Access to this full-text is provided by MDPI.
Content available from Sustainability
This content is subject to copyright.
Citation: Satar, M.S.; Aggarwal, D.;
Bansal, R.; Alarifi, G. Mapping the
Knowledge Structure and Unveiling
the Research Trends in Social
Entrepreneurship and Inclusive
Development: A Bibliometric
Analysis. Sustainability 2023,15, 5626.
https://doi.org/10.3390/su15075626
Academic Editor: Fernando Almeida
Received: 23 February 2023
Revised: 19 March 2023
Accepted: 21 March 2023
Published: 23 March 2023
Copyright: © 2023 by the authors.
Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland.
This article is an open access article
distributed under the terms and
conditions of the Creative Commons
Attribution (CC BY) license (https://
creativecommons.org/licenses/by/
4.0/).
sustainability
Review
Mapping the Knowledge Structure and Unveiling the Research
Trends in Social Entrepreneurship and Inclusive Development:
A Bibliometric Analysis
Mir Shahid Satar 1, Deepanshi Aggarwal 2, *, Rohit Bansal 3, * and Ghadah Alarifi 4
1College of Administrative and Financial Sciences, Saudi Electronic University, Riyadh 11673, Saudi Arabia
2Department of Commerce, Maharshi Dayanand University, Rohtak 124001, India
3Department of Management Studies, Vaish College of Engineering, Rohtak 124001, India
4College of Businesses Administration, Princess Nourah bint Abdulrahman University, P.O. Box 88428,
Riyadh 11671, Saudi Arabia
*Correspondence: deepanshiaggarwal123@gmail.com (D.A.); rohitbansal.mba@gmail.com (R.B.)
Abstract:
Several kinds of research from both global and local perspectives have discussed social
entrepreneurship and inclusive development. Accordingly, this article aims to highlight the key
contributors (authors, institutions, countries, journals) and knowledge structure (co-authorship
analysis and cooccurrence-of-keyword analysis) of this research domain. Utilizing the bibliographic
data of 300 articles extracted from the Scopus database, we primarily employed Biblioshiny software,
resulting in 673 authors from 69 different countries and 496 different institutions. Furthermore,
the yearly publication of the 300 documents rose from 1 in 1996 to 24 in 2022, with an average
age of 6.08 years and a citation rate of 13.79 yearly. Remarkably, the number of publications on
this subject accelerated in 2014. According to the study’s findings, the most productive country
in line with research publishing is the USA. The most productive institution has been recognized
as the Amrita School of Engineering. The most active author is reported to be Kadol N. The most
prolific journal is Entrepreneurship and Regional Development. In addition to this, the top three
most frequent terms are ‘social development’, ‘economic development’ and ‘entrepreneur. ‘Social
entrepreneurship’, ‘social and economic effects’, ‘sustainable development’ and ‘social development’
are the latest keywords in this field that predict future trends. Taken collectively, this review is an
expedient resource for gaining a thorough grasp of the state of the art and prospective routes for
future research.
Keywords:
social entrepreneurship; social enterprise; social business; inclusive development;
inclusive growth; Bibliometric Analysis; literature review
1. Introduction
Social entrepreneurship refers to an “entrepreneurial activity with an embedded social
purpose” [
1
]. Social entrepreneurship is a creative way to deal with the complex demands
of modern life. In reality, in developing nations, entrepreneurship is frequently seen as
a way to improve the economy; nevertheless, this economic growth causes a variety of
social issues that the government lacks the funds to address [
2
]. Even though the idea
was first proposed more than forty years ago, social entrepreneurship is a developing
real-world phenomenon [
3
–
6
]. It has been applied to improve societal wealth, innovation,
employment generation and economic growth, as well as several social issues that have
gone unaddressed. Its effects on society are extensive and diverse [
7
]. Additionally, social
entrepreneurship has developed into a research area of major significance for businesses
and academics [
8
,
9
]. Many businesses are driven to conduct business operations with an
embedded social motive because of numerous challenges including poverty and human
wellbeing [
10
]. Social entrepreneurs do not anticipate receiving immediate financial gain
Sustainability 2023,15, 5626. https://doi.org/10.3390/su15075626 https://www.mdpi.com/journal/sustainability
Sustainability 2023,15, 5626 2 of 28
from their social businesses or for catalyzing social change. Every form of entrepreneurship,
according to [
11
], serves a social purpose; nevertheless, social entrepreneurship differs from
conventional entrepreneurship in that its main purpose is to generate social value as op-
posed to pursuing individual financial gain [
5
,
12
,
13
]. Thus, social entrepreneurship works
with two main objectives: inclusive development and environmental protection. Moreover,
entrepreneurship, opportunity and generosity as understood within the larger system create
a viable situation for societal as well as fiscal institutional growth. Social enterprises com-
bine the quest for the public good with the methods used by market-aligned, profit-making
businesses [
14
]. Thus, social companies fundamentally work within the limits of those
organizations’ established traditional ideas [
15
,
16
]. Accordingly, social entrepreneurship
might be viewed as a groundbreaking activity to increase producer surplus by minimizing
undesirable externalities or generating constructive externalities through the incorporation
of key entrepreneurial and societal dimensions [
17
]. The academic community is very
interested in social entrepreneurship and finds it to have a compelling adaptive value.
However, this is a relatively new field and research on social entrepreneurship is slim [
18
].
The existing literature tends to focus on specific elements of social entrepreneurship, such
as conceptions and descriptions of social entrepreneurship [
19
], kinds of institutions in
social entrepreneurship, societal innovation [
20
], statistics on research studies on social
entrepreneurship [
8
], societal effects and societal change [
21
], environmental protection and
social entrepreneurship [
22
] and women and social entrepreneurship [
23
]. These results
develop specific knowledge about social entrepreneurship in the expected ways. As a result,
a thorough and methodical examination of the fragmented area of social entrepreneurship
will not merely give a gestalt of the current status of current research; nevertheless, it will
also call social entrepreneurship researchers’ attention to less well-known issues. Regard-
less of this increased attentiveness from the scientific community, a review of the current
state of social entrepreneurship literature has revealed that there has been no systematic
investigation of the most crucial goal of social entrepreneurship, namely inclusive devel-
opment. This study used performance and a scientific-mapping review methodology for
analyzing the intellectual structure of the knowledge base on social entrepreneurship and
inclusive development to report apparent limitations in the existing literature and accom-
plish a further thorough research assessment on this subject matter, as social entrepreneurs
are one of the key enablers of inclusive growth and implement realistic and long-term
solutions to problems in a variety of fields, such as health, education, and environmental
sustainability. Hence, the present study aims to thoroughly grasp the state of the art in
social entrepreneurship and inclusive development research field over the past decades,
from 1996 to 2022, by evaluating the key contributors (authors, institutions, countries,
journals) and knowledge structure (co-authorship analysis and co-occurrence-of-keyword
analysis) of this domain.
The review addresses the following research questions in particular:
RQ1: What is the publication and citation trend of the literature on social entrepreneur-
ship and inclusive development?
RQ2: Which sources have the greatest impact?
RQ3: Who are the authors, institutions, and countries worldwide that contribute and
collaborate the most?
RQ4: Which publications have established the most influence or citations?
RQ5: What topics (keywords, trending topics, and themes) are linked with this research
domain?
The remaining article is structured as follows: Section 2presents the literature review
of the study, Section 3delivers a brief description of the materials and methods, Section 4
provides the results, Section 5presents a discussion of the results and Section 6provides a
thorough explanation of the conclusions.
Sustainability 2023,15, 5626 3 of 28
2. Literature Review
2.1. Social Entrepreneurship
Many definitions of social entrepreneurship cover the coupling of entrepreneurship
and social purpose, which is related to the recognition of opportunities and business oper-
ations to accomplish social agendas [
24
]. Social aims are the primary incentive for social
entrepreneurship; they must address social problems while generating financial returns,
resulting in a dual responsibility for social entrepreneurs along with social enterprises [
25
].
Social entrepreneurship entails a creative approach to addressing social concerns. Social
entrepreneurship is a “process that begins with the production of social ideas, recognizing
opportunities and solutions for sustainable social development” [
26
]. Furthermore, other
researchers have created more progressive viewpoints of social entrepreneurship as com-
mercial operations that mix the “social” and “entrepreneurship” to tackle social problems
with creative solutions for long-term social and sustainable development [27,28].
2.2. Inclusive Development
There is currently no clear definition of inclusive development. As development
should be human-centered, we argue that inclusive development should include both “fair
distribution and optimal development returns”. The rationale for this is that individuals
serve as the end and the means to that development [
29
]. All development strategies and
measures are designed to benefit persons and their quality of life. As a result, focusing
solely on GDP and its growth rates does not provide a complete picture of inclusive
development [
30
,
31
]. Furthermore, inclusiveness is defined as a “community outcome that
arises from inclusion practices that use variety as a resource”. In this context, inclusivity
is defined as “the inclusion of all individuals and groups, particularly those who were
previously not included or excluded” [
32
]. This is consistent with the value placed on
variation in personal qualities and life goals. Individuals have equivalent exposure to
the societal, political and economic mainstreams as well as opportunities to express their
preferences, as suggested by the word ‘inclusive’. This moral aim necessitates that all
aspects of society benefit from development.
2.3. Bibliometric Analysis
The “bibliometric” method is defined as “the use of mathematical and statistical ap-
proaches to books and the other means of communication”. Furthermore, the bibliometric
method allows researchers to study the literature on a research subject to determine the
knowledge structure and evolution of research themes [
33
,
34
]. Mixing multiple bibliometric
methodologies fosters a greater understanding of issues in that field of study [
35
]. Several
studies have conducted bibliometric analyses on social entrepreneurship [
36
–
38
]; social
entrepreneurship and complex thinking [
39
], social enterprise and social entrepreneur-
ship [
40
], social entrepreneurship and women [
23
] and technology and social entrepreneur-
ship [
41
] Despite this increased interest from the scientific community, a survey of the
literature on social entrepreneurship has indicated that the most important objective of
social entrepreneurship, i.e., inclusive development, has not been the subject of any sys-
tematic research. To fill in the evident gaps in the available literature and carry out a more
in-depth examination of this topic, this study employed performance and scientific map-
ping review methodology to analyze the intellectual structure of the social entrepreneurship
and inclusive development knowledge base.
