Research on social entrepreneurship highlights how important resources are since a lack of them may undermine a social organization's activity and mission. To maintain or increase the amount of resources available, the social entrepreneur needs to manage his/her personal network linkages via social media to connect with current stakeholders and seek new ones. This research uses primary data collected from a survey of social organizations to see whether the social entrepreneur’s network reliance on social media increases the amount of resources available for the social organization. The primary data was collected between January and March 2020. The results obtained from 313 social organizations in Portugal show that the social entrepreneur’s network linkages have a direct and an indirect effect. Directly, managing the social entrepreneur’s linkages with stakeholders seems to attract resources for the social organization. The indirect effects occur via social media usage, firstly, by seeking and establishing relationships with new stakeholders, and secondly, by managing the personal linkages with the current network of stakeholders.
The use of social media by social organizations is increasing as more social media platforms are becoming available (). The term “social media” is defined in the present paper as any online service through which users can create and share a variety of content. They encompass user-generated services (such as blogs), social networking sites, video sharing sites and online communities, whereby social organizations produce, design, publish, or edit content ().
These different kinds of social media sites allow social organizations to find new stakeholders and maintain the current base of the stakeholding network via these online channels. Furthermore, social media enables social entrepreneurs to interact with stakeholders to make the whole community aware of the social organization when it comes to its social mission, so as to capture resources from different sources, and to leverage the amount and quality of them. Therefore, social media differs from the normal approach toward stakeholders by changing how social organizations interact with their network and the community ().
The concept of social entrepreneurship emerged as a response to social problems in society and, due to its social nature, is closely associated with restricted access to resources (; Cukier et al., 2011; ; ; ; ; ; ; ). The challenge of finding resources for the social organization has been so time-consuming for the social entrepreneur that it has become one of the primary focuses of the organization’s activities, shaping its capacity for social value creation (). Additionally, resource scarcity drives the social entrepreneur to innovate ways of obtaining resources for the social organization (). Most social entrepreneurs have experience in markets characterized by a paucity of resources, so they have a different outlook on resource constraints (). As underline, “The non-distributive restriction on surpluses generated by nonprofit organizations and the embedded social purpose of for-profit or hybrid forms of social enterprise limits social entrepreneurs from tapping into the same capital markets as commercial entrepreneurs”.
Some definitions of “social entrepreneur” emphasize the role of acquiring resources as one of the main entrepreneurial tasks. For instance, the definitions of and motivate social entrepreneurs to act boldly without being limited by the resources which they have available. stresses the efficiency of managing resources (people, buildings, equipment). claim that social entrepreneurs are people who gather together the necessary resources (generally people, often volunteers, money and premises) and use these to make a difference. state that one of the key features of social entrepreneurship lies in the search for resource acquisition to pursue opportunities to fulfill the organization’s mission and/or practices that yield and sustain social value. By doing so, social entrepreneurship could also be understood as a process that “involves individual(s) who are driven to act on opportunities and/or environmental catalysts by employing innovative processes in the face of limited resources” (). reinforce how important it is for social organizations to employ resources effectively and innovatively to create greater social value and exploit opportunities to enhance social wealth. In a content analysis of the literature on social entrepreneurship, Cukier et al. (2011) point out that some of the scientific articles on social entrepreneurship focus on a meso level of analysis, exploring the entrepreneurial organizational processes inside the social organization, among which the impact of resource management is examined.
The few studies available on the entrepreneur’s networks and resource acquisition have been carried out basically through inductive research in the entrepreneurship and social entrepreneurship literature (; ; ; ; ). Furthermore, a few studies in recent years have attempted to investigate the extent to which the social entrepreneur interacts with the stakeholders via social media during the process of capturing different types of resources for the social organization.
In this study, we analyze the connection between the personal network of the social entrepreneur and social media usage with the objective of acquiring resources. As this topic has received little attention in the social entrepreneurship literature, examining the role of social entrepreneur networks and social media on the acquisition of resources will allow us to learn more about how social entrepreneurs manage their personal network links via social media to capture the different types of resources for the social organization.
In the following section the conceptual framework and the hypotheses are developed. Next, the study methodology is presented, followed by the results. The discussion and conclusions sections are in the last section of the paper.
The proposed framework (Figure 1) aims to determine whether a social entrepreneur’s personal network and the reliance on social media to manage stakeholders have an impact on the amount of resources the social organization acquires. Drawing from the social network theory, resource-based theory and the social entrepreneurship literature, this study investigates how the management of a social entrepreneur’s relationship with stakeholders through social media attracts resources for the social organization. The direct and indirect effects of social media usage are measured with two different models. In model A, social media is used by a social entrepreneur to create bonds with new stakeholders. In model B, social media is used by a social entrepreneur to manage the linkages with his/her current stakeholders. The reliance on social media is thought to directly affect the capacity of the social organization to mobilize resources, as well as indirectly shape the degree to which the social entrepreneur’s personal network contacts are able to capture more resources for the social organization.
The concept of networks is derived from social psychology, sociology and inter-organizational theory (; Granovetter, ; ) to analyze the nature of exchange that occurs among individuals and the influence of networks on how organizations are managed ().
In the context of entrepreneurship, there is a long tradition of studying entrepreneurial networks and their effect on the success of startups (; ; ; ; ; ; ; ). The concept of networks has been progressively applied to entrepreneurship (e.g., ; ; ) and more recently a significant number of articles have explored the role of networks within the scope of social entrepreneurship (e.g. ; ; ; ; ).
According to current positions in the literature, economic behavior is embedded in a network of relationships that connects individuals and firms in a continuous and cumulative process that is developed over time (; ; ). Thus, to have a complete picture of entrepreneurship, it is necessary to take the role played by networks into consideration.
A network consists of single nodes (such as persons or organizations) linked by a set of relationships (e.g. friendship, transfer of funds, overlapping membership), which as a whole forms its structure (). Hence, individuals belonging to a given network are involved in social interactions and social relationships with the actors that are also part of the same network.
