Normal View Dyslexic View
Thematic Article
Social entrepreneurship ecosystem development in extreme contexts: a comparative study of Ukraine and the UK
Abstract
This article underscores the need for social entrepreneurship ecosystem research in extreme contexts to conceptualise the idiosyncrasies of crisis-induced dynamics and ecosystem building during significant disruption. To address these critical research needs, this article develops theoretical understanding through empirical insights from practitioners’ experiences. By integrating my empirical findings, I develop a theoretical framework that illuminates how social entrepreneurs resourcefully navigate institutional contexts by leveraging four key pillars—government policy and regulatory framework, funding and finance, social capital, and educational and scientific potential. This understanding contributes to both theoretical conceptualisation and practical approaches to ecosystem development, particularly in addressing systemic challenges of limited awareness, effective cross-sector collaboration, and financial sustainability. Methodologically, this research employs an inductive, qualitative study through semi-structured interviews with Ukrainian and British social entrepreneurs. Comparative analytical techniques examine how practitioners operating in extreme contexts conceptualise their ecosystem models and navigate complex stakeholder relationships within contrasting institutional environments. This article is published in the Thematic Collection ‘Researchers at Risk: the view from Ukrainians in the UK’.
Keywords
social entrepreneurshipecosystemextreme contextssystemic challengesfinancial sustainabilitystakeholder relationshipscross-sector collaborationIntroduction
Social entrepreneurship plays a pivotal role in addressing complex socio-economic problems, particularly at local and community levels. Over the past two decades, significant transformations have rendered the boundaries of what can be termed social entrepreneurship increasingly fluid and dynamic, as practitioners respond to an accelerating pace of innovation and emerging challenges. In the face of these challenges, social enterprises increasingly struggle to maintain resilience while navigating intensified resource constraints, regulatory ambiguities, and the growing complexity of balancing social impact with financial sustainability (Besharov 2022; Dees 2018). Social entrepreneurs could benefit a lot from an improved understanding of complex stakeholder relationships and the systemic structures that underlie them. To develop this understanding, we should shift our focus from observing only individual enterprises towards a focus on ‘social entrepreneurship ecosystems’ instead. In this way, we may address the important need for collaborative leadership practices that engage different stakeholder groups.
While scholars have examined entrepreneurial ecosystems (Isenberg 2011; Stam & Spigel 2016) and their knowledge-based dynamics (Fotopoulos 2023; Rawhouser et al. 2025), alongside research on entrepreneurship in extreme contexts (Alvi et al. 2019; Hannah et al. 2009), as well as social entrepreneurship through an ecosystem lens (Bhardwaj et al. 2023; Borzaga et al. 2020), the extant literature reveals a critical gap in conceptualising social entrepreneurship ecosystem dynamics under extreme contexts. In particular, there is limited insight into how social entrepreneurs leverage their practical knowledge to construct meaningful stakeholder relationships and develop innovative solutions to systemic challenges when navigating the unique complexities of extreme contexts.
Addressing the ecosystem level in extreme contexts, I seek to answer the following research questions: (1) How do social entrepreneurs construct and navigate social entrepreneurship ecosystems through collaborative interactions in extreme contexts? and (2) How do challenges in stakeholder relationships and resource access drive social entrepreneurs to develop innovative collaborative approaches within these ecosystems?
To answer these questions, I conduct an inductive, qualitative study that contributes to social entrepreneurship practice by examining how diverse ecosystem stakeholders participate in developing, advancing, and adapting ecosystem structures within markedly different national contexts. My comparative analysis of social entrepreneurship ecosystems in Ukraine and the United Kingdom identifies three primary systemic challenges that emerge within these ecosystems—limited awareness and understanding of social entrepreneurship and its potential impact amongst stakeholders, difficulties in fostering effective cross-sector collaboration, and substantial barriers to financial sustainability—during extreme contexts of Brexit, pandemic, and armed conflict.
The selection of Ukraine and the United Kingdom as comparative cases is strategically motivated by several factors. First, both countries represent distinctly different stages of social entrepreneurship ecosystem maturity, enabling examination of how systemic challenges manifest across varied developmental contexts. Second, Ukraine’s ongoing experience with multiple overlapping extreme contexts—including the aftermath of the 2014 Revolution of Dignity, the Covid-19 pandemic, and Russia’s full-scale military invasion beginning in February 2022—provides a revealing lens for understanding ecosystem resilience under extraordinary pressure. Ukraine’s ecosystem, shaped by its distinct historical, political, and economic trajectory, offers especially compelling insights into systemic challenges under extreme conditions. The conflict has fundamentally transformed Ukraine’s social entrepreneurship landscape: social enterprises have rapidly pivoted to address urgent humanitarian needs, from providing shelter and psychological support to internally displaced persons to developing innovative solutions for infrastructure reconstruction.
The UK’s more established ecosystem provides a contrasting perspective on the nature of these systemic challenges within a stable but inequality-challenged advanced economy. While facing its own challenges through Brexit disruptions, the pandemic, and deepening regional inequalities, the UK operates within comparatively stable institutional frameworks.
Thus, by integrating my empirical insights, I propose a theoretical framework aimed at comprehending social entrepreneurship ecosystems operating in extreme contexts. This framework addresses two critical dimensions: first, examining the ecosystem’s structural foundation by identifying key pillars that create a supportive and dynamic environment for ecosystem functioning; and, second, emphasising the importance of building effective collaboration between social entrepreneurs and key stakeholders to address systemic challenges.
Theoretical context
Stories about social entrepreneurs typically emphasise their ability to solve social or environmental problems through hybrid organisational models and act as change agents in their communities. However, these narratives rarely examine how social entrepreneurs leverage their practical knowledge to navigate the unique complexities and systemic challenges presented by extreme contexts. Building on Hannah et al.’s (2009) conceptualisation of extreme contexts as environments where extreme events ‘may exceed the organisation’s capacity to prevent and result in an extensive and intolerable magnitude of physical, psychological, or material consequences’, this study explores how social entrepreneurship ecosystems develop within such challenging environments.
To address this limitation, social entrepreneurs could benefit substantially from an improved understanding of complex stakeholder relationships and the systemic structures that underlie them—requiring a shift in focus from individual enterprises to the broader ‘social entrepreneurship ecosystem’ (SEE).