3. Materials and Methods
Scientific research has increased in recent decades. As an outcome of this, keeping
track of relevant papers in one area is becoming increasingly difficult. This mandates
the development of quantifiable bibliometric methodologies suitable for addressing such
huge amounts of data, separating the most significant work by analyzing its impact and
uncovering the fundamental structure of the subject [
42
]. Accordingly, we employed the
bibliometric technique. Bibliometric analysis is a method of assessment that outlines the
Sustainability 2023,15, 5626 4 of 28
influence and quality of systematic papers in a certain domain [
43
]. It is the process of
examining bibliographic data using numerical methods [
44
]. To begin, we chose the most
renowned academic database, Scopus, to collect data to integrate the current status of
the social entrepreneurship and inclusive development research field. Scopus is the most
prevalent database of academic publications, according to [
45
], with 60% more coverage
than Web of Science [
46
]. When compared with other databases such as PubMed, Web of
Science and Google Scholar, this one is the most comprehensive. As a result, we choose to
employ Scopus for this study. The researchers of this study begin by identifying relevant
search phrases (based on a review of the literature and verified by domain experts). The
title, abstract, and keywords were encompassed in the search (“social entrepreneurship”
OR “social enterprise” OR “social business” AND “inclusive development” OR “inclu-
sive growth”). Our initial search turned up 416 documents. Following the application of
the year’s initial operation by the selection, we obtained documents from the years 1996
through 2022. While applying inclusion-exclusion criteria, filtered by subject area, those do-
mains included which were directly related to the keywords i.e., business management and
accounting, social sciences, environmental science, economics, econometrics and finance,
earth and planetary sciences, arts and humanities, psychology, and multidisciplinary, and
any that were not directly related to the present study were excluded. Additionally, only
those book chapters, review papers, articles, and conference proceedings were considered
for the review process which were in the English language. A total of 300 documents were
found relevant to the search. To minimize bias caused by continual updating of the Scopus
database, the work of searching for required papers was completed only once. Retrieved
articles were then manually examined for validity purposes (quality check of publications
via abstract reading in order to know whether the chosen keywords were contextually
relevant) and found satisfactory. The documents were then primarily brought into Bib-
lioshiny software, a virtual interface for Bibliometrix, developed by [
47
]. “When compared
to most other bibliometric tools, it offers a comprehensive set of statistical methods and
visualisations (it excels at providing dynamic visualisations that demonstrate change over
time) that can be used for performance analysis or to ascertain the conceptual, intellectual,
or social structure of the field”. In addition to this, VosViewer, a far more commonly applied
visualization software, has been utilized. ‘Performance analysis’ and ‘science mapping’
are included in the method. Performance analysis looks at authors, sources, nations, and
institutions concerning publications. Science mapping, on the other hand, uses bibliometric
approaches to spot trends in scientific research. Both give support for notionally defined
groups in review papers and add quantifiable rigor to the individual literature assessment.
More precisely, we examined the subsequent indicators: (a) overview including main
information, annual scientific production, average citations per year and three field plot;
(b) sources entailing most relevant sources, most local cited sources, Bradford’s law and
sources’ local impact; (c) authors, covering most relevant authors, most local cited authors,
authors production overtime, Lotka’s law and author’s local impact; (d) most relevant
affiliations; (e) countries, including corresponding author’s countries and most cited coun-
tries; (f) documents, comprising globally most cited documents, most cited documents
locally, reference spectroscopy, most frequent words and trending topics; (g) co-authorship
analysis based on authors, countries and institutions; (h) conceptual structure entailing
thematic evolution.
Figure 1portrays that the study begins by identifying relevant search phrases. Initially,
416 documents were found in social entrepreneurship and inclusive development, but after
applying the inclusion and exclusion criteria, the number of documents was reduced to
300 from the years 1996 through 2022. This study employed the Biblioshiny software to
analyze the publication and citation trend, journal performance, author performance, insti-
tution performance and country performance along with the co-occurrence of all keywords.
Further, the study employed VosViewer for the analysis of collaborative networks among
authors, institutions and nations based on Scopus data.
Sustainability 2023,15, 5626 5 of 28
Sustainability 2023, 15, x FOR PEER REVIEW 5 of 30
co-occurrence of all keywords. Further, the study employed VosViewer for the analysis
of collaborative networks among authors, institutions and nations based on Scopus data.
Figure 1. Flowchart of database selection strategy and data analysis. (Source: researchers’ calcula-
tion).
4. Results
4.1. Performance Analysis
It examines the contribution of research constituents to a given field (authors, insti-
tutions, countries, journals).
Figure 1.
Flowchart of database selection strategy and data analysis. (Source: researchers’ calculation).
4. Results
4.1. Performance Analysis
It examines the contribution of research constituents to a given field (authors, institu-
tions, countries, journals).
Table 1portrays the bibliometric metadata’s summary statistics; the published records
included 673 authors from 69 different countries and 496 different institutions. Further, the
Sustainability 2023,15, 5626 6 of 28
annual publication rate of the 300 documents rose from 1 in 1996 to 24 in 2022, with a mean
age of 6.08 years and a citation rate of 13.79 yearly. Remarkably, the number of publications
on this subject accelerated in 2014 and has continued to rise steadily, with an annual growth
rate of 5.27 percent. Figure 2a,b exemplify the annual production of scientific articles and
average citations per year. Notably, 2020 had the most production, with 40 publications or
13.33 percent of all publications from 1996 through 2022. The highest average number of
citations per year was 8.03 in 2011. This can be connected to the fact that the OECD has
been working to create policies to encourage social entrepreneurship since 2011.
Sustainability 2023, 15, x FOR PEER REVIEW 6 of 30
Table 1 portrays the bibliometric metadata’s summary statistics; the published rec-
ords included 673 authors from 69 different countries and 496 different institutions.
Further, the annual publication rate of the 300 documents rose from 1 in 1996 to 24 in
2022, with a mean age of 6.08 years and a citation rate of 13.79 yearly. Remarkably, the
number of publications on this subject accelerated in 2014 and has continued to rise
steadily, with an annual growth rate of 5.27 percent. Figure 2a,b exemplify the annual
production of scientific articles and average citations per year. Notably, 2020 had the
most production, with 40 publications or 13.33 percent of all publications from 1996
through 2022. The highest average number of citations per year was 8.03 in 2011. This can
be connected to the fact that the OECD has been working to create policies to encourage
social entrepreneurship since 2011.
(a)
(b)
Figure 2. (a) Annual production of scientific articles in the field of social entrepreneurship and in-
clusive development in the years 1996–2022 (b) Average article citations per year. (Source: Bibli-
oshiny).
1000000111
54
0
6
9
3
10 11
23
20 19
23
37
26
40
32
24
Articles
0.11
3.67
0.4
0
2.82 2.57
0.66
3.46
8.03
2.45
1.2 1.52
1.01 1.18
2.86
1.92
2.47
2.09
0.87 0.73
1996 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022
MeanTCperYear
Figure 2.
(
a
) Annual production of scientific articles in the field of social entrepreneurship and inclu-
sive development in the years 1996–2022 (
b
) Average article citations per year. (Source: Biblioshiny).
Sustainability 2023,15, 5626 7 of 28
Table 1. Summary statistics of the articles collected. (Source: Biblioshiny).
Depiction Outcomes
Duration 1996:2022
Sources (Journals, Books, etc.) 207
Articles 300
Annual Rate of Growth (%) 5.27
Mean Age of Article 6.08
Mean Citations Per Article 13.79
References 15,249
Keywords Plus 482
Author’s Keywords 785
Authors 673
Authors of Single-authored Article 87
Single-authored Article 94
Co-authors Per Article 2.38
International Co-authorship (%) 15.67
Countries 69
Organizations 496
4.2. Most Influential Journals
We focused on the Bradford law of scattering, which measures the correlation between
journals and the number of articles published. It makes the case that a small numeral
of principal journals will produce the major portion of articles on a particular topic, pre-
senting a sizeable portion (one-third) of publications, accompanied by a second, more
comprehensive group of journals, while the other third portrays a much broader group.
As a consequence, three clusters made up of 207 journals were discovered grounded on
the cumulative frequency of publications and citations. According to Bradford’s law, the
smallest cluster entails 26 journals (12.56 percent) that encompass the core of the papers.
The top 26 journals are shown in nuclear zone 1 of Figure 3.
Sustainability 2023, 15, x FOR PEER REVIEW 7 of 30
Table 1. Summary statistics of the articles collected. (Source: Biblioshiny).
Depiction Outcomes
Duration 1996:2022
Sources (Journals, Books, etc.) 207
Articles 300
Annual Rate of Growth (%) 5.27
Mean Age of Article 6.08
Mean Citations Per Article 13.79
References 15,249
Keywords Plus 482
Author’s Keywords 785
Authors 673
Authors of Single-authored Article 87
Single-authored Article 94
Co-authors Per Article 2.38
International Co-authorship (%) 15.67
Countries 69
Organizations 496
4.2. Most Influential Journals
We focused on the Bradford law of scaering, which measures the correlation be-
tween journals and the number of articles published. It makes the case that a small nu-
meral of principal journals will produce the major portion of articles on a particular topic,
presenting a sizeable portion (one-third) of publications, accompanied by a second, more
comprehensive group of journals, while the other third portrays a much broader group.
As a consequence, three clusters made up of 207 journals were discovered grounded on
the cumulative frequency of publications and citations. According to Bradford’s law, the
smallest cluster entails 26 journals (12.56 percent) that encompass the core of the papers.
The top 26 journals are shown in nuclear zone 1 of Figure 3.
Figure 3. The 26 most productive journals in the social entrepreneurship and inclusive develop-
ment research field from 1996 to 2023 (Nuclear Zone 1). (Source: Biblioshiny).
Figure 3.
The 26 most productive journals in the social entrepreneurship and inclusive development
research field from 1996 to 2023 (Nuclear Zone 1). (Source: Biblioshiny).
Sustainability 2023,15, 5626 8 of 28
Table 2and Figure 4a–d represent the most relevant journals of nuclear zone 1. They
demonstrate that according to the H index (a journal performance measure that aids in
identifying a journal’s significance), the most productive journal is Entrepreneurship and
Regional Development followed by Sustainability Switzerland and Voluntas. Further,
as per the G-index, the most influential sources are Sustainability Switzerland followed
by Entrepreneurship and Regional Development and Voluntas. Furthermore, as per the
M-index, the most productive journals are Sustainability Switzerland followed by the
Journal of Rural Studies and Frontiers in Psychology. Journal of Business Venturing (168),
Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice (154) and Social Enterprise Journal (124) are the
most significant sources when evaluating journals’ publication quality based on the most
often cited local sources.
