BRIDGING THE INTENTION–IMPACT DIVIDE IN SOCIAL ENTREPRENEURSHIP: A SYSTEMATIC LITERATURE REVIEW OF VENTURE CREATION PATHWAYS, ENABLING CONDITIONS AND SUSTAINABLE SOCIAL IMPACT

Kumaresh Mondal; Deepa Rajesh

doi:10.29121/ShodhPrabandhan.v3.i2.2026.142

Authors

Kumaresh Mondal Research Scholar, AMET Business School, AMET Deemed to be University, Kanathur, Chennai, Tamil Nadu, India Author
Deepa Rajesh Professor, AMET Business School, AMET Deemed to be University, Kanathur, Chennai, Tamil Nadu, India Author

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.29121/ShodhPrabandhan.v3.i2.2026.142

Keywords:

Social Entrepreneurship, Social Entrepreneurial Intention, Sustainable Social Impact, Systematic Literature Review, Hybrid Business Models, Impact Measurement, Future Research Agenda

Abstract

Social entrepreneurship is being increasingly advocated as a business pathway towards sustainable social impact and higher-education institutions have started to heavily invest in cultivating their students' social entrepreneurial intention. However, the body of literature that helps to understand how intention becomes an operating enterprise and then tangible and sustainable social change is not well integrated into management and entrepreneurship and nonprofit journals. This review compiles that literature and aims to identify pathways, enabling conditions and outcome measures linking social entrepreneurial intention to sustainable social impact. A systematic literature review was performed using the PRISMA protocol. A search of Scopus and Web of Science was conducted for peer-reviewed articles between January 2015 and June 2025, resulting in 2,028 records after de-duplication, screening and full-text appraisal, 67 studies were chosen for analysis using descriptive and thematic synthesis. The findings reveal five themes in the literature: intention-to-action conversion, resource mobilisation and business venture formation, hybrid business-model design, impact measurement and scaling, and ecosystem-level enabling conditions. The point of the evidence is that intention alone is a weak predictor of venture creation unless it is accompanied by self-efficacy, opportunity recognition and institutional support, and that sustained impact requires business-model coherence and that measurement systems are used to learn about, and not merely for reporting. The review provides an integrated intention to impact framework, and a structured future research agenda for longitudinal designs, standardised measures of impact and evidence from the emerging economies. The framework provides a foundation for educators, incubators and policy makers to develop an intervention that goes beyond intention formation to impact realization.

References

Ajzen, I. (1991). The Theory of Planned Behavior. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 50(2), 179–211. https://doi.org/10.1016/0749-5978(91)90020-T

André, K., and Pache, A.-C. (2016). From Caring Entrepreneur to Caring Enterprise: Addressing the Ethical Challenges of Scaling Up Social Enterprises. Journal of Business Ethics, 133(4), 659–675. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-014-2445-8

Austin, J., Stevenson, H., and Wei-Skillern, J. (2006). Social and Commercial Entrepreneurship: Same, different, or Both? Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 30(1), 1–22. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-6520.2006.00107.x

Bacq, S., and Alt, E. (2018). Feeling Capable and Valued: A Prosocial Perspective on the link between Empathy and Social Entrepreneurial Intentions. Journal of Business Venturing, 33(3), 333–350. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusvent.2018.01.004

Bacq, S., and Eddleston, K. A. (2018). A Resource-Based view of Social Entrepreneurship: How Stewardship Culture Benefits Scale of Social Impact. Journal of Business Ethics, 152(3), 589–611. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-016-3317-1

Bacq, S., and Janssen, F. (2011). The Multiple Faces of Social Entrepreneurship: A Review of Definitional Issues Based on Geographical and Thematic Criteria. Entrepreneurship & Regional Development, 23(5–6), 373–403. https://doi.org/10.1080/08985626.2011.577242

Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The Exercise of Control. W. H. Freeman.

Battilana, J., and Lee, M. (2014). Advancing Research on Hybrid Organizing: Insights from the Study of Social Enterprises. Academy of Management Annals, 8(1), 397–441. https://doi.org/10.5465/19416520.2014.893615

Dees, J. G. (1998). The Meaning of Social Entrepreneurship. Kauffman Center for Entrepreneurial Leadership, Stanford University.

