82. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  116. Obinna, Celestine, and N. Nwaiwu Blessing. 2020. Social Entrepreneurship and Sustainable Development. Journal of Poverty, Investment and Development 5: 126–29. Available online: https://core.ac.uk/download/pdf/234695104.pdf (accessed on 30 December 2023).
  117. Ogwumike, Fidelis O., and Uche M. Ozughalu. 2016. Analysis of Energy Poverty and Its Implications for Sustainable Development in Nigeria. Environment and Development Economics 21: 273–90. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  118. Ozili, Peterson K. 2022. Global Economic Consequence of Russian Invasion of Ukraine. SSRN Electronic Journal. Available online: https://ssrn.com/abstract=4064770 (accessed on 30 December 2023).
  119. Palimaka, Karolina, and Gabriela Karas. 2022. ’No Poverty’-Sustainable Development Goals in The Light of Polish Statistics and Social Policy Activities. Financial Internet Quarterly 18: 51–67. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  120. Pathak, Saurav, and Etayankara Muralidharan. 2018. Economic Inequality and Social Entrepreneurship. Business & Society 57: 1150–90. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  121. Peredo, Ana Maria, and James J. Chrisman. 2006. Toward a Theory of Community-Based Enterprise. Academy of Management Review 31: 309–28. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  122. Peredo, Ana Maria, and Murdith McLean. 2006. Social Entrepreneurship: A Critical Review of the Concept. Journal of World Business 41: 56–65. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  123. Phan Tan, Luc. 2022. Bibliometrics of Social Entrepreneurship Research: Co-citation and Bibliographic Coupling Analyses. Cogent Business & Management 9: 2124594. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  124. Phillips, Wendy, Hazel Lee, Abby Ghobadian, Nicholas O’Regan, and Peter James. 2015. Social Innovation and Social Entrepreneurship: A Systematic Review. Group and Organization Management 40: 428–61. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  125. Piwowarski, Juliusz, Larysa Yankovska, Bohdan-Petro Koshovyi, Ira Von-Nagy, and Andrii Yevstakhevych. 2022. Empowering Theory of Poverty Reduction for Sustainable Development: Does the Welfare of Descendants Matter? Problemy Ekorozwoju 17: 52–63. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  126. Pizzi, Simone, Andrea Caputo, Antonio Corvino, and Andrea Venturelli. 2020. Management Research and the UN Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs): A Bibliometric Investigation and Systematic Review. Journal of Cleaner Production 276: 124033. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  127. Pol, Eduardo, and Simon Ville. 2009. Social Innovation: Buzz Word or Enduring Term? The Journal of Socio-Economics 38: 878–85. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  128. Popkova, Elena G., and Bruno S. Sergi. 2021. Dataset Modelling of the Financial Risk Management of Social Entrepreneurship in Emerging Economies. Risks 9: 211. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  129. Puente, Cristina, Maria Eugenia Fabra, Cindy Mason, Cristina Puente-Rueda, Maria Ana Saenz-Nuno, and Ramiro Vinuales. 2021. Role of the Universities as Drivers of Social Innovation. Sustainability 13: 13727. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  130. Punj, Nidhi, Aidi Ahmi, Anita Tanwar, and Suzari Abdul Rahim. 2023. Mapping the Field of Green Manufacturing: A Bibliometric Review of the Literature and Research Frontiers. Journal of Cleaner Production 423: 138729. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  131. Purcell, Wendy Maria, Heather Henriksen, and John D Spengler. 2019. Universities as the Engine of Transformational Sustainability toward Delivering the Sustainable Development Goals ‘Living Labs’ for Sustainability. International Journal of Sustainability in Higher Education 20: 1343–57. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  132. Radhakrishnan, Srinivasan, Serkan Erbis, Jacqueline A. Isaacs, and Sagar Kamarthi. 2017. Novel Keyword Co-Occurrence Network-Based Methods to Foster Systematic Reviews of Scientific Literature. PLoS ONE 12: e0172778. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  133. Rey-Martí, Andrea, Domingo Ribeiro-Soriano, and Daniel Palacios-Marqués. 2016. A Bibliometric Analysis of Social Entrepreneurship. Journal of Business Research 69: 1651–55. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  134. Rivera-Santos, Miguel, Diane Holt, David Littlewood, and Ans Kolk. 2015. Social Entrepreneurship in Sub-Saharan Africa. Academy of Management Perspectives 29: 72–91. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  135. Rosca, Eugenia, Nivedita Agarwal, and Alexander Brem. 2020. Women Entrepreneurs as Agents of Change: A Comparative Analysis of Social Entrepreneurship Processes in Emerging Markets. Technological Forecasting and Social Change 157: 120067. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  136. Roy, Sanku Bilas, and Moutusi Basak. 2013. Journal of Documentation: A Bibliometric Study. Library Philosophy and Practice (e-Journal). Paper 945. Available online: https://digitalcommons.unl.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2313&context=libphilprac (accessed on 31 December 2023).