This ecosystem perspective aligns with broader research on entrepreneurial ecosystems, which has gained significant attention in academic discourse worldwide, reflecting growing recognition of their critical role in modern entrepreneurship theory and practice. Stam & Spigel (2016) argue that entrepreneurial ecosystems, as a set of interdependent actors/institutions and resources, coordinate in such a way that they enable productive entrepreneurship within a particular territory. Their approach to entrepreneurial ecosystems not only sees entrepreneurship as a result of a system, but also sees entrepreneurs as central actors—leaders—in creating such a system and keeping it healthy (Stam 2015). Moreover, Muldoon et al. (2018) theorise that entrepreneurial ecosystems facilitate interactions among key stakeholders, fostering a sense of cooperation wherein enterprises can exchange resources. This cooperation among stakeholders is particularly beneficial and crucial for entrepreneurs who face two main challenges: identifying an opportunity and learning to utilise resources to seize that opportunity.
Scholars conceptualise entrepreneurial ecosystems through a set of interconnected foundational pillars, which include: policy, finance, culture, human capital, and markets (Isenberg 2011); networks of entrepreneurs, leadership, talent, and knowledge (Stam 2015); and mentors, advisors, support systems, regulatory framework and infrastructure, education and training, major universities as catalysts, and cultural support (World Economic Forum 2013). Each of these pillars encompasses a multitude of components that collectively creates a supportive environment for businesses to flourish. However, in extreme contexts, these pillars may be disrupted, requiring entrepreneurs to engage in what Alvi et al. (2019) term ‘symbolic bricolage’—creatively reconstructing ecosystem elements to maintain functionality despite systemic barriers.
The focus of these pillars extends to the availability of crucial factors—resources—such as human capital, finance, and services; the formal (‘government and regulatory framework’) and informal (‘cultural support’) institutional mechanisms that facilitate entrepreneurship; and, ultimately, access to both domestic and international customer markets (Stam 2015). The presence of and interaction between these pillars greatly influence an ecosystem’s success.
Ecosystem relationships are complicated by a variety of stakeholders: resource providers, beneficiaries, customers, competitors, complementary organisations and allies, opponents and troublemakers, and affected or influential bystanders. They have to operate within specific environmental conditions, such as within government structures, infrastructure, natural resources, culture, and traditions of a market, all while interacting with and influencing each other (Bloom & Dees 2008). In extreme contexts, these relationships become even more complex as traditional power dynamics shift, and new forms of collaboration emerge out of necessity.
The sheer number of factors which recent researchers have included in their models, as evidenced by the number of pillars listed above, reflects a departure from traditional economic perspectives centred around businesses, towards a new paradigm that places greater emphasis on the significance of people, networks, and institutions. This shift underscores the importance of acknowledging the role of knowledge and its dissemination within this new economic paradigm, particularly when examining how entrepreneurs navigate extreme contexts through collaborative ecosystem building rather than individual enterprise development.
Academic inquiry into social entrepreneurship ecosystems, while growing, has received less attention than traditional entrepreneurial ecosystems, despite their similarly complex nature as systems integrating diverse factors, resources, stakeholders, and processes (Bhardwaj et al. 2023; Borzaga et al. 2020). From the entrepreneurial ecosystems literature, I take inspiration from Adner’s (2017) ecosystem theory and apply it to social entrepreneurship ecosystems; Adner’s theory provides essential concepts and principles for analysing ecosystem organisation and components, examines the actions involved, the actors or entities that influence these actions, their respective roles or positions, and the interconnections between them.
The diversity of stakeholders in social entrepreneurship ecosystems creates both opportunities and challenges for collaboration. While stakeholders associated with social missions (foundations, donors, and nonprofit organisations) often have different identities from business-oriented actors (customers, investors, and suppliers) (Revko 2023; Smith et al. 2013), successful ecosystems must integrate these diverse perspectives. Indeed, one EU report found that social entrepreneurship ecosystems extend beyond these core actors to include educational institutions, government authorities, business associations, incubators, accelerators, and local communities, further enriching an ecosystem’s complexity (Borzaga et al. 2020).
This theoretical foundation sets the stage for examining how social entrepreneurs in Ukraine and the United Kingdom develop resilient ecosystems that can withstand and adapt to extreme contextual challenges while maintaining their social mission focus.
Methodology
To answer my research questions, I employed an inductive, qualitative study based on semi-structured interviews, alongside the application of comparative methods to observe the dynamics of social entrepreneurs’ relationships with key stakeholders in extreme contexts. Following a grounded theory data gathering approach (Gioia et al. 2013), I developed five specific selection criteria to analyse how social entrepreneurs in Ukraine and the United Kingdom utilise practice-based knowledge to construct and navigate ecosystem structures while addressing systemic challenges through cross-sectoral collaboration.
Research approaches
I focus my study on the integration of an ecosystem approach (Bhardwaj et al. 2023) and stakeholder theory (Freeman et al. 2010). This synthesis is predicated on systems thinking, which posits that complex systemic challenges can only be effectively addressed through the engagement and support of all members, or stakeholders, within a network (Hitt et al. 2008). The stakeholder approach cultivates an environment wherein diverse knowledge, experiences, and expertise are shared and integrated. By bringing together stakeholders, social entrepreneurs can leverage collective intelligence to co-create innovative solutions that address the multifaceted nature of challenges in extreme contexts. Moreover, social entrepreneurs can act as ecosystem connectors on a global scale, connecting distinct regional social entrepreneurship.
I also analyse social entrepreneurship ecosystems holistically, considering the interrelationships between different pillars, stakeholders, and contextual factors. By examining the unique challenges encountered by social entrepreneurs in Ukraine and the United Kingdom, I integrate empirical findings to understand how cultural, economic, and political factors shape ecosystem development in extreme contexts. This cross-cultural analysis facilitates knowledge exchange, allowing for the identification of best practices and the development of a theoretical framework for comprehending a social entrepreneurship ecosystem.