Table 2. Most Relevant Journals.
Element H-Index G-Index M-Index TC NP PY_Start
Entrepreneurship and Regional Development 8 9 0.571 436 9 2010
Sustainability Switzerland 7 11 1.167 143 12 2018
Voluntas 6 7 0.667 77 7 2015
International Journal of Entrepreneurship and Small Business 4 4 0.400 52 4 2014
International Journal of Social Economics 4 4 0.222 99 4 2006
Journal of Rural Studies 4 4 0.800 198 4 2019
Local Economy 4 4 0.364 33 4 2013
Technological Forecasting and Social Change 4 5 0.444 270 5 2015
Frontiers in Psychology 3 3 0.750 77 3 2020
Journal of Business Ethics 3 3 0.214 121 3 2010
“TC = Total Citations, NP = Number of Publications and PY = Publication Year” (Source: Researcher Calculations).
Sustainability 2023, 15, x FOR PEER REVIEW 8 of 30
Table 2 and Figure 4a–d represent the most relevant journals of nuclear zone 1. They
demonstrate that according to the H index (a journal performance measure that aids in
identifying a journal’s significance), the most productive journal is Entrepreneurship and
Regional Development followed by Sustainability Swierland and Voluntas. Further, as
per the G-index, the most influential sources are Sustainability Swierland followed by
Entrepreneurship and Regional Development and Voluntas. Furthermore, as per the
M-index, the most productive journals are Sustainability Swierland followed by the
Journal of Rural Studies and Frontiers in Psychology. Journal of Business Venturing (168),
Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice (154) and Social Enterprise Journal (124) are the
most significant sources when evaluating journals’ publication quality based on the most
often cited local sources.
Table 2. Most Relevant Journals.
Element H-Index G-Index M-Index TC NP PY_Start
Entrepreneurship and Regional Development 8 9 0.571 436 9 2010
Sustainability Swierland 7 11 1.167 143 12 2018
Voluntas 6 7 0.667 77 7 2015
International Journal of Entrepreneurship and
Small Business 4 4 0.400 52 4 2014
International Journal of Social Economics 4 4 0.222 99 4 2006
Journal of Rural Studies 4 4 0.800 198 4 2019
Local Economy 4 4 0.364 33 4 2013
Technological Forecasting and Social Change 4 5 0.444 270 5 2015
Frontiers in Psychology 3 3 0.750 77 3 2020
Journal of Business Ethics 3 3 0.214 121 3 2010
“TC = Total Citations, NP = Number of Publications and PY = Publication Year” (Source: Researcher
Calculations).
(a)
Figure 4. Cont.
Sustainability 2023,15, 5626 9 of 28
Sustainability 2023, 15, x FOR PEER REVIEW 9 of 30
(b)
(c)
(d)
Figure 4.
(
a
) Source Local Impact by H-Index (
b
) Source Local Impact by G-Index (
c
) Source Local
Impact by M-Index (d) Most Local Cited Sources. (Source: Biblioshiny).
Sustainability 2023,15, 5626 10 of 28
4.3. Most Influential Authors
An aggregate of 673 authors contributed 300 articles to the literature regarding social
entrepreneurship and inclusive development. Table 3demonstrates the top 10 most produc-
tive authors. This analysis is also presented in Figure 5a,b. We find that Kadol N tops the
list, followed by Ferguson KM and Luke B. Figure 5c to f depicts Ferguson KM, Luke B, and
Barraket achieving the top spot as per the H-index (an author-level statistic that gauges the
scholar’s productivity and the influence of citations on their publications) (also depicted
in Table 4). Significantly, Ferguson KM, Luke B, and Barraket J have all maintained their
respective positions in the G-index author local impact rankings. In addition to this, Evans
MM (five citations), Robinson JA (five citations) and Willaimson IO (five citations) are the
most significant authors when evaluating authors’ publication quality based on the most
often cited local authors. Further, Lotka’s law (also depicted in Table 5) is used, which is as
follows: as the number of documents written increases, the number of contributing authors
decreases in your analysis. Accordingly, as the number of the document written increased
from one to two and thereafter, the number of authors and their proportion decreased from
639 to 31 and 0.949 to 0.046, respectively.
Table 3. Most Relevant Authors.
Authors Articles Articles Fractionalized
Kadol, N. 5 4.00
Ferguson, K.M. 4 2.75
Luke, B. 3 1.00
Ahmad, S. 2 1.50
Barraket, J. 2 0.50
Barth, S. 2 0.50
Crofts, P. 2 0.83
Dogar, M.N. 2 2.00
Grigorieva, V.V. 2 0.7
Healy, K. 2 1.33
(Source: Researchers Calculations).
Table 4. Top Influential Authors.
Authors H-Index G-Index M-Index TC NP PY_Start
Ferguson, K.M. 4 4 0.235 77 4 2007
Luke, B. 3 3 0.167 69 3 2007
Barraket, J. 2 2 0.222 59 2 2015
Barth, S. 2 2 0.222 59 2 2015
Healy, K. 2 2 0.071 80 2 1996
Legrand, W. 2 2 0.182 39 2 2013
Manimala, M.J. 2 2 0.154 10 2 2011
Nega, B. 2 2 0.200 53 2 2014
Pennink, B.J.W. 2 2 0.200 12 2 2014
Schneider, G. 2 2 0.200 53 2 2014
“TC = Total Citations, NP = Number of Publications and PY = Publication Year” (Source: Researcher Calculations).
Table 5. Authors’ productivity through Lotka’s law.
Articles Written Number of Authors Ratio of Authors
1 639 0.949
2 31 0.046
3 1 0.001
4 1 0.001
5 1 0.001
(Source: Researcher Calculations).
Sustainability 2023,15, 5626 11 of 28
Sustainability 2023, 15, x FOR PEER REVIEW 11 of 30
Table 5. Authors’ productivity through Lotka’s law.
Articles Wrien Number of Authors Ratio of Authors
1 639 0.949
2 31 0.046
3 1 0.001
4 1 0.001
5 1 0.001
(Source: Researcher Calculations).
(a)
(b)
Figure 5. Cont.
Sustainability 2023,15, 5626 12 of 28
Sustainability 2023, 15, x FOR PEER REVIEW 12 of 30
(c)
(d)
Figure 5. Cont.
Sustainability 2023,15, 5626 13 of 28
Sustainability 2023, 15, x FOR PEER REVIEW 13 of 30
(e)
(f)
Figure 5. (a) Most Relevant Authors (b) Author’s Publication Production Overtime (c) Authors Lo-
cal Impact by H-Index (d) Authors Local Impact by G-Index (e) Most Local Cited Authors (f) Lot-
ka’s Law. (Source: Biblioshiny).
4.4. Most Productive Affiliations
Figure 6 portrays the most relevant affiliations regarding social entrepreneurship
and inclusive development. The results of Figure 6 show that out of 496 institutions,
Amrita School of Engineering has achieved the top position with seven publications,
followed by North-Eastern Federal University, Roskilde University, School of Manage-
ment and Labor Studies and University of Northern British Columbia with six publica-
tions each.
Figure 5.
(
a
) Most Relevant Authors (
b
) Author’s Publication Production Overtime (
c
) Authors Local
Impact by H-Index (
d
) Authors Local Impact by G-Index (
e
) Most Local Cited Authors (
f
) Lotka’s
Law. (Source: Biblioshiny).
4.4. Most Productive Affiliations
Figure 6portrays the most relevant affiliations regarding social entrepreneurship and
inclusive development. The results of Figure 6show that out of 496 institutions, Amrita
School of Engineering has achieved the top position with seven publications, followed by
North-Eastern Federal University, Roskilde University, School of Management and Labor
Studies and University of Northern British Columbia with six publications each.
Sustainability 2023,15, 5626 14 of 28
Sustainability 2023, 15, x FOR PEER REVIEW 14 of 30
Figure 6. Most Relevant Aliations. (Source: Biblioshiny).
4.5. Most Contributing Countries
In contrast, Figure 7a shows 69 nations have so far contributed globally to the liter-
ature on social entrepreneurship and inclusive development. The top three contributing
countries are the United States (28 articles), Canada (15 articles) and the United Kingdom
(14 articles). These top three nations collectively account for 57 (32.7 percent) of the total
articles. Further, 7b depicts the most cited country in this research eld so far. In Table 6,
several scenarios also materialize. The overall citation count is much higher than the
mean citation count for each article. The articles from the USA obtained the most total
article citations (979 citations), as seen in the list of the top 10 most cited nations (Table 6),
making them the best in terms of average quality. In addition, Canada and the UK are
ranked second and third in terms of total citations (436 and 400, respectively), and aver-
age article citations (29 and 28), respectively. Interestingly, the USA, Canada and the UK
continue to hold the top three spots in terms of the highest volume of articles produced
and citations obtained.
Table 6. Most Cited Countries.
Country
Aggregate Citations
Mean Article Citations
USA
979
35.00
Canada
436
29.10
UK
400
28.60
Italy
294
32.70
Australia
166
15.10
China
144
13.10
Spain
102
17.00
Croatia
83
20.80
Egypt
83
83.00
Germany
75
25.00
(Source: researcher calculations).
Figure 6. Most Relevant Affiliations. (Source: Biblioshiny).
4.5. Most Contributing Countries
In contrast, Figure 7a shows 69 nations have so far contributed globally to the literature
on social entrepreneurship and inclusive development. The top three contributing countries
are the United States (28 articles), Canada (15 articles) and the United Kingdom (14 articles).
These top three nations collectively account for 57 (32.7 percent) of the total articles. Further,
7b depicts the most cited country in this research field so far. In Table 6, several scenarios
also materialize. The overall citation count is much higher than the mean citation count for
each article. The articles from the USA obtained the most total article citations (979 citations),
as seen in the list of the top 10 most cited nations (Table 6), making them the best in terms
of average quality. In addition, Canada and the UK are ranked second and third in terms
of total citations (436 and 400, respectively), and average article citations (29 and 28),
respectively. Interestingly, the USA, Canada and the UK continue to hold the top three
spots in terms of the highest volume of articles produced and citations obtained.
Table 6. Most Cited Countries.
Country Aggregate Citations Mean Article Citations
USA 979 35.00
Canada 436 29.10
UK 400 28.60
Italy 294 32.70
Australia 166 15.10
China 144 13.10
Spain 102 17.00
Croatia 83 20.80
Egypt 83 83.00
Germany 75 25.00
(Source: researcher calculations).