  137. Sachs, Jeffrey D. 2005. Challenges of Sustainable Development under Globalisation. International Journal of Development Issues 4: 1–20. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  138. Saebi, Tina, Nicolai J. Foss, and Stefan Linder. 2019. Social Entrepreneurship Research: Past Achievements and Future Promises. Journal of Management 45: 70–95. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  139. Santos, Filipe M. 2012. A Positive Theory of Social Entrepreneurship. Journal of Business Ethics 111: 335–51. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  140. Satar, Mir Shahid, Deepanshi Aggarwal, Rohit Bansal, and Ghadah Alarifi. 2023. Mapping the Knowledge Structure and Unveiling the Research Trends in Social Entrepreneurship and Inclusive Development: A Bibliometric Analysis. Sustainability 15: 5626. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  141. Schaltegger, Stefan, Markus Beckmann, and Kai Hockerts. 2018. Collaborative Entrepreneurship for Sustainability. Creating Solutions in Light of the UN Sustainable Development Goals. International Journal of Entrepreneurial Venturing 10: 131–52. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  142. Seelos, Christian, and Johanna Mair. 2005. Social Entrepreneurship: Creating New Business Models to Serve the Poor. Business Horizons 48: 241–46. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  143. Seyfang, Gill, and Alex Haxeltine. 2012. Growing Grassroots Innovations: Exploring the Role of Community-Based Initiatives in Governing Sustainable Energy Transitions. Environment and Planning C-Government and Policy 30: 381–400. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  144. Shane, Scott, and Sankaran Venkataraman. 2000. The Promise of Entrepreneurship as a Field of Research. Academy of Management Review 25: 217–26. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  145. Sharma, Sakshi, Kunjana Malik, Manmeet Kaur, and Neha Saini. 2023. Mapping Research in the Field of Private Equity: A Bibliometric Analysis. Management Review Quarterly 73: 61–89. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  146. Shepherd, Dean A., and Holger Patzelt. 2011. The New Field of Sustainable Entrepreneurship: Studying Entrepreneurial Action Linking ‘What Is to Be Sustained’ With ‘What Is to Be Developed’. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice 35: 137–63. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  147. Sitompul, Maruli, Arif Imam Suroso, Ujang Sumarwan, and Nimmi Zulbainarni. 2023. Revisiting the Impact of Corporate Carbon Management Strategies on Corporate Financial Performance: A Systematic Literature Review. Economies 11: 171. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  148. Small, Henry. 1973. Co-citation in the Scientific Literature: A New Measure of the Relationship between Two Documents. Journal of the American Society for Information Science 24: 265–69. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  149. Starnawska, Marzena. 2016. Social Entrepreneurship Research–Challenges, Explanations and Suggestions for the Field Development. Problemy Zarzadzania 14: 13–31. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  150. Su, Hsin-Ning, and Pei-Chun Lee. 2010. Mapping Knowledge Structure by Keyword Co-Occurrence: A First Look at Journal Papers in Technology Foresight. Scientometrics 85: 65–79. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  151. Sutter, Christopher, Garry D. Bruton, and Juanyi Chen. 2019. Entrepreneurship as a Solution to Extreme Poverty: A Review and Future Research Directions. Journal of Business Venturing 34: 197–214. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  152. Talukder, Saurav Chandra, and Zoltán Lakner. 2023. Exploring the Landscape of Social Entrepreneurship and Crowdfunding: A Bibliometric Analysis. Sustainability 15: 9411. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  153. Tan, Luc Phan, Lan Xuan Pham, and Trang Thanh Bui. 2021. Personality Traits and Social Entrepreneurial Intention: The Mediating Effect of Perceived Desirability and Perceived Feasibility. Journal of Entrepreneurship 30: 56–80. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  154. Tejedor, Gemma, Jordi Segalas, Angela Barron, Monica Fernandez-Morilla, M. Teresa Fuertes, Jorge Ruiz-Morales, Ibon Gutierrez, Esther Garcia-Gonzalez, Pilar Aramburuzabala, and Angels Hernandez. 2019. Didactic Strategies to Promote Competencies in Sustainability. Sustainability 11: 2086. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  155. Thorgren, Sara, and Adesuwa Omorede. 2018. Passionate Leaders in Social Entrepreneurship: Exploring an African Context. Business and Society 57: 481–524. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  156. Tiberius, Victor, Meike Rietz, and Ricarda B. Bouncken. 2020. Performance Analysis and Science Mapping of Institutional Entrepreneurship Research. Administrative Sciences 10: 69. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  157. Trabskaia, Iuliia, Aleksei Gorgadze, Mervi Raudsaar, and Heidi Myyryläinen. 2023. A Bibliometric Analysis of Social Entrepreneurship and Entrepreneurial Ecosystems. Administrative Sciences 13: 75. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  158. Tundys, Blanka, Agnieszka Bretyn, and Maciej Urbaniak. 2021. Energy Poverty and Sustainable Economic Development: An Exploration of Correlations and Interdependencies in European Countries. Energies 14: 7640. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  159. Tunger, Dirk, and Marc Eulerich. 2018. Bibliometric Analysis of Corporate Governance Research in German-Speaking Countries: Applying Bibliometrics to Business Research Using a Custom-Made Database. Scientometrics 117: 2041–59. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  160. Uzuegbunam, Ikenna, Seemantini Pathak, Amy Taylor-Bianco, and Brandon Ofem. 2021. How Cultural Tightness Interacts with Gender in Founding Teams: Insights from the Commercialization of Social Ventures. Journal of Business Venturing 36: 106127. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  161. van Eck, Nees Jan, and Ludo Waltman. 2010. Software Survey: VOSviewer, a Computer Program for Bibliometric Mapping. Scientometrics 84: 523–38. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  162. Vansandt, Craig V., Mukesh Sud, and Christopher Marme. 2009. Enabling the Original Intent: Catalysts for Social Entrepreneurship. Journal of Business Ethics 90: 419–28. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  163. Visser, Kobus. 2011. Social Entrepreneurship in South Africa: Context, Relevance and Extent. Industry and Higher Education 25: 233–47. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  164. World Bank. 2023. Toward Faster, Cleaner Growth. South Asia Development Update (October 2023). Washington, DC: World Bank. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  165. Xu, Nianhang, Yining Chen, Anna Fung, and Kam C. Chan. 2018. Contributing Forces in Entrepreneurship Research: A Global Citation Analysis. Journal of Small Business Management 56: 179–201. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  166. Yunus, Muhammad, Bertrand Moingeon, and Laurence Lehmann-Ortega. 2010. Building Social Business Models: Lessons from the Grameen Experience. Long Range Planning 43: 308–25. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  167. Yunus, Muhammad, Mario Biggeri, and Enrico Testi. 2021. Social Economy and Social Business Supporting Policies for Sustainable Human Development in a Post-COVID-19 World. Sustainability 13: 12155. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  168. Yunus, Muhammad, Thierry Sibieude, and Eric Lesueur. 2012. Social Business and Big Business: Innovative, Promising Solutions to Overcome Poverty? Field Actions Science Reports. The Journal of Field Actions. Available online: http://journals.openedition.org/factsreports/1574 (accessed on 30 December 2023).
  169. Zaefarian, Reza, Misagh Tasavori, and Pervez N. Ghauri. 2015. A Corporate Social Entrepreneurship Approach to Market-Based Poverty Reduction. Emerging Markets Finance and Trade 51: 320–34. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  170. Zahra, Shaker A., Eric Gedajlovic, Donald O. Neubaum, and Joel M. Shulman. 2009. A Typology of Social Entrepreneurs: Motives, Search Processes and Ethical Challenges. Journal of Business Venturing 24: 519–32. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  171. Zhang, Yan, Hong Xu, and Hongyan Yang. 2023. An Integrated Path Framework of Tourism and Hospitality Social Entrepreneurship: A Systematic Literature Review. International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  172. Zupic, Ivan, and Tomaž Čater. 2014. Bibliometric Methods in Management and Organization. Organizational Research Methods 18: 429–72. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Figure 1. Workflow process of Bibliometric search strategy, adapted from Punj et al. (2023).