Data collection
I conducted anonymous semi-structured interviews with Ukrainian and British social entrepreneurs between June 2023 and April 2024. The semi-structured interview consisted of several modules: The first two modules were designed to collect data on the general characteristics of the social enterprise (for example, type, number of employees, year of establishment, social and business components). The other modules addressed the following dimensions of social enterprises: key stakeholders and relationships with each of them, access to resources and support, and challenges faced social entrepreneurs in engaging with key stakeholders.
I sought respondents through my personal contacts with social entrepreneurs, based on my experience of researching and teaching in this field for nearly a decade. Furthermore, I used snowball sampling, which facilitated access to unique and specialised networks within Ukrainian and British organisations, centres, and platforms dedicated to nurturing the development of social entrepreneurship ecosystems in these countries. This approach ensured a more targeted and relevant selection of respondents. Potential participants were more inclined to engage in interviews when introduced through trusted networks, leading to higher response rates and a more robust dataset.
The process of selecting respondents was based on several criteria:
1.
Geographic Diversity: I selected respondents from various regions in Ukraine and the United Kingdom to capture diverse perspectives and regional influences in the development of social entrepreneurship ecosystems. The sample included fifteen Ukrainian respondents, encompassing social entrepreneurs from nine oblasts (regions) of Ukraine, and seventeen British respondents, consisting of social entrepreneurs from nine regions of England.
2.
Experience Level: To gather insights from only those with a proven track record in collaboration with multiple stakeholders and substantial understanding of industry, I selected social entrepreneurs with five or more years of experience in social business.
3.
Industry Diversity: The interviewees came from diverse industries and sectors recognised by the International Labour Organization.
4.
Legal Form Variation: I selected interviewees who worked within various legal structures.
By considering these criteria, the selection process ensured a diverse and comprehensive sample of social entrepreneurs. To preserve the confidentiality and anonymity of the respondents and their organisations, they are named Interviewee #1, Interviewee #2 … Interviewee #32.
Table 1
Description of interviewees—Ukrainian social entrepreneurs.
| Type of industry | No. of workers | Years operating | Legal form | Key stakeholders | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Interviewee #1 | Financial and insurance activities | 10 | 5 | Sole proprietor | Government institutions, education and research institutions, business associations |
| Interviewee #2 | Wholesale and retail trade | 7 | 5 | Sole proprietor | Social enterprises, education and research institutions, business associations |
| Interviewee #3 | Professional, scientific and technical activities | 12 | 9 | Limited liability company | Government institutions, social enterprises, social investors, donors, business associations, education and research institutions, and global umbrella organisations (Ashoka) |
| Interviewee #4 | Accommodation and food service activities | 50 | 6 | Limited liability company in cooperation with non-governmental organisation (NGO) | Government institutions, social enterprises, education and research institutions, and mass media |
| Interviewee #5 | Education | 5 | 15 | Individual person–entrepreneur in cooperation with NGO | Government institutions, social enterprises, social investors and donors, business, education and research institutions, community and international organisations |
| Interviewee #6 | Agriculture, forestry and fishing | 3 | 5 | Sole proprietor | Social enterprises, business, social investors and donors, education and research institutions, and international organisations |
| Interviewee #7 | Arts, entertainment and recreation | 20 | 7 | Sole proprietor in cooperation with charitable organisation | Government institutions, social donors, social enterprises, business, mass media, education and research institutions, and international organisations |
| Interviewee #8 | Manufacturing | 3 | 5 | Sole proprietor | Government institutions, social enterprises, social investors and donors, education and research institutions, and international organisations |
| Interviewee #9 | Information and communication | 5 | 6 | Limited liability company in cooperation with NGO | Business, social investors, and libraries |
| Interviewee #10 | Wholesale and retail trade | 6 | 9 | Sole proprietor in cooperation with NGO | Government institutions, social enterprises, social investors and donors, business, mass media, education and research institutions, and international humanitarian organisations |
| Interviewee #11 | Construction | 30 | 6 | Limited liability company in cooperation with NGO | Government institutions, business, and community |
| Interviewee #12 | Manufacturing | 18 | 8 | Limited liability company | Government institutions, social enterprises, social donors, business, and education and research institutions |
| Interviewee #13 | Education | 62 | 10 | Limited liability company in cooperation with charitable organisation | Government institutions, social enterprises, social donors, business, and education and research institutions |
| Interviewee #14 | Education | 15 | 6 | Sole proprietor | Government institutions, social donors, business, community, and education and research institutions |
| Interviewee #15 | Accommodation and food service activities | 26 | 10 | Limited liability company in cooperation with NGO | Government institutions, social enterprises, business, and education and research institutions |
Table 2
Description of interviewees—British social entrepreneurs.
| Type of industry | No. of workers | Years operating | Legal form | Key stakeholders | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Interviewee #16 | Education | 9 | 14 | Community interest company (CIC) by shares | Social enterprises, business, education and research institutions, and community |
| Interviewee #17 | Manufacturing | 32 | 6 | Charitable organisation | Government institutions, education and research institutions, community |
| Interviewee #18 | Information and communication | 4 | 18 | CIC | Government institutions, community, and education and research institutions |
| Interviewee #19 | Education | 5 | 6 | CIC by guarantee | Government institutions, social enterprises, business, and education and research institutions |
| Interviewee #20 | Information and communication | 3 | 11 | CIC | Government institutions, social donors, business, education and research institutions, museums, and mass media |
| Interviewee #21 | Education | 3 | 5 | Private limited company | Social enterprises, education and research institutions |
| Interviewee #22 | Information and communication | 29 | 10 | CIC | Government institutions, social donors, business, education and research institutions, community, mass media, and libraries |
| Interviewee #23 | Human health and social work activities | 18 | 6 | CIC by shares | Government institutions, social investors, charitable organisations, and public health organisations |
| Interviewee #24 | Education | 5 | 16 | CIC | Government institutions, education and research institutions, and charitable organisations |
| Interviewee #25 | Education | 14 | 11 | CIC | Government institutions, business, education and research institutions, and charitable organisations |
| Interviewee #26 | Wholesale and retail trade | 43 | 7 | Private limited company | Business, education and research institutions, community, social investors and donors |
| Interviewee #27 | Education | 4 | 6 | Charitable organisation | Government institutions, social enterprises, business, education and research institutions, and community |
| Interviewee #28 | Accommodation and food service activities | 57 | 15 | Charitable organisation | Government institutions, social enterprises, social donors, business, education and research institutions, museums and community |
| Interviewee #29 | Human health and social work activities | 1 | 9 | Private limited company | Social enterprises, education and research institutions, and community |
| Interviewee #30 | Education | 19 | 61 | Charitable organisation | Government institutions, social enterprises, social investors and donors, business, education and research institutions, museums and community |
| Interviewee #31 | Arts, entertainment and recreation | 30 | 20 | Charitable organisation | Government institutions, social enterprises, education and research institutions, media, global umbrella organisations |
| Interviewee #32 | Information and communication | 7 | 13 | CIC | Government institutions, social enterprises, business, education and research institutions |
I audio-recorded, transcribed, and uploaded my interviews into NVivo. I then analysed my data through coding, which facilitated my assessment of a set of predefined theoretical concepts, such as identifying challenges faced by social entrepreneurs, understanding the ecosystem and their key stakeholders (deductive codes). Simultaneously, this permitted the study of unique issues raised by interviewees themselves (inductive codes) (Grbich 2013). These codes can refer to issues, topics, ideas, or opinions that are evident in the data (Hennink et al. 2011).