The literature recognizes that there are different types of networks. The structural characteristics of the network is related to the way its members are interconnected (). This can vary depending on network size (the number of direct links held), diversity, centrality (the capacity of the individual to "reach" others in his/her network through intermediaries), formality, and proximity to the different members (strong vs weak ties) (; ; ; ). Further, networks could be categorized in accordance with the actors’ interconnections in the relationships between the nodes. Personal networks include the set of social relationships that are established by entrepreneurs with family members, friends, business colleagues and other entrepreneurs (social or economic) (; ; , ). These informal connections are grounded on shared interests, personal friendship, family ties or other kinds of demographic, social or cultural preferences. These sorts of relationships are considered particularly important for entrepreneurship (; ).
The systematic literature review performed by Littlewood and Khan (2018) indicates that several advantages have been studied and linked to networking. As argued by , a social network where an entrepreneur is embedded can exert power over the entrepreneurial process. A study on entrepreneurial networks has been developed to understand their impact on the identification and seizing of opportunities (; ), the ability to be entrepreneurial (; ), and the amount of resources acquired (; ; ). As mentioned by , “networking to attain needed resources is a critical entrepreneurial behavior and social network theory proports that entrepreneurs actively build networks to extract resources to strategically further their venture interests”.
Resource-based theory (RBT) states that a firm is seen as a portfolio of tangible and intangible assets that can be used to gain a competitive advantage and optimal organizational performance in the short term (; ; ; ). Based on this theory, an organization owns or has access to different resources working together create capabilities to attain the organization's successwhich have the ability to achieve (; ). Hence, variations in the amount of resources and capabilities available are the justifications for persistent differences in performance (; ). Indeed, RBT focuses on the heterogeneity of firms in terms of these two factors to explain such differences (). add that RBT is also applied to and observed in social entrepreneurship, finding an operational process similar to that of economic ventures. Indeed, social entrepreneurs need to attract and manage a wide range of resources to accomplish their mission, as do all entrepreneurs (; ; ; ; ).
On a similar note, in accordance with social network theory, social entrepreneur networks are important for resource acquisition and the management of social organizations in order that they can accomplish their social missions. The analysis of some definitions of social entrepreneurship reveals the role of networks in the management of social organizations (; ; ; ; ; ; ).
Throughout the entrepreneurial process, social entrepreneur networks act as support for initial entrepreneurial activity (raising resources), improving the operational efficiency of a business (i.e., management of human, physical and financial resources) (). Further, to create a venture, new formal and informal networks are developed, which include family, friends, acquaintances, private organizations and public institutions (; ).
The role that an entrepreneur’s network plays in the resource acquisition process has been acknowledged by . As stated by the author, “founders can gain access to resources more cheaply by using their network contacts than by using market transactions, and that they can acquire resources from the network that would not be available via market transactions at all”. Additionally, the “opportunity to procure resources (…) arises due to friendship or kinship ties to network partners” that “offer the entrepreneur specific resources at no charge or below the market price simply to do them a favor or to return a favor that they received earlier ().” To , entrepreneurship is facilitated by links between aspiring entrepreneurs, resources and opportunities that can be used to source advice and business information, which in turn can help to alleviate problems in society. A study by advocates that individual social entrepreneurs’ networks enable social organizations to design and implement effective strategies to link other entities of this type to them and deliver more business support to each other.
A review of the literature referring to the role of social networks in social entrepreneurship concludes that social networks are useful vehicles enabling social entrepreneurs to have access to important resources (). Additionally, an empirical investigation carried out on Norwegian entrepreneurs confirms that social networks are substantial tools for capturing resources (). Based on the same data, reinforce the idea that social networks allow easier access to financial resources. share the same position on the importance of social networks in facilitating the mobilization of financial capital flows. Other authors add that social networks play a critical role in locating valuable resources and improving acquisition capability ().
In a synthesis of the literature, show that social networks are widely recognized for being successful tools for funding entrepreneurial ventures. Specifically, strong ties (e.g., friends and family, acquaintances, donors, or sponsors) are more important for securing initial funding than market methods (e.g., banks and investors).
The positive impact of social networks on fundraising has been found in different financial situations ranging from crowdfunding (; ; ; ) and donations (; Herzog & Yang, 2017), to funding operations involving larger amounts of resources ().
Human resources are also an important input for social organizations to accomplish their mission. In a dynamic and competitive labor market, the quest for human resources is challenging for social ventures. Therefore, an entrepreneur’s network becomes critical in the process of identifying and recruiting workers for the social venture ().
A literature review about the contribution of networks to the organizational growth of the non-profit sector shows that social networks are useful for recruiting new members, even though they may have a negative impact on employees’ turnover, since individuals could use their ties to find new jobs and abandon the social organization with a corresponding loss of knowledge (). In the social entrepreneurship domain, a qualitative investigation reveals that social networks are critical for social organizations to mobilize resources (). It also claims that some of the human resources companies use to pursue their social missions are provided under the cooperation established between a social entrepreneur and his/her network. The use of networks for human resource acquisition occurs mainly to hire specialized employees and volunteers ().
Following these arguments, we hypothesize that:
Relationships are established as a result of a gamut of daily interactions, such as those with friends, family, co-workers, volunteers, donors and other stakeholders (). Therefore, networking is seen as an activity for connecting with others and adding new nodes (e.g., persons or organizations) to a given network joined together by the relationships formed (; ). In modern societies, online interaction through social media has replaced face-to-face contacts as a way of sharing and exchanging ideas, opinions and knowledge (). Indeed, social media is now considered an online public space where existing social ties can be maintained and new acquaintances or friends can be found ().
Studies on relationships between physical and online communities show that computer-mediated interactions have positive effects on communication with others (; ). Additionally, social media helps form new relationships, in the sense that it provides an alternative way for peers to connect with each other who share interests or relational goals (; ).
As pointed out by , networking could benefit from digital tools and take advantage of digital capabilities such as searchability and shareability to facilitate networking. Indeed, social media can change entrepreneurs’ network compositions, making individuals and organizations more closely connected, reinforcing their entrepreneurial capabilities ().
conclude that individuals who use social media are more likely to have a larger network of close friends than those who do not, and that these account holders are more likely to receive assistance for any queries they may make. Specifically, social media allows users to expand their networks in different ways and provides the opportunity for new forms of interpersonal relationships to take shape (; ). According to , social media increases online interaction, which could substitute face-to-face communication, and even reduce the amount of time spent online.
