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.
Palabras clave:
social organizations, social entrepreneur, network, social media, resources
Bernardino, Freitas Santos, and Silva: Social entrepreneur management of personal network linkages: Does the use of social
media increase resources?
1. INTRODUCTION
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.
2. CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK AND DEVELOPMENT OF HYPOTHESES
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.
Figure 1.Conceptual framework Source: Own elaboration
2.1. The role of a social entrepreneur’s personal network
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”.
2.1.1. The direct effect of social entrepreneur networks on resources
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:
H1A) Social entrepreneurs’ reliance on their personal networks to build relationships
with their new stakeholders is positively related to an increase in resources for
their social organizations
H1B) Social entrepreneurs’ reliance on their personal networks to maintain relationships
with their current stakeholders is positively related to an increase in resources
for their social organizations
2.1.2. The indirect effect of a social entrepreneur’s network on social media
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:
H2A) Social entrepreneurs’ reliance on their personal networks is positively related
to social media usage to seek relationships with new stakeholders
H2B) Social entrepreneurs’ reliance on their personal networks is positively related
to social media usage to maintain relationships with current stakeholders
2.1.3. The role of social media in the resource acquisition process
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:
H3A) The use of social media by social entrepreneurs to create relationships with
new stakeholders is positively related to an increase in resources for their social
organizations
H3B) The use of social media by social entrepreneurs to maintain relationships with
current stakeholders is positively related to an increase in resources for their social
organizations
3. METHODOLOGY
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).
3.2. Measurement
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.
3.3 Sample
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.
Table 1Sample Source: Own elaboration
Categories
n
%
Location (Portugal)
North
112
35.8
Center
143
45.7
South
50
16.0
Islands
8
2.6
Total
313
100.0
Scope
Local
141
45.0
Regional
92
29.4
National
62
19.8
International
18
5.8
Total
313
100.0
Number of employees
< 5
45
14.4
Between 5 and 10
41
13.1
Between 11 and 30
98
31.3
> 30
129
41.2
Total
313
100.0
Number of volunteers
< 10
186
59.4
Between 10 and 20
63
20.1
Between 21 and 50
25
8.0
> 50
39
12.5
Total
313
100.0
Number of beneficiaries
< 100
76
24.3
Between 101 and 200
78
24.9
Between 201 and 500
58
18.5
> 500
101
32.3
Total
313
100.0
Annual amount in euros
< 50,000
30
9.6
Between 50,000 and 100,000
61
19.5
Between 100,001 ad 500,000
89
28.4
> 500,000
133
42.5
Total
313
100.0
Source: Own elaboration
4. RESULTS
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 ().
4.1. Reliability and validity
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 ().
Table 2Items and constructs analysis Source: Own elaboration
Items
Factor loadings (Model A)
Factor loadings (Model B)
Mean
Standard deviation
Skew
Std. skew error
Kurtosis
Std. kurtosis error
KMO
TEV
SEN1
0.773
0.773
3.60
1.173
-0.554
0.138
-0.412
0.275
0.833
78.61%
SEN2
0.849
0.852
3.81
1.082
-0.848
0.138
0.303
0.275
SEN3
0.899
0.900
4.12
1.033
-1.223
0.138
1.118
0.275
SEN4
0.883
0.877
3.76
1.123
-0.794
0.138
0.037
0.275
SMNS1
0.920
-
3.17
1.268
-0.236
0.138
-0.897
0.275
0.854
85.51%
SMNS2
0.921
-
3.05
1.248
-0.131
0.138
-0.942
0.275
SMNS3
0.918
-
3.18
1.257
-0.270
0.138
-0.862
0.275
SMNS4
0.878
-
3.14
1.202
-0.224
0.138
-0.732
0.275
SMCS1
-
0.843
3.34
1.238
-0.418
0.138
-0.767
0.275
0.801
81.76%
SMCS2
-
0.898
3.07
1.180
-0.231
0.138
-0.764
0.275
SMCS3
-
0.920
3.04
1.217
-0.058
0.138
-0.805
0.275
SMCS4
-
0.889
3.38
1.235
-0.498
0.138
-0.663
0.275
R1
0.780
0.785
3.01
1.117
-0.130
0.138
-0.744
0.275
0.874
61.77%
R2
0.719
0.723
3.18
1.109
-0.217
0.138
-0.747
0.275
R3
0.849
0.855
2.96
1.024
-0.108
0.138
-0.555
0.275
R4
0.764
0.761
2.89
1.076
0.007
0.138
-0.563
0.275
R5
0.788
0.781
3.01
1.083
-0.074
0.138
-0.620
0.275
R6
0.636
0.627
3.42
1.003
-0.350
0.138
-0.358
0.275
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 ().