Sustainability 2023,15, 5626 15 of 28
Sustainability 2023, 15, x FOR PEER REVIEW 15 of 30
(a)
(b)
Figure 7. (a) Most Relevant Corresponding Author’s Countries, (b) Most Cited Countries. (Source:
Biblioshiny).
4.6. Document Analysis
Analyzing the citation paerns in the literature on social entrepreneurship and in-
clusive development can give us important clues about the future direction of the study.
Three hundred documents were found in the analysis, and each document had an aver-
age of 13.79 citations. The top 15 most often cited articles globally are shown in Table 7
and Figure 8a, with Brinkerhoff DW 2011 being the most significant, followed by An-
derson RB 2006, Bradley SW 2012 and Perrini F 2010. To identify the underlying historical
foundations and subsequent movers’ social entrepreneurship and inclusive development
Figure 7.
(
a
) Most Relevant Corresponding Author’s Countries, (
b
) Most Cited Countries. (Source:
Biblioshiny).
4.6. Document Analysis
Analyzing the citation patterns in the literature on social entrepreneurship and in-
clusive development can give us important clues about the future direction of the study.
Three hundred documents were found in the analysis, and each document had an average
of 13.79 citations. The top 15 most often cited articles globally are shown in Table 7and
Figure 8a, with Brinkerhoff DW 2011 being the most significant, followed by Anderson RB
2006, Bradley SW 2012 and Perrini F 2010. To identify the underlying historical foundations
and subsequent movers’ social entrepreneurship and inclusive development literature,
we analyze the citation trends in our dataset. Table 8and Figure 8b display the 15 most
Sustainability 2023,15, 5626 16 of 28
often locally cited articles, with Ebrashi RE 2013 (five citations) being the most significant,
followed by Friedman VJ 2010 (four citations), Gray M 2003 (four citations) and Roundy
PT 2017 (three citations). Figure 8c reveals that all 300 documents had citation counts
that peaked in 2010 (870 citations), according to reference publication year spectroscopy
(which “shows the frequency with which references are cited in the publications of a specific
research field”).
Table 7. The 15 Most Cited Documents Globally.
Paper DOI Total Citations TC per Year Normalized TC
BRINKERHOFF DW, 2011,
PUBLIC ADM DEV [48]10.1002/pad.584 306 23.54 2.93
ANDERSON RB, 2006, J
WORLD BUS [49]10.1016/j.jwb.2005.10.005 209 11.61 4.11
BRADLEY SW, 2012, J
MANAGE STUD [50]
10.1111/j.1467-6486.2012.
01043.x 199 16.58 6.77
PERRINI F, 2010, ENTREP REG
DEV [51]10.1080/08985626.2010.488402 171 12.21 3.53
EVANS M, 2007, EUR URBAN
REG STUD [52]10.1177/0969776407072664 106 6.24 2.42
HAYHURST LMC, 2014,
GENDER PLACE CULT [53]10.1080/0966369X.2013.802674 97 9.70 6.37
RAO-NICHOLSON R, 2017,
TECHNOL FORECAST SOC
CHANGE [38]
10.1016/j.techfore.2017.03.013 90 12.86 4.49
SURIE G, 2017, TECHNOL
FORECAST SOC CHANGE [54]10.1016/j.techfore.2017.03.006 85 12.14 4.24
EBRASHI RE, 2013, SOC
RESPONSIB J [55]10.1108/SRJ-07-2011-0013 83 7.55 6.30
STEINER A, 2019, J RURAL
STUD [56]10.1016/j.jrurstud.2017.12.021 78 15.60 6.32
RICHTER R, 2019, J RURAL
STUD [57]10.1016/j.jrurstud.2017.12.005 77 15.40 6.24
GRAY M, 2003, AUST SOC
WORK [58]
10.1046/j.0312-407X.2003.
00060.x 77 3.67 1.00
MEYSKENS M, 2010, ENTREP
REG DEV [59]10.1080/08985620903168299 65 4.64 1.34
ROSCA E, 2020, TECHNOL
FORECAST SOC CHANGE [60]10.1016/j.techfore.2020.120067 64 16.00 7.66
JANSSEN F, 2018, ENTREP REG
DEV [61]10.1080/08985626.2017.1413769 64 10.67 5.55
(Source: Researcher Calculations).
Table 8. The 15 Most Cited Documents Locally.
Document DOI Year Local
Citations
Global
Citations
LC/GC
Ratio (%)
Normalized
Local
Citations
Normalized
Global
Citations
EBRASHI RE, 2013,
SOC RESPONSIB J [55]10.1108/SRJ-07-2011-0013 2013 5 83 6.02 9.17 6.30
FRIEDMAN VJ, 2010,
ENTREP REG DEV [
62
]
10.1080/08985626.2010.488400 2010 4 53 7.55 3.00 1.09
GRAY M, 2003, AUST
SOC WORK [58]
10.1046/j.0312-407X.2003.
00060.x 2003 4 77 5.19 1.00 1.00
ROUNDY PT, 2017,
INT J SOC ECON [63]10.1108/IJSE-02-2016-0045 2017 3 62 4.84 6.90 3.09
NEGA B, 2014, J ECON
ISSUES [64]10.2753/JEI0021-3624480210 2014 3 32 9.38 9.86 2.10
PERRINI F, 2010,
ENTREP REG DEV [
51
]
10.1080/08985626.2010.488402 2010 3 171 1.75 2.25 3.53
Sustainability 2023,15, 5626 17 of 28
Table 8. Cont.
Document DOI Year Local
Citations
Global
Citations
LC/GC
Ratio (%)
Normalized
Local
Citations
Normalized
Global
Citations
MUÑOZ S-A, 2010,
AREA [65]
10.1111/j.1475-4762.2009.
00926.x 2010 3 52 5.77 2.25 1.07
CANESTRINO R, 2020,
J BUS RES [66]10.1016/j.jbusres.2020.01.006 2020 2 50 4.00 13.33 5.99
BIDDULPH R, 2018,
TOUR GEOGR [67]10.1080/14616688.2017.1417471 2018 2 16 12.50 10.57 1.39
JANSSEN F, 2018,
ENTREP REG DEV [
61
]
10.1080/08985626.2017.1413769 2018 2 64 3.13 10.57 5.55
KEDMENEC I, 2017,
ECONOMIC RES
EKON ISTRAZ [68]
10.1080/1331677X.2017.1355251 2017 2 59 3.39 4.60 2.94
SURIE G, 2017,
TECHNOL FORECAST
SOC CHANGE [54]
10.1016/j.techfore.2017.03.006 2017 2 85 2.35 4.60 4.24
NICOLÁS C, 2016,
EUROPEAN J
MANAG BUS
ECONOM [69]
10.1016/j.redeen.2015.11.001 2016 2 26 7.69 12.67 2.76
BRADLEY SW, 2012, J
MANAGE STUD [50]
10.1111/j.1467-6486.2012.
01043.x 2012 2 199 1.01 6.67 6.77
(Source: Researcher Calculations).
Sustainability 2023, 15, x FOR PEER REVIEW 17 of 30
SOC ECON [63]
NEGA B, 2014, J ECON
ISSUES [64]
10.2753/JEI0021-362448021
0 2014 3 32 9.38 9.86 2.10
PERRINI F, 2010, EN-
TREP REG DEV [51]
10.1080/08985626.2010.488
402 2010 3 171 1.75 2.25 3.53
MUÑOZ S-A, 2010,
AREA [65]
10.1111/j.1475-4762.2009.
00926.x 2010 3 52 5.77 2.25 1.07
CANESTRINO R, 2020, J
BUS RES [66]
10.1016/j.jbusres.2020.01.00
6 2020 2 50 4.00 13.33 5.99
BIDDULPH R, 2018,
TOUR GEOGR [67]
10.1080/14616688.2017.141
7471 2018 2 16 12.50 10.57 1.39
JANSSEN F, 2018, EN-
TREP REG DEV [61]
10.1080/08985626.2017.141
3769 2018 2 64 3.13 10.57 5.55
KEDMENEC I, 2017,
ECONOMIC RES EKON
ISTRAZ [68]
10.1080/1331677X.2017.135
5251 2017 2 59 3.39 4.60 2.94
SURIE G, 2017, TECH-
NOL FORECAST SOC
CHANGE [54]
10.1016/j.techfore.2017.03.0
06 2017 2 85 2.35 4.60 4.24
NICOLÁS C, 2016, EU-
ROPEAN J MANAG BUS
ECONOM [69]
10.1016/j.redeen.2015.11.00
1 2016 2 26 7.69 12.67 2.76
BRADLEY SW, 2012, J
MANAGE STUD [50]
10.1111/j.1467-6486.2012.
01043.x 2012 2 199 1.01 6.67 6.77
(Source: Researcher Calculations).
(a)
Figure 8. Cont.
Sustainability 2023,15, 5626 18 of 28
Sustainability 2023, 15, x FOR PEER REVIEW 18 of 30
(b)
(c)
Figure 8. (a) Most global cited documents [38,48–61] (b) Most local cited document
[50,51,54,55,58,61–70] (c) Reference publication year spectroscopy. (Source: Biblioshiny).
Science-Mapping Analysis
The analysis pertains to the intellectual interactions and structural connections
among research constituents (co-authorship analysis, cooccurrence-of-keyword analysis).
Figure 8.
(
a
) Most global cited documents [
38
,
48
–
61
] (
b
) Most local cited document [
50
,
51
,
54
,
55
,
58
,
61
–
70
]
(c) Reference publication year spectroscopy. (Source: Biblioshiny).
Science-Mapping Analysis
The analysis pertains to the intellectual interactions and structural connections among
research constituents (co-authorship analysis, cooccurrence-of-keyword analysis).
4.7. Co-Authorship Analysis
4.7.1. Centered on Authors
Co-authorship analysis was carried out and a network graph with the unit of analysis
“author” was generated. It highlights the most efficacious network of authors and their
Sustainability 2023,15, 5626 19 of 28
relationship within the field of research. Articles with 25 or fewer authors per document
have been used as the baseline. Additionally, the minimum number of documents an
author has was set to one with zero or more citations. Therefore, out of 673 authors, all
the authors met the threshold, with the largest set having 13 connected items (Figure 9).