Past research indicates that Internet-based linkages support the formation of weak ties, suggesting that new forms of relationship-building can occur on online platforms. There are many social media sites where the formation of weak ties is required as this allows users to create and maintain larger, and more widely spread networks of relationships (). Indeed, social media eases online interactions by providing weak ties with a wider range of information exchange between individuals. This enhances face-to-face communication as members of a network become more aware of each other’s needs and strengthen relationships through more frequent contact (). suggests that social interaction on social media allows existing ties to be maintained online and new ones to be formed, where similar interests can be shared. Recently, defend that the use of social media created and sustained online by digital technologies is important for the development of social networks.
Therefore, the following hypothesis is postulated:
Social media allows individuals to build their own profiles, add friends or contacts to lists and exchange information with others over the Internet (; ). Such platforms usually include communication tools that allow members to capture, store, and exchange information and interact with others by way of interactive tools. Using said platforms, social groups can share information with others in an online setting, forming social networks based on transactions, interests, or relationships (; ).
There are many social media platforms, so it is important for social organizations to define a strategy to decide which one is the most appropriate for them if they want to attract the right crowd. Some (e.g. LinkedIn) are focused on professional profiles to make business connections while others (e.g. Facebook) are more oriented to the general public allowing photos, videos and posts to be shared.
It must also be mentioned that the handling of social media platforms is a full time job as social organizations must stay active and update posts on all platforms to communicate their social mission, inform the community about their activities and answer questions from specific stakeholders and the general public. According to , the lack of up-to-date entries could undermine the credibility and accuracy of the information posted on these sites.
Social media features and functionality affect how users interact, coordinate and form relationships with contacts such as friends, family members, and business partners (). According to , social media sites are unique information sources that allow users to discover very valuable opportunities for social and economic exchange.
Social media has become an important tool for social organizations to connect with their stakeholders and it has changed the way which we create, collaborate, spend, and communicate helping establish conversations with donors or potential volunteers and enabling direct contacts with other potential stakeholder.
Social media platforms enable social organizations to exchange, share, disseminate and search for information quickly, efficiently, and inexpensively (; ). They are increasingly being used to support fundraising campaigns (), recruit volunteers (), and mobtain other types of resources in the online context ().
Social organizations use social media for crafting, supporting, and executing fundraising campaigns. have examined social media data on Facebook’s nonprofit website and find that fundraising success is positively associated with the number of likes, posts, and shares. In a systematic review of the literature on the use of social media for fundraising by nonprofit organizations, refer to the benefits of increased transparency and accountability, operational involvement and engagement, and improved organizational image (although in respect of the latter two, the outcomes may vary). Investigating the advantages of donating by social media, point out efficiency and cost-effective factors or, simply put, the easy, quick and direct transfer of money. note a positive and significant relationship between several media activities of nonprofit organizations (whereby communication is initiated on their social media pages) and donations.
A study developed by shows that social media allows individuals to participate in online volunteering activities, which may include sharing posts, promoting awareness of social issues, eliciting donations, encouraging others to volunteer, examining data online, or managing websites for good causes. In some social organizations, volunteers may also provide professional services, such as preparing tax returns, writing legal documents, and offering management consulting ().
Social organizations can use social media to publish their individual stories about social causes to a wide audience as a means of mobilizing collective action, often referred to as connective action (). In China, find that despite Internet censorship and the unique government-NGO relationship, Chinese NGOs use social media to attract followers, share information, improve organizational legitimacy, build up a community, and obtain resources. Based on qualitative research, observe that entrepreneurs use digital networks more restrictively, mainly to access information to gather material resources. For the authors, this result is constrained by entrepreneurs’ awareness of the availability of resources in their digital networks, mainly when it comes to their willingness to exploit them and the perceived social judgment risk, which could lead to acceptance or rejection of the acquisition of resources through online networks. Even so, argue that digital platforms could act as “capacitor networks that store potential resources to be extracted mainly by private means”.
Based on the above empirical evidence, the following hypotheses are offered:
3.1. The research setting and data collection
The database used in the research integrates the organizations that the Portuguese Tax Administration considers of public interest, such as social solidarity institutions and social, cultural, and humanitarian entities. The database, which only contains the fiscal number and the names of the organizations, has been compiled by consulting each of their websites, social media pages, and the list of social organizations made available by the Ministry of Solidarity and Social Security. At the end of this procedure, a list of 3,252 email contacts of social organizations has been obtained.
A preliminary version of the questionnaire was developed and administered to ten academics in the field of management and economics, with the purpose of evaluating the content validity of the selected measures. The research instrument was then modified based on the feedback received. Subsequently, the revised questionnaire was pretested and refined for relevance and clarity, with no significant problems being found.
The 3,252 social organizations were contacted between January and March 2020. After data cleansing, 864 email addresses were removed due to missing email addresses and error messages. The sampling frame was made up of 2,388 email contacts.
A formal email describing the objectives and importance of the study was sent out to all the organizations. All the respondents were guaranteed anonymity, and a summary of the research findings was promised in exchange for their participation. After sending emails on two occasions asking respondents to fill out the questionnaires, some organizations did not acknowledge the email or stated that they were not willing to answer them. A total of 337 questionnaires were answered although 24 were invalid due to there being excessive amounts of data missing. Thus, we obtained 313 relevant responses, yielding an acceptable response rate of 13.1% (313/2,388).
Multi-item and five-point Likert scale response formats have been used to operationalize all variables (1 for “strongly disagree” and 5 for “strongly agree”). The measurement approach for each theoretical construct is described briefly below. The constructs of both models and the survey scale items are listed in Table A1 (Appendix 1). The studies from which these scale items have been adapted are also listed in this table.
The first scale has been adapted for social organizations and refined in the pretesting of the questionnaire based on , the second and third based on , and the fourth based on .
Entrepreneur’s Network (EN) – this construct uses four statements for measuring founders’ perceptions of the potential partners that are beneficial for their businesses, the common values that they share, the level of mutual trust and respect they hold, and the honest interchange of information.
Social Media & New Stakeholders (SMNS)- this construct uses four statements for measuring managers’ perceptions about the importance of social media in acquiring new contacts to enhance the network of social organizations.