Table 3The reliability and discriminant validity of the constructs Source: Own elaboration
Constructs – Model A
Cronbach’s alpha
CR
AVE
MSV
ASV
1
2
3
1 - Social entrepreneur network
0.907
0.911
0.719
0.232
0.159
0.848
2 - Social media - new stakeholders
0.943
0.944
0.807
0.092
0.089
0.292
0.899
3 – Resources
0.875
0.877
0.545
0.232
0.162
0.304
0.482
0.739
Constructs - Model B
CR
AVE
MSV
ASV
4
5
6
4 - Social entrepreneur network
0.907
0.911
0.719
0.232
0.155
0.848
5 - Social media - current stakeholders
0.925
0.925
0.805
0.077
0.077
0.278
0.897
6 – Resource
0.875
0.877
0.546
0.232
0.154
0.276
0.482
0.739
Source: Own elaboration
[i] Note: CR - Composite Reliability; AVE - Average Variance Extracted; MSV - Maximum
Shared Variance; ASV - Average Shared Variance; diagonal elements (italic and bold) illustrate the square root of the average variance extracted (AVE).
4.2. Model validation
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.
Figure 2Hypothesized model with composite measures Source: Own elaboration
4.3. Hypothesis testing
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.
5. DISCUSSION
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.
6. CONCLUSION
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.
6.1. Limitations and future lines of research
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.
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.
References
1
Aldrich, H. E. & Zimmer, C. (1986). Entrepreneurship through networks, in Sexton,
D. and Smilor, R. W. (Eds. Art and Science of Entrepreneurship (pp. 3-23). Ballinger Publishing Company, Cambridge. MA.
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
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
Birley, S. & Mac Millan, I. C (Eds) (1997). Entrepreneurship in a global context, London, Routledge.
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
Bourdieu, P. (1986). Forms of capital. In Richardson, J. G. (Ed.), Handbook of theory and research for the sociology of education (241-258). Westport, CT: Greenwood.
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
Byrne, B. M. (2016) Structural Equation Modelling with AMOS: Basic Concepts, Applications, and Programming, 3rd ed. Routledge, London, UK.
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
Cho, A. H. (2006). Politics, values and social entrepreneurship: a critical appraisal.
In Mair, J, Robinson, J. & Kockerts, K. (Eds.). Social entrepreneurship (34-56). New York. Palgrave Macmillan.
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.
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.
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
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
Foss, N., Knudsen, C., & Montgomery, C. (1995). An exploration of common ground: Integrating
evolutionary and strategic theories of the firm. In C. Montgomery (Ed.), Resource-based on evolutionary theories of the firm (pp. 1-17), Norwell, MA: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
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
Galunic, D. C., & Eisenhardt, K. M. (1994). Renewing the strategy structure-performance
paradigm. Research in Organizational Behavior, 16, 215–55.
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
Gravetter, F.J. & Wallnau, L.B. (2016). Statistics for the Behavioural Sciences, Cengage Learning, Boston.
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
Hair, J., Black, W., Babin, B., & Anderson, R. (2014) Multivariate data analysis, 7th Ed., Pearson Education Limited, London, UK.
47
Hampton, K., & Wellman, B. (2003). Neighboring in Netville: How the Internet supports
community and social capital in a wired suburb. City & Community, 277–31.
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
Huang, H-C; Lai, M-C & Lo, K-W (2012). Do founders' own resources matter? The influence
of business networks on startup innovation and performance, Technovation, 32, 316-327.
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
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.
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
66
Leadbeater, C. (1997). The rise of the social entrepreneur. London: Demos.
67
Lehner, O. (2014). The formation and interplay of social capital in crowdfunded social
ventures, Entrepreneurship & Regional Development, 26: 5-6, 478-499.
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
Mair, J., & Noboa, E. (2006). Social entrepreneurship: How intentions to create a
social venture are formed, in J. Mair, J., J. Robinson and K. Hockerts (Eds.), Social Entrepreneurship (pp. 121-135), New York, Palgrave Macmillan.
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
Paulsen, N. & McDonald, A. (2010). Doing social enterprise: A reflection and view
from the field. Third Sector Review. 16(2), 109-126.