Significantly, the network shown above reveals that there is only one cluster. The cluster
shown in red highlights the authors who collaborate the most, namely Arifin B., Ariutama
G.A., Damayanta S.A., Djunedi P., Handoko R., Rahman. A.B., Saputra A.H., Setiawan H.,
Solikin. A., Suhendra M., Tenrini. R.H., Wardhana I.W and Wicaksono E.
Sustainability 2023, 15, x FOR PEER REVIEW 19 of 30
4.7. Co-Authorship Analysis
4.7.1. Centered on Authors
Co-authorship analysis was carried out and a network graph with the unit of analy-
sis “author” was generated. It highlights the most efficacious network of authors and
their relationship within the field of research. Articles with 25 or fewer authors per
document have been used as the baseline. Additionally, the minimum number of docu-
ments an author has was set to one with zero or more citations. Therefore, out of 673
authors, all the authors met the threshold, with the largest set having 13 connected items
(Figure 9). Significantly, the network shown above reveals that there is only one cluster.
The cluster shown in red highlights the authors who collaborate the most, namely Arifin
B., Ariutama G.A., Damayanta S.A., Djunedi P., Handoko R., Rahman. A.B., Saputra
A.H., Setiawan H., Solikin. A., Suhendra M., Tenrini. R.H., Wardhana I.W and Wicaksono
E.
Figure 9. Co-authorship analysis based on authors. (Source: VosViewer).
4.7.2. Centered on Countries
Co-authorship analysis was carried out, and a network graph with the unit of anal-
ysis “countries” was generated. It highlights the collaborations among authors from
different nations (Figure 10). Articles with 25 or fewer countries per document have been
used as the baseline. Additionally, the minimal number of documents from each country
has been set to two with zero or more citations. As a result, 46 of the 69 countries met the
requirement with the largest set of 35 connected items. There are ten clusters observable
in the above network. The aforementioned network demonstrates that the United States
(Cluster 5, purple) is the most collaborative nation, with a total link strength of 16, fol-
lowed by the United Kingdom (Cluster 4, yellow), with a total link strength of 16 and
Canada (Cluster 3, blue), with total link strength of 9.
Figure 9. Co-authorship analysis based on authors. (Source: VosViewer).
4.7.2. Centered on Countries
Co-authorship analysis was carried out, and a network graph with the unit of analysis
“countries” was generated. It highlights the collaborations among authors from different
nations (Figure 10). Articles with 25 or fewer countries per document have been used as the
baseline. Additionally, the minimal number of documents from each country has been set
to two with zero or more citations. As a result, 46 of the 69 countries met the requirement
with the largest set of 35 connected items. There are ten clusters observable in the above
network. The aforementioned network demonstrates that the United States (Cluster 5,
purple) is the most collaborative nation, with a total link strength of 16, followed by the
United Kingdom (Cluster 4, yellow), with a total link strength of 16 and Canada (Cluster 3,
blue), with total link strength of 9.
4.7.3. Centered on Organizations
Co-authorship analysis was carried out, and a network graph with the unit of analysis
“organization” was generated. It draws attention to the authors’ institutional networks that
are most widely shared. Within Figure 11, the basis was set at articles with 25 or fewer
organizations per document. Additionally, a minimum of one document of an organization
with zero or more citations has been set. Accordingly, out of the 496 organizations, all the
organizations met the threshold, with the largest set having six connected items. It has
been noted that the above network contains one significant cluster. The cluster shown in
red entails the organizations that collaborate the most: Open University, United Kingdom,
Sciences Po, France, University of Huddersfield, United Kingdom, University of Mas-
sachusetts, United States, University of Sussex, United Kingdom, University of Wisconsin
Madison, United States, with a total link strength of five.
Sustainability 2023,15, 5626 20 of 28
Sustainability 2023, 15, x FOR PEER REVIEW 20 of 30
Figure 10. Co-authorship analysis based on countries. (Source: VOSviewer).
4.7.3. Centered on Organizations
Co-authorship analysis was carried out, and a network graph with the unit of anal-
ysis “organization” was generated. It draws aention to the authors’ institutional net-
works that are most widely shared. Within Figure 11, the basis was set at articles with 25
or fewer organizations per document. Additionally, a minimum of one document of an
organization with zero or more citations has been set. Accordingly, out of the 496 or-
ganizations, all the organizations met the threshold, with the largest set having six con-
nected items. It has been noted that the above network contains one significant cluster.
The cluster shown in red entails the organizations that collaborate the most: Open Uni-
versity, United Kingdom, Sciences Po, France, University of Huddersfield, United
Kingdom, University of Massachuses, United States, University of Sussex, United
Kingdom, University of Wisconsin Madison, United States, with a total link strength of
five.
Figure 10. Co-authorship analysis based on countries. (Source: VOSviewer).
Sustainability 2023, 15, x FOR PEER REVIEW 21 of 30
Figure 11. Co-authorship analysis based on organizations. (Source: VosViewer).
5. Discussion
5.1. General Trends in the Literature on Social Entrepreneurship and Inclusive Development
We now briefly discuss the findings after having correctly outlined the summary
data. However, to set the stage for the following discussion, we must quickly caution the
readers. First, be cognizant that, unlike other bibliometric analyses, ours did not involve
meticulous sample data gathering. However, to develop a tenable research trajectory for
the subject, we resorted to relatively straightforward and measurable primary data col-
lection and the deployment of apt analytical techniques to evaluate how much research
has been undertaken on social entrepreneurship and inclusive development. We examine
a few chosen sample outcomes in the discussion that follows, which lays out some ob-
servations that academics, organizations, and policymakers can glean. This article re-
viewed existing literature on social entrepreneurship and inclusive development indexed
in the Scopus database. We used Biblioshiny for Bibliometrix analysis to identify the
current research landscape in this domain—examining the “contributions of journals,
authors, keywords, Keyword Plus, highly cited papers, institutions, and nations”. In
terms of relevance, citations and publications, the findings indicate an increasing interest
in social entrepreneurship and inclusive development research. The findings also show
that the top sources, nations, and organizations in this field are located in advanced
economies. Similarly, developed economies show the most collaboration in research. This
can be observed via the lens of their cuing-edge worldwide studies. The approach
highlights the importance of R&D processes in high-income economies. In contrast, we
find that Latin American, Southeast Asian, and African authors’ viewpoints are unrep-
resentative in the set of literature. Based on this perspective, future research in the do-
main of social entrepreneurship and inclusive development may come from developing
countries. Moreover, the connections between nations, authors, journals and organiza-
Figure 11. Co-authorship analysis based on organizations. (Source: VosViewer).
5. Discussion
5.1. General Trends in the Literature on Social Entrepreneurship and Inclusive Development
We now briefly discuss the findings after having correctly outlined the summary data.
However, to set the stage for the following discussion, we must quickly caution the readers.
Sustainability 2023,15, 5626 21 of 28
First, be cognizant that, unlike other bibliometric analyses, ours did not involve meticulous
sample data gathering. However, to develop a tenable research trajectory for the subject,
we resorted to relatively straightforward and measurable primary data collection and the
deployment of apt analytical techniques to evaluate how much research has been under-
taken on social entrepreneurship and inclusive development. We examine a few chosen
sample outcomes in the discussion that follows, which lays out some observations that
academics, organizations, and policymakers can glean. This article reviewed existing litera-
ture on social entrepreneurship and inclusive development indexed in the Scopus database.
We used Biblioshiny for Bibliometrix analysis to identify the current research landscape
in this domain—examining the “contributions of journals, authors, keywords, Keyword
Plus, highly cited papers, institutions, and nations”. In terms of relevance, citations and
publications, the findings indicate an increasing interest in social entrepreneurship and
inclusive development research. The findings also show that the top sources, nations,
and organizations in this field are located in advanced economies. Similarly, developed
economies show the most collaboration in research. This can be observed via the lens of
their cutting-edge worldwide studies. The approach highlights the importance of R&D
processes in high-income economies. In contrast, we find that Latin American, Southeast
Asian, and African authors’ viewpoints are unrepresentative in the set of literature. Based
on this perspective, future research in the domain of social entrepreneurship and inclusive
development may come from developing countries. Moreover, the connections between
nations, authors, journals and organizations are shown in Figure 12 as potential sources
of insightful information. Figure 12a shows the connections between India (the nation),
Amrita School of Engineering (the institution), and Grigorieva V.V. (author) in terms of
offering high-caliber research on social entrepreneurship and inclusive development. The
interactions between the Gordon Institute of Business Science (institution), Sustainability
Switzerland (journal), and Indonesia (country) are also highlighted in Figure 12b, as they
have contributed to the development of important insights in this study area. In addition,
Figure 12c highlights collaborations between the Queensland University of Technology
(institution), Kadol N. (author), and the Journal of Rural Studies (journal) in producing
high-quality research in this field.
Sustainability 2023, 15, x FOR PEER REVIEW 22 of 30
tions are shown in Figure 12 as potential sources of insightful information. Figure 12a
shows the connections between India (the nation), Amrita School of Engineering (the in-
stitution), and Grigorieva V.V. (author) in terms of offering high-caliber research on so-
cial entrepreneurship and inclusive development. The interactions between the Gordon
Institute of Business Science (institution), Sustainability Swierland (journal), and In-
donesia (country) are also highlighted in Figure 12b, as they have contributed to the de-
velopment of important insights in this study area. In addition, Figure 12c highlights
collaborations between the Queensland University of Technology (institution), Kadol N.
(author), and the Journal of Rural Studies (journal) in producing high-quality research in
this field.
(a)
Figure 12. Cont.
Sustainability 2023,15, 5626 22 of 28
Sustainability 2023, 15, x FOR PEER REVIEW 23 of 30
(b)
(c)
Figure 12. Three field plots among countries, institutions, authors and journals in the social entre-
preneurship and inclusive development research field. (Source: Biblioshiny).
Figure 12.
Three field plots among countries, institutions, authors and journals in the social en-
trepreneurship and inclusive development research field. (Source: Biblioshiny).
5.2. Co-Occurrence of Keywords Analysis
We examined 1165 keywords to better understand the most significant words in our
dataset. The top 10 most relevant keywords are shown in Figure 13, with the top three
most frequent terms being social development (38 occurrences), economic development
(34 occurrences), and entrepreneur (34 occurrences), respectively. These terms partially
reflect the search terms we entered into the Scopus database, which suggests that these
topics are among the most often discussed in the literature on social entrepreneurship and
inclusive development. The main applications of social entrepreneurship are represented
Sustainability 2023,15, 5626 23 of 28
by additional terms such as ‘innovation’, ‘sustainable development’, and ‘economic and
social effects’.