Social Media & Current Stakeholders (SMCS)- this construct uses four statements for measuring managers’ perceptions about the importance of social media in maintaining long-term contacts to sustain the network of social organizations.
Resources (R)– this construct uses four statements for measuring managers’ perceptions about their capacity to obtain material resources (e.g., machines and vehicles), human resources (such as volunteers and collaborators), financial resources, and tax exemptions and financial support from the network of social organizations.
Table 1 presents the sample. Most of the 313 respondents who participated in the survey were from social organizations located in the middle of the country (N = 143). The sample contains 91.1% of the organizations that had already been in existence for more than 10 years. The geographical area of intervention of the majority of organizations was local (N = 141). The size of the social organizations, measured in terms of the number of employees, was more than 30 (N = 129), mostly volunteers and beneficiaries.
Source: Own elaboration
The study develops two conceptual models, Model A relating the constructs social entrepreneur networks to social media (seeking new stakeholders), and Resources, Model B relating the constructs social entrepreneur networks to social media (retaining current stakeholders) and Resources.
The data has been statistically analyzed via the SPSS (Version 26) and AMOS (Version 22) software. AMOS is suitable for solving SEM which encompasses the combination of factor analysis and multiple regression. Basic SEM statistics include covariance, variance, correlations and regression coefficients ().
Exploratory factor analysis (EFA) and confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) have been used to assess the dimensionality, reliability and validity of the scales.
When analyzing raw data, the items factor loadings do measure the intended constructs, as shown in Table A1 (). Moreover, the skewness and most kurtosis values fell between -/+2 (see Table 2), showing that the distributions for the research items are normal (). Subsequently, the values indicate that the correlation matrix is factorable, since Barlett's test of Sphericity is p< 0.001 and overall KMO is > 0.60 ().
Table 2 also reveals the mean and standard deviations of the responses to each item, and with the percentage of total explained variance (> 60%) for the items of each construct, it can be verified that the data is highly useful ().
Source: Own elaboration
[i] Note: Kaiser Normalization Varimax rotation method; Kasier-Meyer-Olkin measure of sampling adequacy (KMO) = 0.878 (Model A), 0.870 (Model B); Bartlett's test sig.< 0.000; Total Explained Variance (TEV): 73.68% (Model A), 72.73% (Model B); Cronbach’s alpha: 0.89 (Model A), 0.889 (Model B); All factor loadings are significant at p< 0.001~
The composite reliability (CR) and Cronbach's alpha values ( ) of all constructs clearly exceed 0.7, which indicates that the scale items are internally consistent or reliable (), as shown in Table 3. Furthermore, the average variance extracted (AVE) of all constructs exceeds 0.5, thus satisfying convergent validity (; ). Table 3 also reveals that AVE > Maximum Shared Variance (MSV), AVE > Average Squared Shared Variance (ASV), and the AVE of a latent variable is higher than the squared correlations between the latent variable and all other variables. Thus, all constructs satisfy discriminant validity ().
Source: Own elaboration
To validate the hypothesized model, a structural equation modeling (SEM) technique has been used. This statistical procedure examines the structural relationships between the observed variables (items) and their constructs, as well as the relationships between constructs, allowing the statistical validation of a structural model ().
The results of the SEM analysis are shown in Figure 2 and more statistical specifications can be seen in Appendix 2. The notes to Figure 2 also report the levels of fit for both models that, according to and , are statistically validated. Model A, has achieved a good level of fit: 2/df= 2.337; the goodness-of-fit (GFI) = 0.928; the normed fit index (NFI) = 0.945; the incremental fit index (IFI = 0.968); the Tucker-Lewis index (TLI) = 0.960; the confirmatory fit index (CFI) = 0.968, and the root means square approximation (RMSA) = 0.065. The same level of fit applies to Model B, with the results indicating: 2/df= 2.663; GFI= 0.922; NFI = 0.939; IFI = 0.961; TLI = 0.951; CFI = 0.961; and RMSA = 0.073.
The hypotheses formulated in the models represent causal paths and can be empirically tested through the significance of the trajectories/paths represented in the structural model (; ).
As hypothesized, according to Model A, the result supports that social entrepreneur networks have a positive and significant impact on social media (new stakeholders) ( = 0.29; p< 0.001) and resources ( = 0.43; p< 0.001). Thus, the investigation carried out supports hypothesis H1A and H2A. This result confirms that the social entrepreneur relies on his/her personal network to build relationships with new stakeholders. To be more precise, these personal contacts are established via social media and are used to acquire different types of resources for their social organizations. Therefore, the larger the size of a social entrepreneur's personal network, the more he/she uses social media digital platforms to develop connections with new stakeholders. Moreover, the aim of these connections via social media created by the social entrepreneur network is to enhance its ability to mobilize resources for the venture.
The result for hypothesis H3A confirms that social media (new stakeholders) has a positive and significant impact on resource acquisition ( = 0.18; p< 0.01). Accordingly, the presence of social entrepreneurs on social media could be advantageous to the venture as a new medium that facilitates the interaction with present and future stakeholders. By doing this, the opportunities to obtain resources for social projects could increase.
Regarding Model B, the result supports the fact that social entrepreneur networks have a positive and significant impact on social media (current stakeholders) ( = 0.28; p< 0.001) and resources ( = 0.44; p< 0.001). Finally, social media (current stakeholders) has a positive and significant impact on resources ( = 0.15; p< 0.01), so H1B, H2B, and H3B are supported, respectively. Thus, the results obtained show that social entrepreneurs’ reliance on their personal networks has a positive and statistically significant impact on the amount of resources that are available to invest in social projects. In addition, social entrepreneurs embedded in larger personal networks are also more engaged in social media operations in order to maintain relationships with existing stakeholders. It seems that using social media to a higher degree enhances the capacity of social entrepreneurs to nurture their personal relationships, and that could lead to an increase in resources for social projects.
The investigation indicates that social entrepreneur networks have a positive and significant effect on the resource acquisition process of social organizations. This positive effect is found in both models, and is consistent with the arguments found in the literature that defend the relevance of social entrepreneur networks in the social entrepreneurship field (; ; ; . As argued in the literature, the personal interactions that take place within an individual's network are able to influence the management of social organizations ( ). Thus, by being embedded in a network, which involves a range of relationships with other actors, social organizations have a greater capacity to access the resources they need (; ; ). As previously stressed by other authors, networks could be seen as important vehicles for social organizations to leverage resources (; ; ).