Desa, G., and Basu, S. (2013). Optimization or Bricolage? Overcoming Resource Constraints in Global Social Entrepreneurship. Strategic Entrepreneurship Journal, 7(1), 26–49. https://doi.org/10.1002/sej.1150

Doherty, B., Haugh, H., and Lyon, F. (2014). Social Enterprises as Hybrid Organizations: A Review and Research Agenda. International Journal of Management Reviews, 16(4), 417–436. https://doi.org/10.1111/ijmr.12028

Ebrahim, A., Battilana, J., and Mair, J. (2014). The Governance of Social Enterprises: Mission Drift and Accountability Challenges in Hybrid Organizations. Research in Organizational Behavior, 34, 81–100. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.riob.2014.09.001

Gupta, P., Chauhan, S., Paul, J., and Jaiswal, M. P. (2020). Social Entrepreneurship Research: A Review and Future Research Agenda. Journal of Business Research, 113, 209–229. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2020.03.032

Hockerts, K. (2017). Determinants of social entrepreneurial intentions. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 41(1), 105–130. https://doi.org/10.1111/etap.12171

Hota, P. K., Subramanian, B., and Narayanamurthy, G. (2020). Mapping the Intellectual Structure of Social Entrepreneurship Research: A Citation/Co-Citation Analysis. Journal of Business Ethics, 166(1), 89–114. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-019-04129-4

Kruse, P. (2020). Can there only be one? An Empirical Comparison of four Models on Social Entrepreneurial intention Formation. International Entrepreneurship and Management Journal, 16(2), 641–665. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11365-019-00608-2

Mair, J., Martí, I., and Ventresca, M. J. (2012). Building Inclusive Markets in Rural Bangladesh: How Intermediaries Work Institutional voids. Academy of Management Journal, 55(4), 819–850. https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2010.0627

Mair, J., and 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

Mair, J., and Noboa, E. (2006). Social Entrepreneurship: How Intentions to Create a Social Venture are Formed. In J. Mair, J. Robinson, & K. Hockerts (Eds.), Social entrepreneurship (121–135). Palgrave Macmillan. https://doi.org/10.1057/9780230625655_8

Nicholls, A. (2010). The Legitimacy of Social Entrepreneurship: Reflexive Isomorphism in a Pre-Paradigmatic Field. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 34(4), 611–633. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-6520.2010.00397.x

Page, M. J., McKenzie, J. E., Bossuyt, P. M., Boutron, I., Hoffmann, T. C., Mulrow, C. D., Shamseer, L., Tetzlaff, J. M., Akl, E. A., Brennan, S. E., Chou, R., Glanville, J., Grimshaw, J. M., Hróbjartsson, A., Lalu, M. M., Li, T., Loder, E. W., Mayo-Wilson, E., McDonald, S., … Moher, D. (2021). The PRISMA 2020 Statement: An Updated Guideline for Reporting Systematic Reviews. BMJ, 372*, n71. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.n71

Rawhouser, H., Cummings, M., and Newbert, S. L. (2019). Social Impact Measurement: Current Approaches and Future Directions for Social Entrepreneurship Research. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 43(1), 82–115. https://doi.org/10.1177/1042258717727718

Saebi, T., Foss, N. J., and Linder, S. (2019). Social Entrepreneurship Research: Past Achievements and Future Promises. Journal of Management, 45(1), 70–95. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206318793196

Santos, F., Pache, A.-C., and Birkholz, C. (2015). Making Hybrids Work: Aligning Business Models and Organizational Design for Social Enterprises. California Management Review, 57(3), 36–58. https://doi.org/10.1525/cmr.2015.57.3.36

Shaw, E., and Carter, S. (2007). Social entrepreneurship: Theoretical antecedents and empirical analysis of entrepreneurial processes and outcomes. Journal of Small Business and Enterprise Development, 14(3), 418–434. https://doi.org/10.1108/14626000710773529

Smith, W. K., Gonin, M., and Besharov, M. L. (2013). Managing Social-Business Tensions: A Review and Research Agenda for Social Enterprise. Business Ethics Quarterly, 23(3), 407–442. https://doi.org/10.5840/beq201323327

Stephan, U., Uhlaner, L. M., and Stride, C. (2015). Institutions and Social Entrepreneurship: The Role of Institutional Voids, Institutional Support, and Institutional Configurations. Journal of International Business Studies, 46(3), 308–331. https://doi.org/10.1057/jibs.2014.38

Tranfield, D., Denyer, D., and Smart, P. (2003). Towards a Methodology for Developing Evidence-Informed Management Knowledge by Means of Systematic Review. British Journal of Management, 14(3), 207–222. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-8551.00375

Weerawardena, J., and Mort, G. S. (2006). Investigating Social Entrepreneurship: A Multidimensional Model. Journal of World Business, 41(1), 21–35. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jwb.2005.09.001

Zahra, S. A., Gedajlovic, E., Neubaum, D. O., and Shulman, J. M. (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