Sustainability 2023, 15, x FOR PEER REVIEW 24 of 30
5.2. Co-Occurrence of Keywords Analysis
We examined 1165 keywords to beer understand the most significant words in our
dataset. The top 10 most relevant keywords are shown in Figure 13, with the top three
most frequent terms being social development (38 occurrences), economic development
(34 occurrences), and entrepreneur (34 occurrences), respectively. These terms partially
reflect the search terms we entered into the Scopus database, which suggests that these
topics are among the most often discussed in the literature on social entrepreneurship
and inclusive development. The main applications of social entrepreneurship are repre-
sented by additional terms such as ‘innovation’, ‘sustainable development’, and ‘eco-
nomic and social effects’.
Figure 13. Most relevant keywords. (Source: Biblioshiny).
5.3. Thematic Evolution
Figure 14 shows the theme development as well as future study directions. There
has been a discernible change in the research streams on social entrepreneurship and in-
clusive development over the past 27 years. The figure’s rectangle and square shapes,
which run from left to right, show how numerous theme evolutions have changed over
time. The grey lines aached to the various rectangle-colored shapes show the relation-
ships between the keywords; for example, the term “social economy” is consistently used
with terms such as “social entrepreneurship” and “social capital” (from 1996 to 2022).
The phrase “social economy” was utilized the most during the 27 years studied, followed
by “sustainable development” and “non-governmental organizations”. The social
economy has demonstrated its significance.
Figure 13. Most relevant keywords. (Source: Biblioshiny).
5.3. Thematic Evolution
Figure 14 shows the theme development as well as future study directions. There has
been a discernible change in the research streams on social entrepreneurship and inclusive
development over the past 27 years. The figure’s rectangle and square shapes, which
run from left to right, show how numerous theme evolutions have changed over time.
The grey lines attached to the various rectangle-colored shapes show the relationships
between the keywords; for example, the term “social economy” is consistently used with
terms such as “social entrepreneurship” and “social capital” (from 1996 to 2022). The
phrase “social economy” was utilized the most during the 27 years studied, followed by
“sustainable development” and “non-governmental organizations”. The social economy
has demonstrated its significance.
Sustainability 2023, 15, x FOR PEER REVIEW 25 of 30
Figure 14. Thematic evolution of author’s keywords. (Source: Biblioshiny).
5.4. Future Research Directions
The themes that are currently popular and the field’s potential future developments
are shown in Figure 15. According to the keywords, social entrepreneurship and inclu-
sive development are linked to ‘social entrepreneurship’, ‘social and economic effects’,
‘sustainable development’ and ‘social development’. These are the latest keywords in this
field that predict future trends. These trending topics are discussed as follows:
(a) Economic and Social Effects—Social entrepreneurship and inclusive development
has emerged as the most popular topic. Social entrepreneurship, a rapidly devel-
oping field that uses an entrepreneurial approach to achieve social and economic
effects, is essential for inclusive development and helps to strengthen a nation’s
economy and societal fabric [71]. Social enterprises have the power to advance sus-
tainability, provide cuing-edge services and goods and inspire optimism for the
future. “Almost 200 million individuals are already involved in social entrepre-
neurship projects worldwide”, according to the European Commission, and that
number is rising [72]. The creation of jobs, particularly for the less fortunate or mar-
ginalized segments of society, is one of the most evident and striking effects of social
entrepreneurship. “Social enterprises operate as an intermediary between unem-
ployment and the open labor market”, according to Organization for Economic
Co-operation and Development. Large-scale worker reintegration into the labor
market has enormous social and economic benefits, at least from a simple quantita-
tive standpoint. The concepts of social entrepreneurs and social enterprises are rela-
tively hazy, despite the beneficial effects they have on the economy. For instance,
there is no unified definition of social entrepreneurship [73]. Our data show that it
started to be widely utilized in 2019 and has continued along this path (Figure 15).
(b) Sustainable Development—The most recent set of keywords used by researchers in
social entrepreneurship and inclusive development ranked it third. Social entre-
preneurship offers two paths: ‘social innovation’ and ‘scaling of social innova-
tion’—to create a solution for Sustainable Development Goals. “Young social entre-
preneurs play a significant part in advancing the Sustainable Development Goals of
the 2030 Agenda”, according to the UN. As a result, social enterprises have become
viable options for addressing social issues through entrepreneurial prospects [74]. In
addition, social entrepreneurship—the use of entrepreneurial qualities like ”crea-
Figure 14. Thematic evolution of author’s keywords. (Source: Biblioshiny).
Sustainability 2023,15, 5626 24 of 28
5.4. Future Research Directions
The themes that are currently popular and the field’s potential future developments
are shown in Figure 15. According to the keywords, social entrepreneurship and inclusive
development are linked to ‘social entrepreneurship’, ‘social and economic effects’, ‘sustain-
able development’ and ‘social development’. These are the latest keywords in this field
that predict future trends. These trending topics are discussed as follows:
(a)
Economic and Social Effects
—Social entrepreneurship and inclusive development
has emerged as the most popular topic. Social entrepreneurship, a rapidly developing
field that uses an entrepreneurial approach to achieve social and economic effects,
is essential for inclusive development and helps to strengthen a nation’s economy
and societal fabric [
71
]. Social enterprises have the power to advance sustainability,
provide cutting-edge services and goods and inspire optimism for the future. “Al-
most 200 million individuals are already involved in social entrepreneurship projects
worldwide”, according to the European Commission, and that number is rising [
72
].
The creation of jobs, particularly for the less fortunate or marginalized segments of
society, is one of the most evident and striking effects of social entrepreneurship.
“Social enterprises operate as an intermediary between unemployment and the open
labor market”, according to Organization for Economic Co-operation and Develop-
ment. Large-scale worker reintegration into the labor market has enormous social
and economic benefits, at least from a simple quantitative standpoint. The concepts of
social entrepreneurs and social enterprises are relatively hazy, despite the beneficial
effects they have on the economy. For instance, there is no unified definition of social
entrepreneurship [
73
]. Our data show that it started to be widely utilized in 2019 and
has continued along this path (Figure 15).
(b)
Sustainable Development
—The most recent set of keywords used by researchers
in social entrepreneurship and inclusive development ranked it third. Social en-
trepreneurship offers two paths: ‘social innovation’ and ‘scaling of social innovation’—
to create a solution for Sustainable Development Goals. “Young social entrepreneurs
play a significant part in advancing the Sustainable Development Goals of the 2030
Agenda”, according to the UN. As a result, social enterprises have become viable
options for addressing social issues through entrepreneurial prospects [
74
]. In ad-
dition, social entrepreneurship—the use of entrepreneurial qualities like ”creativity,
innovation, and motivation along with the determination to address society’s most
pressing social problems”—is necessary to face the difficulties of sustainable devel-
opment [
75
–
78
]. Although sustainable development is not a new topic, interest in it
has significantly increased recently, particularly since 2019, according to our statistics
(Figure 15), and it is anticipated to continue to be a buzz topic, supporting social
entrepreneurship and inclusive development.
(c)
Social Development
—This is yet another term that has recently appeared in aca-
demic works on social entrepreneurship and inclusive development. As opposed
to an approach that prioritizes immediate financial gains for entrepreneurs, social
entrepreneurship is a process that sparks social change and meets critical societal
needs [
79
]. In comparison to other forms of entrepreneurship, social entrepreneurship
is thought to place a substantially larger premium on advancing societal value and
development than on maximizing financial gain [
48
]. As a type of social innovation,
“social entrepreneurship is good for society because it can benefit a variety of stake-
holders, including businesses and socially targeted groups. For businesses, social
entrepreneurship can increase revenues and profits, customer volume, loyalty and
satisfaction and business reputation. For the government, it can decrease unemploy-
ment and social exclusion. According to our research, it first became widely used in
2018 and has kept going in the same direction since then” (Figure 15).
The current study substantially contributes in two separate ways: (a) It views social
entrepreneurship as an concept integrated with inclusive development, which broadens
the body of knowledge; (b) This analysis offers a guide to those who are entering the field
Sustainability 2023,15, 5626 25 of 28
of social entrepreneurship and inclusive development by giving them “existing research
directions and suggesting the emerging tendencies in this field”. It puts out some important,
precise observations that scholars, organizations, and policymakers may benefit from.
Sustainability 2023, 15, x FOR PEER REVIEW 26 of 30
tivity, innovation, and motivation along with the determination to address society’s
most pressing social problems”—is necessary to face the difficulties of sustainable
development [75–78]. Although sustainable development is not a new topic, interest
in it has significantly increased recently, particularly since 2019, according to our
statistics (Figure 15), and it is anticipated to continue to be a buzz topic, supporting
social entrepreneurship and inclusive development.
(c) Social Development—This is yet another term that has recently appeared in aca-
demic works on social entrepreneurship and inclusive development. As opposed to
an approach that prioritizes immediate financial gains for entrepreneurs, social en-
trepreneurship is a process that sparks social change and meets critical societal
needs [79]. In comparison to other forms of entrepreneurship, social entrepreneur-
ship is thought to place a substantially larger premium on advancing societal value
and development than on maximizing financial gain [48]. As a type of social inno-
vation, “social entrepreneurship is good for society because it can benefit a variety of
stakeholders, including businesses and socially targeted groups. For businesses, so-
cial entrepreneurship can increase revenues and profits, customer volume, loyalty
and satisfaction and business reputation. For the government, it can decrease un-
employment and social exclusion. According to our research, it first became widely
used in 2018 and has kept going in the same direction since then” (Figure 15).
The current study substantially contributes in two separate ways: (a) It views social
entrepreneurship as an concept integrated with inclusive development, which broadens
the body of knowledge; (b) This analysis offers a guide to those who are entering the field
of social entrepreneurship and inclusive development by giving them “existing research
directions and suggesting the emerging tendencies in this field”. It puts out some im-
portant, precise observations that scholars, organizations, and policymakers may benefit
from.
Figure 15. Trending Topics. (Source: Biblioshiny).
6. Conclusions
Over the past few decades, research on social entrepreneurship and inclusive de-
velopment has grown significantly across the globe. We used Biblioshiny for Bibliometrix
analysis on a dataset of 300 documents to assess how academic study on this topic has
changed and whose viewpoints are most important and to showcase research objectives
Figure 15. Trending Topics. (Source: Biblioshiny).
