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

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. Regional world poverty estimates and changes.

Region	Survey 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 Pacific	97.4	24	25	3.79
Europe and Central Asia	87.4	12	11	1.67
Latin America and the Caribbean	86.7	28	28	4.25
Middle East and North Africa	48.3	n/a	n/a	n/a
Other high-income	82.3	7	7	1.06
South Asia	96.4	156	161	24.43
Sub-Saharan Africa	54.3	389	391	59.33
Eastern and Southern Africa	29.6	n/a	n/a	n/a
Western and Central Africa	90.5	122	124	18.82
Total (World)	84.6	648	659

Source: Data extracted from Aguilar et al. (2023).

. 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. Top 15 journals according to the field on a total sample of 461 articles.

Journal Name	No. of Articles	Area and Index	WOS Average Citations	2022 Journal Impact Factor	JIF Quartile
Sustainability	91	Environmental Studies—SSCI	2065	3.9	Q2
Journal of Cleaner Production	19	Environmental Sciences—SCIE	15,541	11.1	Q1
International Journal of Sustainability in Higher Education	11	Education and Educational Research—SSCI	294	3.1	Q2
Technological Forecasting and Social Change	10	Business—SSCI	4119	12.0	Q1
Business Strategy and the Environment	8	Business—SSCI	2379	13.4	Q1
Journal of Business Ethics	7	Business—SSCI	7285	6.1	Q2
Social Enterprise Journal	7	Business—ESCI	109	2.1	N/A
Energy Research and Social Science	6	Environmental Studies—SSCI	2555	6.7	Q1
Voluntas	6	Social Issues—SSCI	550	2.4	Q2
Business and Society	5	Business—SSCI	1047	7.0	Q2
Journal of Social Entrepreneurship	5	Business—ESCI	194	3.0	N/A
Local Environment	5	Environmental Studies—Ssci	634	2.4	Q3
Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management	4	Business—SSCI	2588	9.8	Q1
Entrepreneurship and Sustainability Issues	4	Business—ESCI	339	1.7	N/A
Forest Policy and Economics	4	Economics—SSCI	1643	1.23	Q1

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. Top 10 relevant authors are ordered by the number of publications and total citations.

Rank	Authors	Country	H_Index	G_Index	M_Index	Tc	Np	Py_Start
1	Kolleck, Nina	Germany	5	6	0.455	99	6	2013
2	Holt, Diane	UK	4	4	0.444	343	4	2015
3	Jaeger-Erben M	Germany	3	3	0.333	103	3	2015
4	Littlewood D	UK	3	3	0.333	330	3	2015
5	Lombardi M	Italy	3	3	0.75	30	3	2020
6	Miller D	Australia	3	3	0.6	86	3	2019
7	Nijnik M	UK	3	3	0.5	90	3	2018
8	Sorea D	Romania	3	3	0.75	19	3	2020
9	Agarwal S	India	2	2	0.5	59	2	2020
10	Agrawal V	India	2	2	0.5	59	2	2020

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. Top 10 Institutions and their affiliated countries.

Ranking	Institution	Country	Documents	Citations
1	University of Valencia	Spain	7	26
2	Harvard University	USA	6	431
3	Valencia Polytechnic University	Spain	6	197
4	University of Oxford	UK	6	82
5	University of Essex	UK	5	358
6	University of Sussex	UK	5	152
7	Technical University Berlin	Germany	5	141
8	University of Cambridge	USA	5	122
9	University of Sains Malaysia	Malaysia	5	91
10	Universidade Estadual de Campinas	Brazil	5	54

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. Identification of collaboration trends among the countries.

Country	Articles	SCP (Single Country Publications)	MCP (Multiple Country Publications)	MCP_Ratio
United Kingdom	43	28	15	0.349
Spain	41	24	17	0.415
United States	41	25	16	0.39
Italy	35	25	10	0.286
Germany	31	25	6	0.194
China	29	16	13	0.448
Netherlands	19	10	9	0.474
India	14	10	4	0.286
Brazil	13	8	5	0.385
Malaysia	12	9	3	0.25

Note: Number of articles is based on the geographical location of the corresponding authors.

, 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. Top 5 documents with the highest co-citations and total link strength.

Title	Source	Citations	Total Link Strength
Social entrepreneurship research: a source of explanation, prediction, and delight	(Mair and Marti 2006)	71	163
Social and commercial entrepreneurship: same, different, or both?	(Austin et al. 2006)	53	129
A typology of social entrepreneurs: motives, search processes, and ethical challenges	(Zahra et al. 2009)	46	131
Social entrepreneurship: A critical review of the concept	(Peredo and McLean 2006)	39	88
Social entrepreneurship and societal transformation: an exploratory study	(Alvord et al. 2004)	36	81

Source: Author interpretation based on VOSviewer analysis.

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. Co-citation clusters and themes on social entrepreneurship.

Cluster	Theme	Number of Publications	Representative Publications
1 (Red)	Dynamics of Social Entrepreneurship	23	(Mair and Marti 2006; Austin et al. 2006; Zahra et al. 2009)
2 (Green)	Sustainable Entrepreneurial Ecosystems	22	(Mair and Marti 2009; Battilana and Dorado 2010; Seelos and Mair 2005)
3 (Blue)	Social Entrepreneurship for Social Innovation	19	(Cajaiba-Santana 2014; Mulgan 2006)
4 (Yellow)	Integrated Sustainable Entrepreneurship	14	(Cohen and Winn 2007; Hall et al. 2010; Dean and McMullen 2007)

, 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. Top 15 keywords in the co-occurrence of keyword analysis.

Ranking	Keywords	Occurrences	Total Link Strentghs
1	Social entrepreneurship	161	629
2	Social innovation	132	409
3	Sustainable development	125	479
4	Entrepreneurship	80	411
5	Innovation	75	371
6	Sustainability	59	263
7	Poverty	66	259
8	Management	46	222
9	Governance	43	197
10	Performance	41	217
11	Impact	35	191
12	Social enterprise	33	157
13	Sustainable development goals	27	127
14	Policy	28	108
15	Enterprise	26	112

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. Co-word clusters on social entrepreneurship.

Cluster	Theme	Number of Keywords	Representative Keywords
1 (Red)	Entrepreneurial development	25	Social entrepreneurship, sustainable development, social enterprise, hybrid organizations, gender, women
2 (Green)	Sustainable Development and Higher Education Strategies	20	Model, leadership, higher education, sustainability, and social business
3 (Blue)	Responsible Innovation for Inclusive Business Growth	20	Corporate Social Responsibility, inclusive growth, poverty alleviation, and impact
4 (Yellow)	Sustainable Innovation and Collaboration in Enterprises	19	Sustainable development, social innovation, technology, and transitions
5 (Purple)	Socio-Economic Empowerment Nexus	11	Emerging economies, growth, and resilience

(Created using VOSviewer based on a sample of N = 461 articles. We excluded keywords that show country names).

). 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.