The research also reveals that the reliance on social media by social entrepreneurs allows them to reinforce their personal network. This pattern is found both when considering the use of social media for acquiring new contacts and for maintaining existing contacts. The coefficients of the structural equation model are very similar in the two models, suggesting a similar effect on strengthening the personal network in both situations of social media usage (new stakeholders and current stakeholders). The findings obtained emphasize the critical role that digital tools can play in the complex and highly demanding task of building relationships (; ; ). As such, and according to the researchers’ initial expectation, we observe that the use of social media allows social entrepreneurs either to retain their current circle of contacts or to enlarge the number of contacts that their network is able to hold (; ; ).
In addition, the presence on social media is considered to have a positive and direct effect on the amount of resources that social organizations are able to access, as previously argued by other authors (; ; ; ). The investigation suggests that the interaction developed through social platforms with different stakeholders, allows social organizations to improve their capabilities to obtain different types of resources. The positive effect of social media is seen in the use of social media for acquiring new contacts and in the retention of existing contacts, with a very similar intensity, although slightly higher in the first case.
It should be noted that although social media has a direct positive effect on access to resources, this is relatively limited, as observed in the intensity of the structural equation model’s coefficient and also as shown by . Indeed, the most noticeable benefits in terms of the improvement in the amount of resources available are observed in the cases where a stronger personal network exists, which in turn benefits from the reliance on social media. Thus, despite the direct impact it has, social media is mainly seen as an empowerment tool for social entrepreneurs, leveraging all the potential that the connection with others can offer in terms of access to resources.
Grounded in social network theory, resource-based theory and the social entrepreneurship literature, the investigation reveals that entrepreneur networks have a direct and positive effect on the capability of social organizations to access resources. In addition to this direct effect, access to resources is also improved by entrepreneurs’ reliance on social media, which positively contributes to increasing resources and, most importantly, to building and boosting social entrepreneurs’ personal networks.
Thus, the empirical research carried out indicates that the process of acquiring resources in social organizations is very complex and is influenced by the interaction of different dimensions that are able to reinforce themselves and improve the capability of organizations to attract resources.
The results of this study provide a theoretical framework for understanding the role of entrepreneur networks and social media on the acquisition of resources for social organizations. They contribute to acknowledging the critical role of entrepreneurial networks and social media that preceded and determine resource acquisition. Further, this research offers new theoretical contributions, allowing us to explore the application of social network theory and resource-based theory to social entrepreneurship.
From a practical standpoint, the results provide significant implications for social entrepreneurs and organizations. Firstly, the investigation highlights the need for social entrepreneurs to invest in personal relationships with the actors of the ecosystems in which social organizations find themselves. Creating a dense and diverse network of relationships is beneficial to the management of social organizations, increasing the amount of resources acquired and the capability to create social value.
Secondly, the research draws attention to the need for social organizations to be present in social media as it provides a space where they can interact online with a myriad of new and existing stakeholders and thus expand their networks in terms of diversity and density. For this reason, social organizations should strengthen their presence and interaction in the social sphere, and have human resource teams that are qualified enough to handle this challenging function. Furthermore, social organizations should have a clearer understanding of the platforms and discourses that the most relevant stakeholders are predisposed to use to maximize the potential use of digital tools. In addition, the presence on social media platforms is recognized as important for social organizations that can only do so by building on their personal networks and relationships.
Despite the new insights our research provides, it does have some limitations, such as the fact that it is restricted to the Portuguese context. The use of the structural equation model introduces a more comprehensive approach to the interaction between social entrepreneur networks, social media and resource acquisition. In the future, it would be interesting to go further and study these dimensions in detail via a focus group alongside those responsible for social organizations, in order to gain a deeper understanding of the benefits that could be obtained by using social media platforms for seeking and retaining stakeholders and the main barriers that its use still entails for social organizations.
Conceptualization JFS, SB; Data Curation JFS, PS, SB; Formal Analysis JFS, SB, PS; Methodology JFS, SB; Project Administration JFS, SB; Software: PS; Validation: JFS, SB, PS; Writing-Orginal Draft JFS, SB; Writing- Reviewing and Editing JFS, SB.
The authors wish to thank Centre for Social and Organizational Studies (CEOS). This work is financed by Portuguese national funds through FCT - Fundação para a Ciência e Tecnologia, under the project UIDB/05422/2020.
1
2
Aprilia, L., & Wibowo, S. (2017). The impact of social capital on crowdfunding performance, The South East Asian Journal of Management, 11(1), 44- 57.https://doi.org/10.21002/seam.v11i1.7737.
3
Atsan, N. (2019). Utilizing Social Networks in Social Entrepreneurship. In Iyigun, N. (Eds.), Creating Business Value and Competitive Advantage With Social Entrepreneurship (pp. 232-250). IGI Global. http://doi:10.4018/978-1-5225-5687-9.ch011.
4
Austin, J., & Seitanidi, M. (2011). Value creation in business – Nonprofit collaborations. Social Enterprise Series, Harvard Business School Working Paper, 33.http://www.hbs.edu/research/pdf/12-019.pdf
5
Austin, J., Stevenson, H. & Wei-Skillern, J. (2006). Social and commercial entrepreneurship: Same, different, or both? Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 30(1), 1-22. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-6520.2006.00107.x
6
Barney, J. (1991). Firm resources and sustained competitive advantage, Journal of Management, 17 (1), 99-120. https://doi.org/10.1177/014920639101700108.
7
Bauer, C., Guzmán, C. & Santos, F. (2012). Social capital as a distinctive feature of social economy firms. International Entrepreneurship and Management Journal, 8(4), 437-448. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11365-012-0230-7.
8
Bernardino, S. & Freitas Santos, J. (2019). Network structure of the social entrepreneur: An analysis based on social organization features and entrepreneurs' demographic characteristics and organizational status, Journal of Social Entrepreneurship, 10(3), 346-366. https://doi.org/10.1080/19420676.2018.1543725.