Findings
My findings shed considerable light on the numerous challenges faced by social entrepreneurs, revealing the underlying factors that contribute to these difficulties. Moreover, the research provides insights into how social entrepreneurs cultivate common ground and address collaboration challenges with key stakeholder groups across public, private, and civil society sectors. My respondents identified significant challenges in collaborating with crucial stakeholders, including government institutions, social enterprises, global umbrella organisations, educational and research institutions, business associations, incubators, accelerators, social investors, donors, and community, whilst highlighting the practical challenges facing Ukrainian and British social entrepreneurs operating in extreme contexts.
Initially, my findings revealed limited awareness and understanding of social entrepreneurship and its potential impact among stakeholders across the public, private, and civil society sectors. Individuals in public sector organisations sometimes thought that social enterprises were simply looking for grant funding, but this is not the case.
Moreover, there was a sense of a history of government attempts to hide social problems, for example, during the period of the Soviet Union. One participant, a British social entrepreneur, told us:
Are there really many people with disabilities? Are there really many people who struggle with homelessness, all the other things that sometimes the government doesn’t want to acknowledge? But this is where social entrepreneurs want to work on solving these problems. (Interviewee #16)
Some respondents, British social entrepreneurs, pointed out that the current government of the United Kingdom does not fully understand what social entrepreneurship is and why it is important to develop this sector of the economy. The Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport (DCMS) coordinates government policy towards social enterprises across every part of England. However, some respondents noted that social enterprises are associated only with the charity sector under this coordination. In their opinion, this is not the right place. Many argued that social enterprises should be coordinated by the Department for Business and Trade. Thus, it seems most respondents believe it is extremely important that the government perceives social entrepreneurship as a business by investing in infrastructure and support.
Moreover, many described how, in the United Kingdom, varying regional regulations and bureaucratic processes create complexities for social enterprises operating across different localities. Ukrainian social entrepreneurs also note that bureaucracy is a certain challenge in the process of ecosystem development. One participant said:
The biggest difficulty is bureaucracy, which shows very low flexibility in the process of reporting and making adjustments to existing projects. Even if social entrepreneurs and their team find new innovative solutions in the process of project implementation and see directions that can provide more value. (Interviewee #13)
In line with limited awareness and understanding, social entrepreneurs are confronted with a formidable challenge in fostering effective collaboration and engagement with key stakeholders. Social entrepreneurs in both countries encounter considerable obstacles in establishing productive and enduring collaborations with stakeholders from diverse sectors (public, private, civil society) due to fundamentally divergent priorities, distinctly different organisational cultures, incompatible decision-making processes, and persistent communication barriers that create structural impediments to effective partnership formation. One British social entrepreneur articulated this challenge, telling us:
A lot of stakeholders believe that social enterprises have a lot of money therefore they compete for it. Whereas collaboration would be a much better way of working to create a stronger voice together. (Interviewee #16)
This competitive mindset primarily precludes efficacious exchange and dissemination of knowledge across sectors. However, my findings revealed that relationships matter more than formal contracts in overcoming these barriers. When institutional systems break down or prove inadequate, genuine connections and trust-based relationships become the foundation that enables social entrepreneurs to navigate challenges and maintain collaborative partnerships. Due to a lack of awareness or understanding of their social missions and innovative business models, social entrepreneurs in both countries face particular challenges in establishing these crucial trust-based relationships and credibility with key stakeholder groups, particularly in sectors where the concept of social entrepreneurship is still relatively new or misunderstood.
Furthermore, social entrepreneurs who participated in the study consistently highlighted achieving financial sustainability for their social enterprises as the paramount challenge they encounter in their practice. This significant challenge confronting social enterprises is intrinsically associated with the hybrid nature of their mission, compelling social entrepreneurs to remain accountable for delivering both robust financial performance and meaningful social outcomes simultaneously. These dual imperatives are often inherently contrasting and create structural tensions, as financial objectives frequently compete with social impact goals, presenting complex dilemmas that social entrepreneurs must navigate in the majority of operational scenarios (Besharov 2022; Granados et al. 2017).
Whilst both Ukrainian and British social enterprises operate primarily through trading, they differ in their supplementary funding approaches. British social enterprises generate most income through trading (82 per cent on average), yet demonstrate sophisticated funding diversification—with government grants serving as the main income source for 12 per cent of organisations, and public sector trading relationships extending across health services (26 per cent receive NHS funding) and local authorities. This supportive ecosystem enables British social enterprises to collectively generate £1.2 billion in profits and reinvest £1 billion of these profits into their social missions (Mission Critical. State of Social Enterprise Survey 2023 2023: 14–19). One British social entrepreneur told us that:
… to be more entrepreneurial and more creative about what social enterprise does. (Interviewee #18)
Ukrainian social enterprises, conversely, typically maintain a more purely commercial model integrated with their social missions, without access to comparable grant funding ecosystems or public sector partnership opportunities. This distinction is evident in the following observation:
We believe that social enterprises can receive grants in two cases: when it is opening, that is, they need money to start, they need equipment, they need premises, they need to guarantee a salary for a certain period, and they have not yet taken off. And the second case is when it is developing. (Interviewee #10)
Social entrepreneurs in both countries have encountered significant systemic challenges within extreme contexts: in the United Kingdom, navigating the Brexit and Covid-19 disruptions, while Ukraine confronts the devastating impact of armed conflict alongside pandemic recovery. These extreme contexts—Brexit, pandemic, and armed conflict—have fundamentally transformed their operational environments, affecting resource availability, stakeholder relationships, and their capacity to serve communities in need.