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
Sakurai, M. (2008). Social entrepreneur and resource mobilization: the role of social
capital, (Conference paper), ISTR 8th International Conference and 2nd EMES-ISTR European Conference, Universitat de Barcelona, Barcelona, Spain.
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
Seelos, C., Mair, J., Battilana, J., & Dacin, M. (2011). The embeddedness of social
entrepreneurship: Understanding variation across local communities, in Marquis, C.,
Lounsbury, M. & Greenwood, R. (Ed.) Communities and Organizations (pp. 333-363), Bingle y, UK: Emerald Group Publishing Limited
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
Song, Y., Dana, L. & Berger, R. (2021). The entrepreneurial process and online social
networks: Forecasting survival rate. Small Business Economics, 56, 1171–1190.
94
Stephens, S. (2021). Building an entrepreneurial network: The experience of business
graduates. Journal of Entrepreneurship Education, 24(1), 1528-2651-24-1-700.
95
Stuart, T. E. & Sorenson, O. (2005). Social networks and entrepreneurship, in Alvarez,
S., Agarwal, R. and Sorensen, O. (Eds). Handbook of entrepreneurship research: interdisciplinary perspectives (pp. 233- 251), New York, Springer.
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
Urban, B. (2010). Creating value and innovation through social entrepreneurship. In
Urban, B. (Ed.). Frontiers in Entrepreneurship (pp. 115-138). Johannsburg. Springer.
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
Webster, C. & Ruskin, J. (2012). Social network analysis. In R. Seymour (Ed.), Handbook of Research Methods on Social Entrepreneurship (pp. 150-169), Cheltenham, Edward Elgar Publishing Limited.
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.
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
Zeng, D., Chen, H., Lusch, R., & Li, S. (2010). Social Media Analytics and Intelligence.
IEEE Computer Society, November/December, 13-16.
109
Zeng, D., Chen, H., Lusch, R., & Li, S. (2010). Social Media Analytics and Intelligence.
IEEE Computer Society, November/December, 13-16.
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.
Appendix
Appendix 1
Tabel A1Survey items Source: Own elaboration
Constructs
Items
Code Item
Factor loadings (Model A)
Factor loadings (Model B)
Source
Social Entrepreneur’s Network
The entrepreneur(s) of this organization has many potential partners that are beneficial
to the organization's mission.
SEN1
0.773
0.773
The entrepreneur(s) of this organization shares common values with organization's
partners.
SEN2
0.849
0.852
The entrepreneur(s) of this organization and partners maintain relationships of trust
and respect.
SEN3
0.899
0.900
The entrepreneur(s) of this organization and partners exchange information honestly.
SEN4
0.883
0.877
Social media - new stakeholders
The organization uses social networks to find new contacts
SMNS1
0.920
-
The organization uses social networks to find new partners
SMNS2
0.921
-
The organization uses social networks to find other organizations
SMNS3
0.918
-
The organization uses social networks to find other social organizations
SMNS4
0.878
-
Social media - current stakeholders
The organization uses social networks to maintain contact with its partners.
SMCS1
-
0.843
The organization uses social networks to find out more about people known to other
organizations.
SMCS2
-
0.898
The organization uses social networks to find out more about people close to the organization.
SMCS3
-
0.920
The organization uses social networks to maintain contact with people useful to the
organization.
SMCS4
-
0.889
Resources
Which extent do you agree that you can, through the organization's networking, obtain
material resources (machines, vehicles, etc.)?
R1
0.780
0.785
Which extent do you agree that you can, through the organization's networking, attract
human resources (volunteers, employees)?
R2
0.719
0.723
Which extent do you agree that you can, through the organization's networking, attract
financial resources?
R3
0.849
0.855
Which extent do you agree that you can, through the organization's networking, obtain
financial, fiscal or other support from the Government?
R4
0.764
0.761
Which extent do you agree that you can, through the organization's networking, obtain
occasional support and help from other social organizations for the provision of the
service?
R5
0.788
0.781
Which extent do you agree that you can, through the organization's networking, find
better suppliers?
R6
0.636
0.627
Source: Own elaboration
Appendix 2
Figure A2.1.Items and path coefficients of Model A Source: Own elaboration
Figure A2.2.Items and path coefficients of Model A Source: Own elaboration
Bernardino, S., Freitas Santos, J., & Silva, P. (2023). La gestión emprendedora social de los vínculos de las redes personales: ¿La utilización de redes sociales aumenta el uso de los recursos?. Revista Galega de Economía, 32(2), 1-33. https://doi.org/10.15304/rge.32.2.8590