9
Bernardino, S. Freitas Santos, J. & Fagundes, S. (2017). Papel do capital social no desenvolvimento de iniciativas sociais. European Journal of Applied Business and Management, Special Issue, 91-108. https://nidisag.isag.pt/index.php/IJAM/article/view/176.
10
Bhati, A. & McDonnell, D. (2020). Success in an Online Giving Day: The Role of Social Media in Fundraising. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly. 49(1), 74-92. https://doi.org/10.1177/0899764019868849.
11
12
Birley, S. (1985). The role of networks in the entrepreneurial process, Journal of Business Venturing, 1(1), 107-117.https://doi.org/10.1016/0883-9026(85)90010-2.
13
Boase, J., Horrigan, J. B., Wellman, B., & Rainie, L. (2006). The strength of Internet ties. Pew Internet and American Life Project. http://www.pewinternet.org/.
14
Bojica, A. M.; Ruiz Jiménez, J. M.; Ruiz Nava; J. A.; & Fuentes-Fuentes, M. M. (2018) Bricolage and growth in social entrepreneurship organisations, Entrepreneurship & Regional Development, 30(3-4), 362-389, https://doi.org/10.1080/08985626.2017.1413768.
15
16
Boyd, D. M., & Ellison, N. B. (2007). Social network sites: Definition, history, and scholarship. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 13(1), 210-230. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1083-6101.2007.00393.x.
17
Burg, E., Elfring, T. &. Cornelissen, J. (2021). Connecting content and structure: A review of mechanismsin entrepreneurs’ social networks. International Journal of Management Reviews, 24(2), 188–209. https://doi.org/10.1111/ijmr.12272.
18
19
Cao, Q., Lu, Y., Dong, D., Tang, Z., & Li, Y. (2013). The Roles of Bridging and Bonding in Social Media Communities. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 64(8), 1671 - 1681. https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.22866.
20
Chell, E. (2007). Social enterprise and entrepreneurship: Towards a convergent theory of the entrepreneurial process, International Small Business Journal, 25(1), 3-19. https://doi.org/10.1177/0266242607071779.
21
22
Collier, J., (2020). Applied Structural Equation Modeling using AMOS - Basic to Advanced Techniques. Routledge Taylor and Francis. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781003018414.
23
Constanzo, L.; Vurro, C. ; Foster, D.; Servato, F. & Perrini, F. (2014). Dual-Mission Management in Social Entrepreneurship: Qualitative Evidence from Social Firms in the United Kingdom. Journal of Small Business Management, 52(4), 655–677. https://doi.org/10.1111/jsbm.12128 .
24
Dangmei, J. (2016). Social entrepreneurship and social networks for sustainable rural development in India. Paripex – Indian Journal of Research, 5(10), 622-624. https://.www.doi.org/10.36106/paripex.
25
Dees, J. G. (2001). The meaning of “social entrepreneurship.” Center for the advancement of Social Entrepreneurship, Fuqua School of Business, Duke University, Durham, NC: http://www.fuqua.duke.edu/centers/case/documents/dees_SE.pdf.
26
Di Domenico, M., Haugh, H. & Tracey, P. (2010). Social bricolage: Theorizing social value creation in social enterprises. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 34(4), 681-703. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-6520.2010.00370.x.
27
Di Lauro, S., Tursunbayeva, A., & Antonelli, G. (2019). How nonprofit organizations use social media for fundraising: A systematic literature review. International Journal of Business and Management, 14(7), 1. https://doi.org/10.5539/ijbm.v14n7p1.
28
Dodd, S., Jack, S. & Anderson, A. (2006). The mechanisms and processes of entrepreneurial networks: continuity and change. In: Entrepreneurship: Frameworks and Empirical Investigations from Forthcoming Leaders of European Research (Advances in Entrepreneurship, Firm Emergence and Growth) (pp. 107-146), London.
29
Donath, J., & Boyd, D. (2004). Public displays of connection. BT Technology Journal, 22, 71-82. https://doi.org/10.1023/B:BTTJ.0000047585.06264.cc.
30
Dufays, F. & Huybrechts, B. (2014) Connecting the Dots for Social Value: A Review on Social Networks and Social Entrepreneurship.Journal of Social Entrepreneurship, 5(2), 214-237. https://doi.org/10.1023/B:BTTJ.0000047585.06264.cc.
31
Ellison N. B., Steinfield, C. & Lampe, C. (2007). The Benefits of Facebook “Friends:” Social Capital and College Students’ Use of Online Social Network Sites. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 12(4),1143-1168. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1083-6101.2007.00367.x
32
Ellison, N., Heino, R., & Gibbs, J. (2006). Managing impressions online: Self-presentation processes in the online dating environment. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 11(2), 415-441. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1083-6101.2006.00020.x
33
Finkbeiner, P. (2013). Social Media and Social Capital: A Literature Review in the field of knowledge management. International Journal of Management Cases, 15(4), 6-19. https://www.circleinternational.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2021/02/15.4.pdf#page=6.
34
Finney, Z., Lueg, J., & Campbell, N. (2008). Market pioneers, late movers, and the resource-based view (RBV): A conceptual model. Journal of Business Research, 61(9), 925-932. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2007.09.023.
35
Fornell, C., & Larcker, D. (1981). Evaluating Structural Equation Models with Unobservable Variables and Measurement Error. Journal of Marketing Research, 18(1), 39-50. https://doi.org/10.2307/3151312.
36
37
Galaskiewicz, J., Bielefeld, W. & Dowell, M. (2006). Networks and organizational growth: A study of community based nonprofits, Administrative Science Quartely, 51, 337-380. https://doi.org/10.2189/asqu.51.3.337.
38
39
Ge, B., Hisrich, R. D. & Dong, B. (2009). Networking, Resource Acquisition, and the Performance of Small and Medium-Sized Enterprises: An Empirical Study of Three Major Cities in China. Managing Global Transitions, 7(3), 221-239. http://www.fm-kp.si/zalozba/ISSN/1581-6311/7_221-239.pdf.
40
Gnyawali, D., Fan, W., & Penner, W. (2010). Competitive Actions and Dynamics in the Digital Age: An Empirical Investigation of Social Networking Firms. Information Systems Research, 21(3), 594 - 613. https://doi.org/10.1287/isre.1100.0294.