Thus, British social entrepreneurs participating in the study described how the government’s support for social entrepreneurship in the United Kingdom and its overall comprehension of the sector’s economic significance have undergone significant changes post-Brexit. Moreover, Brexit has diminished business opportunities for collaboration with European partners. Many social enterprises in the United Kingdom lost access to EU funding streams, such as the European Social Fund, which had been a critical source of financial support for community projects.
The Covid-19 pandemic introduced universal challenges across both countries—including financial pressures, operational disruptions, and forced transitions to remote working models that have been difficult for organisations that rely on face-to-face communication.
Ukrainian social entrepreneurs pointed to such challenges as the fall of the market during the armed conflict, economic strain, and shifting government priorities, which may hinder the ability of social entrepreneurs to effectively interact with and receive support from key stakeholder groups. Thus, the war has exacerbated global economic instability, influencing energy prices and supply chains, thereby affecting social enterprises in the United Kingdom through increased costs and uncertainty. Additionally, the ongoing war in Ukraine has undoubtedly exacerbated the challenges faced by social entrepreneurs in their interactions with government stakeholders and in receiving systemic support. However, as one Ukrainian social entrepreneur noted:
The government generally doesn’t understand what social enterprise is and what its role is … there is no system support … social enterprise can play one of the key roles in reconstruction. (Interviewee #5)
Despite this lack of governmental understanding, the extreme context of war has paradoxically fostered unprecedented collaboration between previously disparate sectors. As the same respondent observed:
If before civil society was usually in opposition to government authorities, … then the pandemic and war brought them closer. And essentially naturally there is such an evolution into more partnership relations. (Interviewee #5)
This evolution reflects a fundamental characteristic of the Ukrainian social entrepreneurship ecosystem, which differs markedly from what we observe in the United Kingdom. Ukrainian social enterprises demonstrate an extraordinary level of community involvement, where trust and shared values drive partnerships, rather than formal institutional support. Crucially, my findings reveal that community support plays an extremely important role not only in the survival of Ukrainian social enterprises but enables them to thrive within conflict settings. Local communities have become the cornerstone of resilience, providing networks of mutual aid, resource sharing, and collaborative problem-solving that transcend traditional institutional boundaries. This community-driven approach has allowed Ukrainian social enterprises to maintain operations, adapt their missions to wartime needs, and continue delivering essential services, despite the collapse of formal support structures.
Furthermore, my findings allowed me to elucidate factors that cultivate common ground and facilitate productive collaboration between social entrepreneurs and key stakeholder groups. These factors reveal how social entrepreneurs delineate the pivotal pillars that engender productive collaboration and construct an effective framework for catalysing thriving social entrepreneurship ecosystems during periods of extreme disruption.
The first of these factors concerns policy and regulation. Government policies and support programmes play a crucial role in shaping the ecosystem framework. British and Ukrainian social entrepreneurs acknowledge insufficient support from the government. Thus, Ukraine has not implemented specific legislation for the development of the social entrepreneurship ecosystem. Nevertheless, the country has a significant number of social enterprises, and the situation continues to develop.
Local authorities in both countries support the activities of social enterprises by providing informational support, offering premises at relatively low rent or for free, and providing access to equipment. They also procure goods or products from these social enterprises. Moreover, the British government awards contracts to social enterprises. Respondents mentioned that the most crucial support for the growth and success of their social enterprises from key stakeholders was recognition and the awareness by local authorities of the significance of social entrepreneurship ecosystems to the local economy and the use of various mechanisms to actively provide support. As one interviewee emphasised:
… I think there are two things. One is the awareness and recognition of the importance of social enterprise to their local economy. It’s pleasing to see more, particularly local government, acknowledging that more inclusive economic models, whatever they might be, are better for their local economy. So those conversations around community wealth building, inclusive economy, doughnut economics, better ways of doing business are all key—that’s important. (Interviewee #16)
Furthermore, access to funding serves as a crucial factor in establishing productive collaboration with key stakeholder groups and impacts the ecosystem’s structure and sustainability in both Ukraine and the United Kingdom. In the United Kingdom, a well-established funding landscape, including government grants and impact investors, plays a pivotal role. This financial accessibility not only nurtures collaboration but also strengthens trust among stakeholders, facilitating the growth of social enterprises and a scaling impact. Moreover, as one of the British respondents mentioned:
If you can get the private sector to understand that they will never have the reach into a community that a social enterprise can have, the two working together can be quite transformational. (Interviewee #16)
In Ukraine, despite the lack of specific legislation, access to funding remains a critical factor. Limited financial resources can hinder the collaborative efforts of stakeholders. However, as the social entrepreneurship landscape continues to evolve, increased funding opportunities can catalyse stronger relationships, fostering mutual support and resource exchange. Nevertheless, one Ukrainian social entrepreneur pointed out that:
… a crucial aspect in the advancement of the social entrepreneurship ecosystem lies in establishing conditions for social enterprises to function as sustainable and profitable businesses, rather than subsidised social organisations. (Interviewee #4)
In essence, the level of access to funding significantly influences the strength and effectiveness of relationships among key stakeholder groups, shaping the trajectory of social entrepreneurship ecosystems in both Ukraine and the United Kingdom.
The third factor is access to networking opportunities, which plays an important role in building productive relationships with key stakeholder groups, sharing experiences and knowledge. In both countries, networking events, conferences, and platforms offer avenues for social entrepreneurs to connect, exchange ideas, and forge collaborations. These encompassed key institutions across both countries, including the Skoll Centre for Social Entrepreneurship at Oxford University, Social Enterprise UK in London, the School for Social Entrepreneurs in London, the Ukrainian platform Social Business UA, and other key sector organisations. This interconnectedness strengthens an ecosystem’s structure, fostering a supportive environment for social enterprises.