6. Conclusions
Over the past few decades, research on social entrepreneurship and inclusive devel-
opment has grown significantly across the globe. We used Biblioshiny for Bibliometrix
analysis on a dataset of 300 documents to assess how academic study on this topic has
changed and whose viewpoints are most important and to showcase research objectives that
are significantly propelling the literature forward. Bibliometric analysis helps researchers
choose “what to publish and where while keeping in consideration the productivity of the
subject—the most relevant sources, nations, authors, thematic evolution, organizations,
etc.”. It also helps to analyze publication trends and patterns to understand the virtue
and productivity of a field. Throughout the past few decades, the ratio of publications to
citations has been steadily rising. According to the study’s findings, the most productive
countries in line with the research publishing are the USA with 28 published papers, fol-
lowed by Canada and UK, collectively accounting for 57 (32.27 percent) of the total articles.
The most productive institution has been recognized as Amrita School of Engineering
with seven publications. The most active authors are reported to be Kadol N, Ferguson
KM and Luke B. In a similar vein, the most prolific journals are “Entrepreneurship and
Regional Development” followed by “Sustainability” Switzerland and “Voluntas”. In
addition to this, the top three most frequent terms are ‘social development’ (34 occurrences),
‘economic development’ (38 occurrences), and ‘entrepreneur’ (34 occurrences). ‘Social
entrepreneurship’, ‘social and economic effects’, ‘sustainable development’ and ‘social
development’ are the latest keywords in this field, and they predict future trends. By
equipping them with scientific research areas and identifying the emergent tendencies in
this subject, this analysis acts as a guide for those who are approaching the field of social
entrepreneurship and inclusive development. The current study has some limitations
that can help future researchers to expand their research scope. To begin, data was gath-
ered from the Scopus database, which is regarded as one of the most reputable databases;
however, other reputable databases, such as Web of Science and Dimensions, were not
evaluated. Additionally, given the wealth of research in this field and the implausibility
of a single database providing a comprehensive picture of a field of study with such a
broad worldwide impact, other research areas deserving further investigation may include
Sustainability 2023,15, 5626 26 of 28
employing other databases or combining the two main bibliometric databases, such as Web
of Science and Scopus. Moreover, this analysis only included research articles published in
English, and key literature published in many other languages was not considered.
Author Contributions:
Conceptualization, M.S.S. and D.A.; methodology, R.B.; software, D.A.; vali-
dation, M.S.S., R.B. and D.A.; formal analysis, G.A.; investigation, R.B.; resources, G.A.; data curation,
D.A.; writing—original draft preparation, D.A.; writing—review and editing, R.B.; visualization,
M.S.S.; supervision, G.A.; project administration, R.B.; funding acquisition, G.A. All authors have
read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.
Funding:
Princess Nourah bint Abdulrahman University Researchers Supporting Project number
(PNURSP2023R 277), Princess Nourah bint Abdulrahman University, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia.
Institutional Review Board Statement: Not applicable.
Informed Consent Statement: Not Applicable.
Data Availability Statement:
The data presented in this study are available upon request from the
authors.
Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest.
References
1.
Austin, J.; Stevenson, H.; Wei–Skillern, J. Social and Commercial Entrepreneurship: Same, Different, or Both? Entrep. Theory Pract.
2006,30, 1–22. [CrossRef]
2.
Chell, E.; Spence, L.J.; Perrini, F.; Harris, J.D. Social Entrepreneurship and Business Ethics: Does Social Equal Ethical? J. Bus. Ethics
2016,133, 619–625. [CrossRef]
3. Banks, J.A. The Sociology of Social Movements; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 1972.
4.
Alvord, S.H.; Brown, L.D.; Letts, C.W. Social Entrepreneurship and Societal Transformation: An Exploratory Study. J. Appl. Behav.
Sci. 2004,40, 260–282. [CrossRef]
5. Pless, N.M. Social Entrepreneurship in Theory and Practice—An Introduction. J. Bus. Ethics 2012,111, 317–320. [CrossRef]
6.
Sassmannshausen, S.P.; Volkmann, C. A Bibliometric Based Review on Social Entrepreneurship and Its Establishment as a Field
of Research; Schumpeter Discussion Papers. 2013. Available online: https://www.econstor.eu/bitstream/10419/97203/1/748707
158.pdf (accessed on 15 February 2023).
7.
Conway Dato-on, M.; Kalakay, J. The Winding Road of Social Entrepreneurship Definitions: A Systematic Literature Review. Soc.
Enterp. J. 2016,12, 131–160. [CrossRef]
8.
Rey-Martí, A.; Ribeiro-Soriano, D.; Sánchez-García, J.L. Giving Back to Society: Job Creation through Social Entrepreneurship. J.
Bus. Res. 2016,69, 2067–2072. [CrossRef]
9.
Kannampuzha, M.; Hockerts, K. Organizational Social Entrepreneurship: Scale Development and Validation. Soc. Enterp. J.
2019
,
15, 290–319. [CrossRef]
10.
Huda, M.; Qodriah, S.L.; Rismayadi, B.; Hananto, A.; Kardiyati, E.N.; Ruskam, A.; Nasir, B.M. Towards Coopera-
tive With Competitive Alliance: Insights Into Performance Value in Social Entrepreneurship. Available online: https:
//www.igi-global.com/chapter/towards-cooperative-with-competitive-alliance/www.igi-global.com/chapter/towards-
cooperative-with-competitive-alliance/208413 (accessed on 22 February 2023).
11. Bygrave, W.; Minniti, M. The Social Dynamics of Entrepreneurship. Entrep. Theory Pract. 2000,24, 25–36. [CrossRef]
12.
Esteban-Santos, L.; García Medina, I.; Carey, L.; Bellido-Pérez, E. Fashion Bloggers: Communication Tools for the Fashion Industry.
J. Fash. Mark. Manag. Int. J. 2018,22, 420–437. [CrossRef]
13.
Bedi, H.S.; Yadav, N. Social Entrepreneurship: A Conceptual Clarity 2019. Available online: https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3
/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3541919 (accessed on 15 February 2023).
14.
Urbano, D.; Toledano, N.; Soriano, D.R. Analyzing Social Entrepreneurship from an Institutional Perspective: Evidence from
Spain. J. Soc. Entrep. 2010,1, 54–69. [CrossRef]
15.
Dees, J.G.; Emerson, J.; Economy, P. Strategic Tools for Social Entrepreneurs: Enhancing the Performance of Your Enterprising Nonprofit;
Wiley: Hoboken, NJ, USA, 2002.
16.
Mamabolo, A. Performance Measurement in Emerging Market Social Enterprises Using a Balanced Scorecard. J. Soc. Entrep.
2020
,
11, 65–87. [CrossRef]
17.
Newbert, S.L.; Hill, R.P. Setting the Stage for Paradigm Development: A ‘Small-Tent’ Approach to Social Entrepreneurship. J. Soc.
Entrep. 2014,5, 243–269. [CrossRef]
18.
Mahfuz Ashraf, M.; Razzaque, M.A.; Liaw, S.-T.; Ray, P.K.; Hasan, M.R. Social Business as an Entrepreneurship Model in Emerging
Economy: Systematic Review and Case Study. Manag. Decis. 2018,57, 1145–1161. [CrossRef]
19. Bacq, S.; Janssen, F. The Multiple Faces of Social Entrepreneurship: A Review of Definitional Issues Based on Geographical and
Thematic Criteria. Entrep. Reg. Dev. 2011,23, 373–403. [CrossRef]
Sustainability 2023,15, 5626 27 of 28
20.
Phillips, W.; Lee, H.; Ghobadian, A.; O’Regan, N.; James, P. Social Innovation and Social Entrepreneurship: A Systematic Review.
Group Organ. Manag. 2015,40, 428–461. [CrossRef]
21.
Rawhouser, H.; Cummings, M.; Newbert, S.L. Social Impact Measurement: Current Approaches and Future Directions for Social
Entrepreneurship Research. Entrep. Theory Pract. 2019,43, 82–115. [CrossRef]
22.
Modoi, O.-C.; Vescan, A. Environmental Protection and Social Entrepreneurship Activities: The Vision of the Young People.
Environ. Sci. Proc. 2021,9, 15. [CrossRef]
23.
Jeong, E.; Yoo, H. A Systematic Literature Review of Women in Social Entrepreneurship. Serv. Bus.
2022
,16, 935–970. [CrossRef]
24.
Cherrier, H.; Goswami, P.; Ray, S. Social Entrepreneurship: Creating Value in the Context of Institutional Complexity. J. Bus. Res.
2018,86, 245–258. [CrossRef]
25.
Zahra, S.A.; Gedajlovic, E.; Neubaum, D.O.; Shulman, J.M. A Typology of Social Entrepreneurs: Motives, Search Processes and
Ethical Challenges. J. Bus. Ventur. 2009,24, 519–532. [CrossRef]
26.
Saebi, T.; Foss, N.J.; Linder, S. Social Entrepreneurship Research: Past Achievements and Future Promises. J. Manag.
2019
,45,
70–95. [CrossRef]
27.
Mair, J.; Noboa, E. Social Entrepreneurship: How Intentions to Create a Social Venture Are Formed. In Social Entrepreneurship;
Mair, J., Robinson, J., Hockerts, K., Eds.; Palgrave Macmillan UK: London, UK, 2006; pp. 121–135. ISBN 978-0-230-62565-5.
28.
Millman, C.; Li, Z.; Matlay, H.; Wong, W. Entrepreneurship Education and Students’ Internet Entrepreneurship Intentions:
Evidence from Chinese HEIs. J. Small Bus. Enterp. Dev. 2010,17, 569–590. [CrossRef]
29. Peredo, A.M.; McLean, M. Social Entrepreneurship: A Critical Review of the Concept. J. World Bus. 2006,41, 56–65. [CrossRef]
30. Anand, S.; Sen, A. The Income Component of the Human Development Index. J. Hum. Dev. 2000,1, 83–106. [CrossRef]
31.
Porter, M.; Stern, S.; Green, M. Social Progress Imperative. Available online: https://www.socialprogress.org/ (accessed on 15
February 2023).
32.
Phillips, R.; Holden, M.; Kee, Y.; Michalos, A.; Rahtz, D.; Joseph, S. Community Quality-of-Life and Well-Being; Springer:
Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2017.
33.
Castillo-Vergara, M.; Alvarez-Marin, A.; Placencio-Hidalgo, D. A Bibliometric Analysis of Creativity in the Field of Business
Economics. J. Bus. Res. 2018,85, 1–9. [CrossRef]
34.