41
Gordon, J. (2014). A stage model of venture philanthropy. Venture Capital: An International Journal of Entrepreneurial Finance, 16 (2), 85-107. https://doi.org/10.1080/13691066.2014.897014.
42
Granovetter, M. (1983). The strength of weak ties: a network theory revisited, Sociological Theory, 1, 201–233. https://doi.org/10.2307/202051
43
Granovetter, M. (1985). The strength of weak ties. American Journal of Sociology, 78(6), 1360–1380. https://www.journals.uchicago.edu/doi/abs/10.1086/225469.
44
45
Greve, A. & Salaff, J. W. (2003). Social networks and entrepreneurship. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 28(1), 1-22. https://doi.org/10.1111/1540-8520.0.
46
47
48
Hampton, K., Lee, C., & Her, E. (2011). How new media affords network diversity: Direct and mediated access to social capital through participation in local social settings. New Media & Society, 13(7), 1031-1033. https://doi.org/10.1177/1461444810390342.
49
Hart, S., & Dowell, G. (2011). A natural-resource-based view of the firm: Fifteen years after. Journal of Management, 37(5), 1464-1479. https://doi.org/10.1177/01492063103902.
50
Hernández-Carrión, C.; Camarero-Izquierdo, C. & Gutiérrez-Cillán, J. (2019). The internal mechanisms of entrepreneur´s social capital: A multi-network analysis, Business Research Quarterly, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.brq.2018.12.001.
51
Herzog, P. S., & Yang, S. (2018). Social Networks and Charitable Giving: Trusting, Doing, Asking, and Alter Primacy. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 47(2), 376–394. https://doi.org/10.1177/0899764017746021
52
Hoang, H. & Antoncic, B. (2003). Network-based research in entrepreneurship: A critical review, Journal of Business Venturing, 18(2), 165-187. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0883-9026(02)00081-2.
53
54
Ihm, J. (2017). Classifying and Relating Different Types of Online and Offline Volunteering. Voluntas: International Journal of Voluntary and Nonprofit Organizations, 28, 400-419. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11266-016-9826-9.
55
Jenssen, J. I. & Koenig, H. F. (2002). The effect of social networks on resource access and business start-ups. European Planning Studies, 10(8), 1039-1046. https://doi.org/10.1080/0965431022000031301.
56
Jenssen, J. I. (2001). Social networks, resources and entrepreneurship. International Journal of Entrepreneurship and Innovation, 2 (2), 103-109. https://doi.org/10.5367/0000000011012988.
57
Jiang, X., Liu, H., Fey, C. & Jiang, F. (2018). Entrepreneurial orientation, network resource acquisition, and firm performance: A network approach, Journal of Business Research, 87, 46-57. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2018.02.021
58
Johannisson, B. (1988). Business formation - a network approach. Scandinavian Journal of Management, 4(3), 83-99.https://doi.org/10.1016/0956-5221(88)90002-4.
59
Kang, L., Jiang, Q., & Tan, C-H. (2017). Remarkable Advocates: An Investigation of Geographic Distance and Social Capital for Crowdfunding. Information & Management, 54(3), 336-348. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.im.2016.09.001.
60
Kavanaugh, A., Carroll, J. M., Rosson, M. B., Zin, T. T., & Reese, D. D. (2005). Community networks: Where offline communities meet online. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 10(4). https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1083-6101.2005.tb00266.x.
61
Killen, C., Jugdev, K., Drouin, N., & Petit, Y. (2012). Advancing project and portfolio management research: Applying strategic management theories. International Journal of Project Management, 30(5), 525–538. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijproman.2011.12.004.
62
Krebs, V. & Holley, J. (2006) Building smart communities through network weaving. Appalachian Center for Economic Networks: https://www.networkweaver.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/12/BuildingNetworks.pdf.
63
Krishnamurthy, S., & Dou, W. (2008), Advertising with user-generated content: A framework and research agenda. Journal of Interactive Marketing, 8(2), 1-7. https://doi.org/10.1080/15252019.2008.10722137.
64
Kuppuswamy, V. & Bayus, B.L. (2014). Crowdfunding creative ideas: The dynamics of project backers in Kickstarter. SSRN Working Paper No. 2234765. https://ssrn.com/abstract=2234765.
65
Lan, H.; Zhu, Y.; Ness, D.; Xing, K. & Schneider, K. (2014). The role and characteristics of social entrepreneurs in contemporary rural cooperative development in China: case studies of rural social entrepreneurship. Asia Pacific Business Review, 20(3), 379-400. https://doi.org/10.1080/13602381.2014.929300
67
68
Littlewood, D. & Khan, Z. (2018), Insights from a systematic review of literature on social enterprise and networks: Where, how and what next?, Social Enterprise Journal, 14(4), 390-409. https://doi.org/10.1108/SEJ-11-2018-068.
69
Mair, J. & Martí, I. (2006). Social entrepreneurship research: A source of explanation, prediction, and delight. Journal of World Business, 41(1), 36-44.https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jwb.2005.09.002.
70
71
Martens, M. L., Jennings, J. E. & Jennings, P. D. (2007). Do the stories they tell get them the money they need? The role of entrepreneurial narratives in resource acquisition. Academy of Management Journal, 50(5), 1107-1132. https://www.jstor.org/stable/20159915.
72
Matcht, S. (2016). Putting “entrepreneurial finance education” on the map: Including social capital in the entrepreneurial finance curriculum, Education + Training, 58 (9), 984-1002.https://doi.org/10.1108/ET-08-2015-0068.
73
McKelvie, A., & Davidsson, P. (2009). From resource base to dynamic capabilities: An investigation of new firms. British Journal of Management, 20(1), 63-75. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8551.2008.00613.x
74
Meyskens, M., Carsrud, A. and Cardozo, R. (2010). The symbiosis of entities in the social engagement network: The role of social ventures, Entrepreneurship Regional Development, 22(5), 425-455. https://doi.org/10.1080/08985620903168299.
75
Miglietta, A., Romenti, S. & Sartore, A. (2015). Entrepreneurial narratives for resource acquisition in the Italian creative industries: a qualitative study. Sinergie, 33(98), 213-231. https://doi.org/10.7433/s98.2015.13.