However, my research findings highlighted insufficient engagement between both Ukrainian and British social enterprises and global social entrepreneurship umbrella organisations, such as Ashoka, the Schwab Foundation for Social Entrepreneurship, The Skoll Foundation, Acumen, and Catalyst Now (previously Catalyst 2030). Furthermore, only a few respondents noted their experience in collaborating with global umbrella organisations within the realm of social entrepreneurship. This limitation diminishes social enterprises’ access to contemporary knowledge, educational opportunities, and other resources crucial for fostering the development of the social entrepreneurship ecosystem on a global scale.
Crucially, the research demonstrates a robust interconnection between the factors that generate common ground and facilitate productive collaboration, and the multifaceted challenges encountered by social entrepreneurs. This relationship reveals how challenges in stakeholder relationships and resource access often serve as catalysts for developing innovative collaborative approaches across public, private, and civil society sectors (Figure 1).
Figure 1.
Synthesis of collaborative factors and challenges for social entrepreneurs. The diagram illustrates the dynamic interplay between collaboration challenges and ecosystem barriers, demonstrating how limited awareness and understanding, ineffective collaboration and engagement, and financial instability of social enterprises create a reinforcing cycle with policy and regulation constraints, restricted access to funding sources, and limited access to networking opportunities. Source: Author. © Author
A diagram with two dashed-line boxes connected by curved bidirectional arrows. Left-hand box contains three items: limited awareness and understanding, ineffective collaboration and engagement, financial instability of social enterprises. Right-hand box contains three items: policy and regulation, access to funding sources, access to networking opportunities. Arrows flow from left to right at the top and from right to left at the bottom, indicating a cyclical, reinforcing relationship between these factors.
This interconnection suggests that successful ecosystem navigation requires social entrepreneurs to transform challenges into collaborative opportunities. Furthermore, the findings indicate that understanding these relationships is essential for building resilient ecosystems capable of thriving in extreme contexts.
Discussion
Despite the growing numbers of social entrepreneurs as market actors, it is not fully clear how social entrepreneurial ecosystems work (Roundy 2016; Wurth et al. 2022), particularly when navigating systemic challenges in extreme contexts. Social entrepreneurs’ on-the-ground experiences, insights, and first-hand understanding of the systemic challenges—including limited stakeholder awareness, cross-sectoral collaboration difficulties, and financial sustainability barriers—amid extreme contexts like Brexit, pandemic, and armed conflict offer a rich tapestry of perspectives that can inform and shape a more robust and contextually relevant ecosystem framework.
Contributions to theory
The practice-based knowledge possessed by social entrepreneurs provides invaluable insights into how they construct and navigate social entrepreneurship ecosystem through systematic organisation of knowledge and collaborative interactions in response to significant challenges. According to this, my study proposed a theoretical framework for comprehending social entrepreneurship ecosystems in extreme contexts, which combines the key pillars—resources (government policy and regulatory framework, social capital, funding and finance, and educational and scientific potential) and key stakeholders (government institutions, community, social investors, donors, business associations and incubators, accelerators, educational and research institutions, global umbrella organisations, and social enterprises)—operating through both ‘top-down’ mechanisms from the public sector and ‘bottom-up’ social innovation from civil society, with private sector contributions through business investment and market expertise (Figure 2).
Figure 2.
A circular diagram showing the social entrepreneurship ecosystem with a central circle labelled ‘Social Entrepreneurship Ecosystem’ surrounded by six stakeholder circles: Community (top), Government Institutions (upper left), Social Enterprises (left), Global Umbrella Organizations (lower left), Educational and Research Institutions (bottom), Business Associations, Intermediaries and Accelerators (right), and Social Investors/Private Sector (upper right). Four large arrows point inward from four oval text boxes positioned at the cardinal directions. Top oval lists Social capital elements: human capital, leadership, societal norms, trust, solidarity values, civic engagement, collective interaction. Left oval describes Government Policy and Resource/Recovery Framework including taxation, financing mechanisms, non-repayable resources, and favourable legislation. Bottom oval outlines Educational and scientific potential, including formal and non-formal education, mentorship, lifelong learning, and research and innovation. Right oval details Funding and Finance including micro-loans, crowdfunding, venture capital funds, social funds and grants, angel investors, friends and family, private equity, and membership fees.
It is important to emphasise that mapping the key pillars that foster productive collaboration enables social entrepreneurs to transform challenges in stakeholder relationships and resource access into catalysts for developing innovative collaborative approaches. Understanding the interconnectedness of key stakeholders allows social entrepreneurs to identify how systemic challenges can drive adaptive solutions and create opportunities for transformative systemic impact within these ecosystems, particularly in extreme contexts.
Thus, the theoretical framework of a social entrepreneurship ecosystem allows us to reveal the primary responsibility of the government and its policy in the shaping and development of this ecosystem. It consists in creating the right regulatory framework conditions [for example, taxation, financial resources (public grants, tenders, public procurement, etc.), non-repayable resources, and employment protection legislation]. At the local level, government policy might enhance the ecosystem in a way that the key stakeholders can be identified and involved in a dialogue (Stam 2014).
Social capital creates opportunities for a social entrepreneurship ecosystem to mobilise various resources, act collectively, and influence the formation of productive collaborations between key stakeholders. According to Putman (Putnam 1993), social capital is realised based on interaction, norms, and trust within certain social organisations, to which I would add informal social networks and other civic groups. Building organisational capacity encompasses three interconnected elements: enhancing professional competencies, creating systems for knowledge exchange, and developing leadership potential that fosters collective social innovation through horizontal communication networks. This pillar ensures the sustainable development of a social entrepreneurship ecosystem and enhances their effectiveness in achieving a social impact.
Access to funding and finance, as a driving force for the development of a social entrepreneurship ecosystem, creates conditions for the formation of a social finance market. It can generate major advantages or disadvantages depending on the context (Amouri et al. 2021; Revko et al. 2023; Stam 2014). Financial resources of social entrepreneurship should be aimed at replicating effective business models. On the one hand, this can affect the innovative development of social enterprises, and on the other hand, it will contribute to financial sustainability (Revko et al. 2023).