Leung, X.Y.; Sun, J.; Bai, B. Bibliometrics of Social Media Research: A Co-Citation and Co-Word Analysis. Int. J. Hosp. Manag.
2017,66, 35–45. [CrossRef]
35.
Chang, Y.-W.; Huang, M.-H.; Lin, C.-W. Evolution of Research Subjects in Library and Information Science Based on Keyword,
Bibliographical Coupling, and Co-Citation Analyses. Scientometrics 2015,105, 2071–2087. [CrossRef]
36.
Phan Tan, L. Bibliometrics of Social Entrepreneurship Research: Cocitation and Bibliographic Coupling Analyses. Cogent Bus.
Manag. 2022,9, 2124594. [CrossRef]
37.
Rey-Martí, A.; Ribeiro-Soriano, D.; Palacios-Marqués, D. A Bibliometric Analysis of Social Entrepreneurship. J. Bus. Res.
2016
,69,
1651–1655. [CrossRef]
38.
Rao-Nicholson, R.; Vorley, T.; Khan, Z. Social Innovation in Emerging Economies: A National Systems of Innovation Based
Approach. Technol. Forecast. Soc. Change 2017,121, 228–237. [CrossRef]
39.
Vázquez-Parra, J.C.; Cruz-Sandoval, M.; Carlos-Arroyo, M. Social Entrepreneurship and Complex Thinking: A Bibliometric
Study. Sustainability 2022,14, 13187. [CrossRef]
40.
Granados, M.L.; Hlupic, V.; Coakes, E.; Mohamed, S. Social Enterprise and Social Entrepreneurship Research and Theory: A
Bibliometric Analysis from 1991 to 2010. Soc. Enterp. J. 2011,7, 198–218. [CrossRef]
41.
Dettori, A.; Floris, M. Technology in Social Entrepreneurship Studies: A Bibliometric Analysis (1990-2019). Int. J. Bus. Manag.
2021,16, p41. [CrossRef]
42.
Velasco-Muñoz, J.F.; Aznar-Sánchez, J.A.; Belmonte-Ureña, L.J.; Román-Sánchez, I.M. Sustainable Water Use in Agriculture: A
Review of Worldwide Research. Sustainability 2018,10, 1084. [CrossRef]
43.
Aydin, C.; Senel, E. Impotence Literature: Scientometric Analysis of Erectile Dysfunction Articles between 1975 and 2018.
Andrologia 2020,52, e13520. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
44. Broadus, R.N. Toward a Definition of “Bibliometrics”. Scientometrics 1987,12, 373–379. [CrossRef]
45.
Norris, M.; Oppenheim, C. Comparing Alternatives to the Web of Science for Coverage of the Social Sciences’ Literature. J.
Informetr. 2007,1, 161–169. [CrossRef]
46.
Comerio, N.; Strozzi, F. Tourism and Its Economic Impact: A Literature Review Using Bibliometric Tools. Tour. Econ.
2019
,25,
109–131. [CrossRef]
47. Zupic, I.; ˇ
Cater, T. Bibliometric Methods in Management and Organization. Organ. Res. Methods 2015,18, 429–472. [CrossRef]
48.
Brinkerhoff, D.W.; Brinkerhoff, J.M. Public–Private Partnerships: Perspectives on Purposes, Publicness, and Good Governance.
Public Adm. Dev. 2011,31, 2–14. [CrossRef]
49.
Anderson, R.B.; Dana, L.P.; Dana, T.E. Indigenous Land Rights, Entrepreneurship, and Economic Development in Canada:
“Opting-in” to the Global Economy. J. World Bus. 2006,41, 45–55. [CrossRef]
50.
Bradley, S.W.; McMullen, J.S.; Artz, K.; Simiyu, E.M. Capital Is Not Enough: Innovation in Developing Economies. J. Manag. Stud.
2012,49, 684–717. [CrossRef]
51.
Perrini, F.; Vurro, C.; Costanzo, L.A. A Process-Based View of Social Entrepreneurship: From Opportunity Identification to
Scaling-up Social Change in the Case of San Patrignano. Entrep. Reg. Dev. 2010,22, 515–534. [CrossRef]
Sustainability 2023,15, 5626 28 of 28
52.
Evans, M.; Syrett, S. Generating Social Capital?: The Social Economy and Local Economic Development. Eur. Urban Reg. Stud.
2007,14, 55–74. [CrossRef]
53.
Hayhurst, L.M.C. The ‘Girl Effect’ and Martial Arts: Social Entrepreneurship and Sport, Gender and Development in Uganda.
Gend. Place Cult. 2014,21, 297–315. [CrossRef]
54.
Surie, G. Creating the Innovation Ecosystem for Renewable Energy via Social Entrepreneurship: Insights from India. Technol.
Forecast. Soc. Change 2017,121, 184–195. [CrossRef]
55. El Ebrashi, R. Social Entrepreneurship Theory and Sustainable Social Impact. Soc. Responsib. J. 2013,9, 188–209. [CrossRef]
56. Steiner, A.; Teasdale, S. Unlocking the Potential of Rural Social Enterprise. J. Rural Stud. 2019,70, 144–154. [CrossRef]
57.
Richter, R. Rural Social Enterprises as Embedded Intermediaries: The Innovative Power of Connecting Rural Communities with
Supra-Regional Networks. J. Rural Stud. 2019,70, 179–187. [CrossRef]
58. Gray, M.; Healy, K.; Crofts, P. Social Enterprise: Is It the Business of Social Work? Aust. Soc. Work 2003,56, 141–154. [CrossRef]
59.
Meyskens, M.; Carsrud, A.L.; Cardozo, R.N. The Symbiosis of Entities in the Social Engagement Network: The Role of Social
Ventures. Entrep. Reg. Dev. 2010,22, 425–455. [CrossRef]
60.
Rosca, E.; Agarwal, N.; Brem, A. Women Entrepreneurs as Agents of Change: A Comparative Analysis of Social Entrepreneurship
Processes in Emerging Markets. Technol. Forecast. Soc. Change 2020,157, 120067. [CrossRef]
61.
Janssen, F.; Fayolle, A.; Wuilaume, A. Researching Bricolage in Social Entrepreneurship. Entrep. Reg. Dev.
2018
,30, 450–470.
[CrossRef]
62.
Friedman, V.J.; Desivilya, H. Integrating Social Entrepreneurship and Conflict Engagement for Regional Development in Divided
Societies. Entrep. Reg. Dev. 2010,22, 495–514. [CrossRef]
63.
Roundy, P.T. Social Entrepreneurship and Entrepreneurial Ecosystems: Complementary or Disjoint Phenomena? Int. J. Soc. Econ.
2017,44, 1252–1267. [CrossRef]
64.
Nega, B.; Schneider, G. Social Entrepreneurship, Microfinance, and Economic Development in Africa. J. Econ. Issues
2014
,48,
367–376. [CrossRef]
65. Muñoz, S.-A. Towards a Geographical Research Agenda for Social Enterprise. Area 2010,42, 302–312. [CrossRef]
66.
Canestrino, R.; ´
Cwiklicki, M.; Magliocca, P.; Pawełek, B. Understanding Social Entrepreneurship: A Cultural Perspective in
Business Research. J. Bus. Res. 2020,110, 132–143. [CrossRef]
67.
Biddulph, R. Social Enterprise and Inclusive Tourism. Five Cases in Siem Reap, Cambodia. Tour. Geogr.
2018
,20, 610–629.
[CrossRef]
68.
Kedmenec, I.; Strašek, S. Are Some Cultures More Favourable for Social Entrepreneurship than Others? Econ. Res.-Ekon.
Istraživanja 2017,30, 1461–1476. [CrossRef]
69.
Nicolás, C.; Rubio, A. Social Enterprise: Gender Gap and Economic Development. Eur. J. Manag. Bus. Econ.
2016
,25, 56–62.
[CrossRef]
70.
Kadol, N. The process of formation and directions of social entrepreneurship development in the countries of the Eurasian
Economic Union. Int. J. Entrepreneurship 2020,24, 1–6.
71.
Doherty, B.; Haugh, H.; Lyon, F. Social Enterprises as Hybrid Organizations: A Review and Research Agenda. Int. J. Manag. Rev.
2014,16, 417–436. [CrossRef]
72.
Pache, A.-C.; Santos, F. Inside the Hybrid Organization: Selective Coupling as a Response to Competing Institutional Logics.
Acad. Manage. J. 2013,56, 972–1001. [CrossRef]
73.
Tracey, P.; Phillips, N.; Jarvis, O. Bridging Institutional Entrepreneurship and the Creation of New Organizational Forms: A
Multilevel Model. Organ. Sci. 2011,22, 60–80. [CrossRef]
74.
Diaz-Sarachaga, J.M.; Ariza-Montes, A. The Role of Social Entrepreneurship in the Attainment of the Sustainable Development
Goals. J. Bus. Res. 2022,152, 242–250. [CrossRef]
75.
Singh, A.; Reji, E.M. Social Entrepreneurship and Sustainable Development. Available online: https://www.routledge.com/
Social-Entrepreneurship-and-Sustainable-Development/Singh-Reji/p/book/9780367501761 (accessed on 12 March 2023).
76.
Kaswan, M.S.; Rathi, R.; Cross, J.; Garza-Reyes, J.A.; Antony, J.; Yadav, V. Integrating Green Lean Six Sigma and Industry 4.0: A
Conceptual Framework. J. Manuf. Technol. Manag. 2022,34, 87–121. [CrossRef]
77.
Rathi, R.; Kaswan, M.S.; Antony, J.; Cross, J.; Garza-Reyes, J.A.; Furterer, S.L. Success Factors for the Adoption of Green Lean Six
Sigma in Healthcare Facility: An ISM-MICMAC Study. Int. J. Lean Six Sigma 2022.ahead-of-print. [CrossRef]
78.
Yadav, V.; Gahlot, P.; Kaswan, M.S.; Rathi, R. Green Lean Six Sigma Critical Barriers: Exploration and Investigation for Improved
Sustainable Performance. Int. J. Six Sigma Compet. Advant. 2021,13, 101–119. [CrossRef]
79.
Mair, J.; Martí, I. Social Entrepreneurship Research: A Source of Explanation, Prediction, and Delight. J. World Bus.
2006
,41, 36–44.
[CrossRef]
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note:
The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual
author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to
people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.
Available via license: CC BY 4.0
Content may be subject to copyright.