Figure 1. Workflow process of Bibliometric search strategy, adapted from Punj et al. (2023).
Admsci 14 00016 g001
Figure 2. Articles per year. (Notes: Evolution of the number of articles over the years since 1998. Articles published until December 2022 were included. The Figure is based on a sample of N = 461 articles).
Figure 2. Articles per year. (Notes: Evolution of the number of articles over the years since 1998. Articles published until December 2022 were included. The Figure is based on a sample of N = 461 articles).
Admsci 14 00016 g002
Figure 3. Geographical distribution of research on a sample of 461.
Figure 3. Geographical distribution of research on a sample of 461.
Admsci 14 00016 g003
Figure 4. Visualized Co-citation networks based on a sample of N = 461 articles (Source: VOSviewer).
Figure 4. Visualized Co-citation networks based on a sample of N = 461 articles (Source: VOSviewer).
Admsci 14 00016 g004
Figure 5. Co-occurrence analysis of keywords (Source: VOSviewer).
Figure 5. Co-occurrence analysis of keywords (Source: VOSviewer).
Admsci 14 00016 g005
Table 1. Regional world poverty estimates and changes.
Table 1. Regional world poverty estimates and changes.
RegionSurvey Coverage (Percentage)
March 2023
Number of Poor (Million)
September 2022
$2.15 (2017-ppp)
Number of Poor (Million)
March 2023
$2.15 (2017-ppp)
Number of Poor
(Percentage)
East Asia and the Pacific97.424253.79
Europe and Central Asia87.412111.67
Latin America and the Caribbean86.728284.25
Middle East and North Africa48.3n/an/an/a
Other high-income82.3771.06
South Asia96.415616124.43
Sub-Saharan Africa54.338939159.33
Eastern and Southern Africa29.6n/an/an/a
Western and Central Africa90.512212418.82
Total (World)84.6648659
Source: Data extracted from Aguilar et al. (2023).
Table 2. Top 15 journals according to the field on a total sample of 461 articles.
Table 2. Top 15 journals according to the field on a total sample of 461 articles.
Journal NameNo. of ArticlesArea and IndexWOS Average Citations2022 Journal Impact FactorJIF Quartile
Sustainability91Environmental Studies—SSCI20653.9Q2
Journal of Cleaner Production19Environmental Sciences—SCIE15,54111.1Q1
International Journal of Sustainability in Higher Education11Education and Educational Research—SSCI2943.1Q2
Technological Forecasting and Social Change10Business—SSCI411912.0Q1
Business Strategy and the Environment8Business—SSCI237913.4Q1
Journal of Business Ethics7Business—SSCI72856.1Q2
Social Enterprise Journal7Business—ESCI1092.1N/A
Energy Research and Social Science6Environmental Studies—SSCI25556.7Q1
Voluntas6Social Issues—SSCI5502.4Q2
Business and Society5Business—SSCI10477.0Q2
Journal of Social Entrepreneurship5Business—ESCI1943.0N/A
Local Environment5Environmental Studies—Ssci6342.4Q3
Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management4Business—SSCI25889.8Q1
Entrepreneurship and Sustainability Issues4Business—ESCI3391.7N/A
Forest Policy and Economics4Economics—SSCI16431.23Q1
Table 3. Top 10 relevant authors are ordered by the number of publications and total citations.
Table 3. Top 10 relevant authors are ordered by the number of publications and total citations.
RankAuthorsCountryH_IndexG_IndexM_IndexTcNpPy_Start
1Kolleck, NinaGermany560.4559962013
2Holt, DianeUK440.44434342015
3Jaeger-Erben MGermany330.33310332015
4Littlewood DUK330.33333032015
5Lombardi MItaly330.753032020
6Miller DAustralia330.68632019
7Nijnik MUK330.59032018
8Sorea DRomania330.751932020
9Agarwal SIndia220.55922020
10Agrawal VIndia220.55922020
Table 4. Top 10 Institutions and their affiliated countries.
Table 4. Top 10 Institutions and their affiliated countries.
RankingInstitutionCountryDocumentsCitations
1University of ValenciaSpain726
2Harvard UniversityUSA6431
3Valencia Polytechnic UniversitySpain6197
4University of OxfordUK682
5University of EssexUK5358
6University of SussexUK5152
7Technical University BerlinGermany5141
8University of CambridgeUSA5122
9University of Sains MalaysiaMalaysia591
10Universidade Estadual de CampinasBrazil554
Table 5. Identification of collaboration trends among the countries.