The effective involvement of financial resources in a social entrepreneurship ecosystem is facilitated through diverse stakeholder networks operating at both local and global levels. While traditional financing resources include micro-loans, venture capital funds, social funds, grants, and membership fees, integration into global markets has expanded funding opportunities through international partnerships. Global social entrepreneurship umbrella organisations, such as the Schwab Foundation for Social Entrepreneurship, The Skoll Foundation, Acumen, and Catalyst Now, not only provide direct financial support but also create pathways to broader investment opportunities and resource mobilisation. Considering the social impact of an activity, collecting funds from contributors who may be specifically interested in a business’s long-term sustainability can sometimes be simpler (Amouri et al. 2021). This dual focus on local and global funding mechanisms creates a more resilient financial ecosystem that can better support the growth and impact of social enterprise.
Educational and scientific potential is a strategic direction for the formation of the intellectual basis of a social entrepreneurship ecosystem. The integration of social entrepreneurship into educational programmes involves a comprehensive transformation of the educational environment through the implementation of specialised training courses, the development of interdisciplinary educational modules, and the creation of innovative platforms for lifelong learning. It is important to use two model environments—one in the classroom and one in the field—for effectively educating social entrepreneurs (Revko 2023; Smith et al. 2012).
The development of research and innovation is considered a fundamental mechanism for increasing the scientific potential of social entrepreneurship. The creation of research centres and the introduction of innovative practices are aimed at developing a comprehensive scientific approach to the study of social entrepreneurship. Interdisciplinary research that combines sociological, economic, psychological, and managerial perspectives is of particular importance, creating a theoretical and methodological basis for the development of social innovations. This approach ensures not only the accumulation of knowledge, but also the creation of effective mechanisms for the transformation of theoretical developments into the practice of social entrepreneurship.
It is important to emphasise that the interaction of one pillar of the social entrepreneurship ecosystem with others brings about desired outputs that cannot be brought about by a single pillar in isolation. Moreover, entrepreneurs themselves can play several important roles in ecosystem building, including inspiration, mentorship, investment, new founders, and new staff (World Economic Forum 2013).
Conclusions
This study advances social entrepreneurship ecosystem theory by developing a comprehensive theoretical framework with empirical evidence from Ukraine and the United Kingdom to directly address how social entrepreneurs construct and navigate ecosystems through collaborative interactions in extreme contexts. My theoretical framework reveals that a social entrepreneurship ecosystem is characterised by dynamic cross-sectoral collaboration among three key sectors (public, private, civil society) to address systemic challenges. The public sector, through ‘top-down’ mechanisms, establishes regulatory frameworks and strategic initiatives that guide ecosystem development. The private sector contributes through business investment, mentorship, and market-based expertise. The civil society sector encompasses community organisations that drive ‘bottom-up’ social innovation while benefiting from services, alongside educational institutions that develop human capital and knowledge resources.
My findings demonstrate how social entrepreneurs resourcefully navigate these different institutional contexts by working with key pillars—government policy, social capital, funding, and educational potential—while building collaborative networks with diverse stakeholders. Crucially, my research reveals how challenges in stakeholder relationships and resource access drive social entrepreneurs to develop innovative collaborative approaches by engaging in collective reasoning and knowledge-sharing across these sectors. Social entrepreneurs co-create solutions in collaboration with public, private, and civil society actors that address complex systemic challenges more effectively than traditional approaches. This understanding of how social entrepreneurs transform ecosystem challenges into catalysts for innovation makes a significant contribution to both theoretical conceptualisation and practical approaches to ecosystem development, particularly in addressing challenges of limited awareness, effective collaboration, and financial sustainability across different national contexts and extreme circumstances.
References
AdnerR. (2017), ‘Ecosystem as structure: an actionable construct for strategy’, Journal of Management, 43(1): 39–58. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206316678451
AlviF.H., PrasadA. & SegarraP. (2019), ‘The political embeddedness of entrepreneurship in extreme contexts: the case of the West Bank’, Journal of Business Ethics, 157(1): 279–292. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-017-3637-9
AmouriA., FestaG., ShamsS.M.R., SakkaG. & RossiM. (2021), ‘Technological propensity, financial constraints, and entrepreneurial limits in young entrepreneurs’ social business enterprises: the Tunisian experience’, Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 173: 121126. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2021.121126
BesharovM. (2022), ‘Organizational hybridity, social enterprise, and social innovation: disentangling concepts to advance theory and practice’, in Social Innovation and Social Enterprises: Toward a Holistic Perspective (Cham, Springer International Publishing), 15–33. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-96596-9_2
BhardwajR., SrivastavaS., BindraS. & SangwanS. (2023), ‘An ecosystem view of social entrepreneurship through the perspective of systems thinking’, Systems Research and Behavioral Science, 40(1): 250–265. https://doi.org/10.1002/sres.2835
BloomP. & DeesG. (2008), ‘Cultivate your ecosystem’, Stanford Social Innovation Review, 6(1): 47–53.
BorzagaC. (2020), Social Enterprises and Their Ecosystems in Europe: Comparative Synthesis Report (Publications Office). https://data.europa.eu/doi/10.2767/567551
DeesJ.G. (2018), ‘The meaning of ‘social entrepreneurship’’, in
HamschmidtJ. & PirsonM. (eds), Case Studies in Social Entrepreneurship and Sustainability, 1st ed. (London, Routledge), 22–30. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781351278560-5
FotopoulosG. (2023), ‘Knowledge spillovers, entrepreneurial ecosystems and the geography of high growth firms’, Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 47(5): 1877–1914. https://doi.org/10.1177/10422587221111732
FreemanR.E. (2010), Stakeholder Theory: The State of the Art (Cambridge, Cambridge University Press). https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511815768
GioiaD.A., CorleyK.G. & HamiltonA.L. (2013), ‘Seeking qualitative rigor in inductive research: notes on the Gioia methodology’, Organizational Research Methods, 16(1): 15–31. https://doi.org/10.1177/1094428112452151
GranadosM.L., MohamedS. & HlupicV. (2017), ‘Knowledge management activities in social enterprises: lessons for small and non-profit firms’, Journal of Knowledge Management, 21(2): 376–396. https://doi.org/10.1108/JKM-01-2016-0026
GrbichC. (2013), Qualitative Data Analysis: An Introduction (London, Sage). https://doi.org/10.4135/9781529799606
HannahS.T., Uhl-BienM., AvolioB.J. & CavarrettaF.L. (2009), ‘A framework for examining leadership in extreme contexts’, The Leadership Quarterly, 20(6): 897–919. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2009.09.006
HenninkM., HutterI. & BaileyA. (2011), Qualitative Research Methods (London, Sage).