76
Molloy, J., Chadwick, C., Ployhart, R., & Golden, S. (2011). Making intangibles “tangible” in tests of resource-based theory: A multidisciplinary construct validation approach. Journal of Management, 37(5), 1496-1518. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206310394185.
77
Nga, J., & Shamuganathan, G. (2010). The influence of personality traits and demographic factors on social entrepreneurship start up intentions. Journal of Business Ethics, 95(2), 259-28. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-009-0358-8.
78
Obschonka, M., Silbereisen, R., & Schmitt-Rodermund, E. (2010). Entrepreneurial intention as developmental outcome. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 77(1), 63-72. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvb.2010.02.008
79
Parks, M. R., & Floyd, K. (1996). Making friends in cyberspace. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 1(4). http://jcmc.indiana.edu/vol1/issue4/parks.html.
80
81
Picazo-Vela, S., Gutierrez-Martinez, I., & Luna-Reyes, L. (2012). Understanding Risks, Benefits, and Strategic Alternatives of Social Media Applications in the Public Sector. Government Information Quarterly, 29(4), 504-511. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.giq.2012.07.002
82
Roundy, P. T. (2014). The stories of social entrepreneurship: Narrative discourse and social enterprise resource acquisition. Journal of Research in Marketing and Entrepreneurship, 16(2), 200-218. https://doi.org/10.1108/JRME-06-2014-0009.
83
Rumelt, R., Schendel, D., & Teece, D. (1991). Strategic management and economics. Strategic Management Journal, 12, 5-29. https://doi.org/10.1002/smj.4250121003.
84
85
Santos, J. F. (1998). Location of foreign firms in Portugal: A network approach, 38th Congress of the European Regional Science Association: "Europe Quo Vadis? - Regional Questions at the Turn of the Century". 28 August - 1 September 1998, Vienna, Austria (Available: http://hdl.handle.net/10419/113413).
86
87
Shane, S. & Venkataraman, S. (2000). The promise of entrepreneurship as a field of research. Academy of Management Review, 25(1), 217-225. https://doi.org/10.2307/259271.
88
Sharir, M. & Lerner, M. (2006). Gauging the success of social ventures initiated by individual social entrepreneurs, Journal of World Business, 41(1), 6-20. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jwb.2005.09.004.
89
Shu, R.; Ren, S., & Zheng, Y. (2018). Building networks into discovery: The link between entrepreneur network capability and entrepreneurial opportunity discovery, Journal of Business Research, 85, 197-208. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2017.12.048.
90
Skirnevskiy, V., Bendig, D., & Brettel, M. (2017). The Influence of Internal Social Capital on Serial Creators’ Success in Crowdfunding. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 41(2), 209–236. https://doi.org/10.1111/etap.12272
91
Slotte-Kock, S. & Coviello, N. (2010). Entrepreneurship Research on Network Processes: A Review and Ways Forward, Entrepreneurship: Theory and Practice, 34(1), 31-57. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-6520.2009.0031.
92
Smith, C. & Smith, B. (2021). Founders' uses of digital networks for resource acquisition: Extending network theory online. Journal of Business Research, 125, 466–482. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2019.07.032
93
94
95
96
Sura, S., Ahn, J., & Lee, O. (2017). Factors influencing intention to donate via social network site (SNS): From Asian's perspective. Telematics and Informatics, 34(1), 164-176. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tele.2016.04.007.
97
Thakkar, J. (2020). Structural Equation Modelling: Application for Research and Practice (with AMOS and R) (1st Ed.). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-15-3793-6.
98
Thompson, J., Alvy, G. & Lees, A. (2000). Social entrepreneurship: A new look at the people and the potential. Management Decision, 38(5), 328–38. https://doi.org/10.1108/00251740010340517.
99
Tian, F.; Labban, A.Shearer, R. & Gai, Q. (2021). The impact of social media activity in nonprofit donations in China. Voluntas: International Journal of Voluntary and Nonprofit Organizations. 32, 488-497.https://doi.org/10.1007/s11266-019-00168-7.
100
Tichy, N. M., Tushman, M. I. & Fombrun, C. (1979). Social networks analysis for organizations, Academy of Management Review, 4(4), 507-519. https://doi.org/10.2307/257851.
101
102
Watkins, M. W. (2018). Exploratory Factor Analysis: A Guide to Best Practice. Journal of Black Psychology, 44(3), 219–246. https://doi.org/10.1177/0095798418771807.
103
104
Wellman, B., Haase, A. Q., Witte, J., & Hampton, K. (2001). Does the Internet increase, decrease, or supplement social capital? Social networks, participation, and community commitment. American Behavioral Scientist, 45(3), 436–455. https://doi.org/10.1177/00027640121957286.
105
Witt, P. (2004). Entrepreneurs' networks and the success of startups, Entrepreneurship & Regional Development, 16(5), 391-412. https://doi.org/10.1080/0898562042000188423.
106
Xu, W., & Saxton, G. D. (2019). Does stakeholder engagement pay off on social media? A social capital perspective. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 48(1), 28–49. https://doi.org/10.1177/0899764018791
107
Zahra, S., Gedajlovic, E., Neubaum, D., & Shulman, J. (2009). A typology of social entrepreneurs: Motives, search processes and ethical challenges. Journal of Business Venturing, 24(5), 519–532. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusvent.2008.04.007.
108
109
110
Zhang, J., Soh, P. & Wong, P. (2010). Entrepreneurial resource acquisition through indirect ties: compensatory effects of prior knowledge, Journal of Management, 36(2), 511-536. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206308329
111
Zhao, F., Barratt-Pugh, L., Standen, P., Redmond, J., & Suseno, Y. (2022). An exploratory study of entrepreneurial social networks in the digital age. Journal of Small Business and Enteprise Development, 29(1), 147-173. https://doi.org/10.1108/JSBED-10-2020-0359.
112
Zhou, H. & Pan, Q. (2016). Information, Community, and Action on Sina-Weibo: How Chinese Philanthropic NGOs Use Social Media. Voluntas: International Journal of Voluntary and Nonprofit Organizations. 27, 2433-2457. https://www.jstor.org/stable/26160632.
Source: Own elaboration