Table 5. Identification of collaboration trends among the countries.
CountryArticlesSCP (Single Country Publications)MCP (Multiple Country Publications)MCP_Ratio
United Kingdom4328150.349
Spain4124170.415
United States4125160.39
Italy3525100.286
Germany312560.194
China2916130.448
Netherlands191090.474
India141040.286
Brazil13850.385
Malaysia12930.25
Note: Number of articles is based on the geographical location of the corresponding authors.
Table 6. Top 5 documents with the highest co-citations and total link strength.
Table 6. Top 5 documents with the highest co-citations and total link strength.
TitleSourceCitationsTotal Link Strength
Social entrepreneurship research: a source of explanation, prediction, and delight(Mair and Marti 2006)71163
Social and commercial entrepreneurship: same, different, or both?(Austin et al. 2006)53129
A typology of social entrepreneurs: motives, search processes, and ethical challenges(Zahra et al. 2009)46131
Social entrepreneurship: A critical review of the concept(Peredo and McLean 2006)3988
Social entrepreneurship and societal transformation: an exploratory study(Alvord et al. 2004)3681
Source: Author interpretation based on VOSviewer analysis.
Table 7. Co-citation clusters and themes on social entrepreneurship.
Table 7. Co-citation clusters and themes on social entrepreneurship.
ClusterThemeNumber of PublicationsRepresentative Publications
1 (Red)Dynamics of Social Entrepreneurship23(Mair and Marti 2006; Austin et al. 2006; Zahra et al. 2009)
2 (Green)Sustainable Entrepreneurial Ecosystems22(Mair and Marti 2009; Battilana and Dorado 2010; Seelos and Mair 2005)
3 (Blue)Social Entrepreneurship for Social Innovation19(Cajaiba-Santana 2014; Mulgan 2006)
4 (Yellow)Integrated Sustainable Entrepreneurship 14(Cohen and Winn 2007; Hall et al. 2010; Dean and McMullen 2007)
Table 8. Top 15 keywords in the co-occurrence of keyword analysis.
Table 8. Top 15 keywords in the co-occurrence of keyword analysis.
RankingKeywordsOccurrencesTotal Link Strentghs
1Social entrepreneurship161629
2Social innovation132409
3Sustainable development125479
4Entrepreneurship80411
5Innovation75371
6Sustainability59263
7Poverty66259
8Management46222
9Governance43197
10Performance41217
11Impact35191
12Social enterprise33157
13Sustainable development goals27127
14Policy28108
15Enterprise26112
Table 9. Co-word clusters on social entrepreneurship.
Table 9. Co-word clusters on social entrepreneurship.
ClusterThemeNumber of KeywordsRepresentative Keywords
1 (Red)Entrepreneurial development 25Social entrepreneurship, sustainable development, social enterprise, hybrid organizations, gender, women
2 (Green)Sustainable Development and Higher Education Strategies20Model, leadership, higher education, sustainability, and social business
3 (Blue)Responsible Innovation for Inclusive Business Growth20Corporate Social Responsibility, inclusive growth, poverty alleviation, and impact
4 (Yellow)Sustainable Innovation and Collaboration in Enterprises19Sustainable development, social innovation, technology, and transitions
5 (Purple) Socio-Economic Empowerment Nexus11Emerging economies, growth, and resilience
(Created using VOSviewer based on a sample of N = 461 articles. We excluded keywords that show country names).
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

Miah, M.T.; Lakner, Z.; Fekete-Farkas, M. Addressing Poverty through Social Entrepreneurship for Sustainable Development: A Comprehensive Bibliometric Analysis. Adm. Sci. 2024, 14, 16. https://doi.org/10.3390/admsci14010016

AMA Style

Miah MT, Lakner Z, Fekete-Farkas M. Addressing Poverty through Social Entrepreneurship for Sustainable Development: A Comprehensive Bibliometric Analysis. Administrative Sciences. 2024; 14(1):16. https://doi.org/10.3390/admsci14010016

Chicago/Turabian Style

Miah, Md. Tota, Zoltán Lakner, and Mária Fekete-Farkas. 2024. "Addressing Poverty through Social Entrepreneurship for Sustainable Development: A Comprehensive Bibliometric Analysis" Administrative Sciences 14, no. 1: 16. https://doi.org/10.3390/admsci14010016

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