HittM.A., FreemanR.E. & HarrisonJ.S. (Eds.) (2008), The Blackwell Handbook of Strategic Management (3. [Nachdr.]), Blackwell).
IsenbergD. (2011), Introducing the Entrepreneurship Ecosystem: Four Defining Characteristics (Forbes). https://www.forbes.com/sites/danisenberg/2011/05/25/introducing-the-entrepreneurship-ecosystem-four-defining-characteristics/
Mission Critical. State of Social Enterprise Survey 2023 (p. 39). (2023). Social Enterprise Knowledge Centre.
MuldoonJ., BaumanA. & LucyC. (2018), ‘Entrepreneurial ecosystem: do you trust or distrust? Journal of Enterprising Communities: People and Places in the Global Economy, 12(2): 158–177. https://doi.org/10.1108/JEC-07-2017-0050
PutnamR.D. (1993), ‘The prosperous community: social capital and public life’, The American Prospect, 4(13): 35–42.
RawhouserH., SutterC., HolzaepfelN., CongerM. & NewbertS.L. (2025), ‘Knowledge-related resourcefulness for growth in weak entrepreneurial ecosystems’, Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 49(1): 159–195. https://doi.org/10.1177/10422587241259393
RevkoA. (2023), The Role of Education in the Social Entrepreneurship Ecosystem Development in Poland and Ukraine (Wydawnictwo naukowe Scholar). https://doi.org/10.7366/15094995s2306
RevkoA., VerbytskaA., ZaharinaT. & Marks-KrzyszkowskaM. (2023), ‘The financial dimension of developing social entrepreneurship: Polish and Ukrainian experiences’, Comparative Economic Research. Central and Eastern Europe, 26(4): 105–122. https://doi.org/10.18778/1508-2008.26.33
RoundyP.T. (2016), ‘Start-up community narratives: the discursive construction of entrepreneurial ecosystems’, The Journal of Entrepreneurship, 25(2): 232–248. https://doi.org/10.1177/0971355716650373
SmithW.K., BesharovM.L., WesselsA.K. & ChertokM. (2012), ‘A paradoxical leadership model for social entrepreneurs: challenges, leadership skills, and pedagogical tools for managing social and commercial demands’, Academy of Management Learning & Education, 11(3): 463–478. https://doi.org/10.5465/amle.2011.0021
SmithW.K., GoninM. & BesharovM.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
StamE. (2014), ‘The Dutch entrepreneurial ecosystem’, SSRN Electronic Journal, https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2473475
StamE. (2015), ‘Entrepreneurial ecosystems and regional policy: a sympathetic critique’, European Planning Studies, 23(9): 1759–1769. https://doi.org/10.1080/09654313.2015.1061484
StamE. & SpigelB. (2016), Entrepreneurial Ecosystems. U.S.E. Discussion Paper Series 16-13, https://dspace.library.uu.nl/handle/1874/347982
World Economic Forum (2013), ‘Entrepreneurial ecosystems around the globe and company growth dynamics’, Davos, 36: https://www3.weforum.org/docs/WEF_EntrepreneurialEcosystems_Report_2013.pdf
WurthB., StamE. & SpigelB. (2022), ‘Toward an entrepreneurial ecosystem research program’, Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 46(3): 729–778. https://doi.org/10.1177/1042258721998948
Cite
DOI: 10.5871/jba/013.a45
Published on: 3 December 2025
Volume: 13
Issue: Issue 4
Article view count: 262
Article download count: 23
Copyright statement
© The author(s) 2025. This is an open access article licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs 4.0 International LicenseCite this article
Revko, A. (2025), ‘Social entrepreneurship ecosystem development in extreme contexts: a comparative study of Ukraine and the UK’, Journal of the British Academy, 13(4): a45 https://doi.org/10.5871/jba/013.a45Crossref
Dimensions
Altmetric
Article metrics
View count: 262
Download count: 23
No Data Found
No Data Found
No Data Found
Received
October 2022
Accepted
May 2023
Published
July 2023
From the ‘culture wars’ to reparative histories Gurminder K. Bhambra, Elizabeth Edwards, Margot Finn, Fiona Williams
The ‘culture wars’ that dominate public discourse in the UK turn, very often, on the significance accorded to histories of empire, slavery, and colonialism. What seems to be primarily of concern is the place of such histories in the telling of our national story. In this section, the articles explore different ways in which we could think about the relationship of the past with the present. Specifically, the articles collected here use the frame of ‘reparative histories’ as a potentially more effective way of engaging with complex and contested pasts. They address the idea of a reparatory sociology, colonial photography, representation and indigenous spaces, the gendering of reparative histories, and the need to rethink the welfare state from such a perspective.
22 May 2024
Coming to terms with racial capitalism Gurminder K. Bhambra, Catherine Hall, Sarah A. Radcliffe
‘Coming to terms with racial capitalism’ brings together three scholars from the disciplines of History, Geography, and Sociology to open up consideration of this increasingly popular concept. This is done by engaging the idea of ‘racial capitalism’ with the historical role of colonialism in Jamaica, Latin America, and Ireland. Each author draws on the resources of their discipline to locate the concept within debates such as Black Marxism and to consider it in relation to discussions about Indigenous rights and questions of racism. Catherine Hall offers a case study of one temporal and spatial instance of racial capitalism in the mid-18th-century Atlantic world. Sarah A. Radcliffe examines the place of Indigenous peoples in the racial colonial capitalism of Latin America. The final paper by Gurminder K. Bhambra argues for the significance of colonialism to understandings of capitalism through an examination of Irish colonial history.
12 June 2025
No Data Found
