HOW SOCIAL ENTERPRISES CAN

CONTRIBUTE TO THE
SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT
GOALS (SDGs) A CONCEPTUAL
FRAMEWORK
David Littlewood and Diane Holt

ABSTRACT
In the recent 2015 report by Social Enterprise UK Think Global Trade
Social it is argued that social enterprises have an important role to play in
the achievement of the UN’s new sustainable development goals (SDGs).
However, with 17 SDGs and no less than 169 associated targets, understanding
how social enterprises can contribute to the achievement of these goals remains
challenging, particularly given the diversity of social enterprise models that exist
globally. This chapter contributes toward addressing this problem by introduc-
ing a framework for conceptualising how social enterprises can contribute to the
SDGs, illustrated with global examples. The chapter begins by reviewing what
has been written about social enterprises and the SDGs. This is followed by the
development and presentation of the conceptual framework. Finally, conclusions
and areas for future research on social enterprises and the SDGs are identified.
Keywords: Social enterprise; sustainable development goals (SDGs);
value chain; impact; social entrepreneurship; millennium development
goals

INTRODUCTION
In 2015, countries from around the world adopted the 2030 Agenda for
Sustainable Development, and the 17 sustainable development goals (SDGs)

Entrepreneurship and the Sustainable Development Goals

Contemporary Issues in Entrepreneurship Research, Volume 8, 33 46
Copyright r 2018 by Emerald Publishing Limited
All rights of reproduction in any form reserved
ISSN: 2040-7246/doi:10.1108/S2040-724620180000008007
33
34 DAVID LITTLEWOOD AND DIANE HOLT

associated with it (UN, 2017a). Achieving these goals will require the efforts of
governments, business and third sector actors, often working in collaboration.
However, as argued in a recent report by Social Enterprise UK Think Global
Trade Social social enterprises also have a potentially crucial role to play in
the achievement of these global goals (Social Enterprise UK, 2015). This chapter
focusses on understanding the role such social enterprises can play in contribut-
ing to the SDGs. More specifically, a conceptual framework for understanding
how social enterprises can contribute to the SDGs is developed and presented,
illustrated with social enterprise examples from around the world.
This chapter makes a number of contributions. To date, there has been lim-
ited consideration in extant social enterprise literature of relationships between
social enterprises and the SDGs, and more specifically of how social enterprises
can contribute to the achievement of the SDGs. Furthermore, entrepreneurship
and wider management scholarship on the SDGs has largely focused on engage-
ment with them by traditional business ventures, and especially multinational
companies (MNCs), for example, Kolk (2016) and Kolk, Kourula, and Pisani
(2017). Our chapter contributes towards addressing these gaps and imbalances.
To date, a key consideration for business in relation to the SDGs, and indeed
national and transnational policy makers, has been the development of tools
and frameworks for measuring and reporting business impacts on them. For
example, several SDG impact frameworks now exist (Leagnavar, Leone, &
Nagasaki, 2016; PWC, 2017; SDG Compass, 2017; Toniic, 2017). However,
these frameworks have often been developed by practitioners, and may lack a
strong conceptual foundation. In this chapter, we take a step back from trying
to measure the impacts of social enterprises on the SDGs and focus first on try-
ing to better understanding how such impact might occur. We believe this is an
important and necessary first step before the development of impact assessment
frameworks and tools, and regard existing efforts in this respect as somewhat
premature. Furthermore, the existing impact assessment frameworks for the
SDGs have largely been oriented towards traditional businesses and especially
MNCs rather than social enterprises. The conceptualisation presented in this
chapter thus has the potential to act as a foundation for more social enterprise-
specific SDG impact assessment frameworks and toolkits.
The chapter is structured as follows. We first review extant literature on
social enterprises and the SDGs. We then develop and present a conceptual
framework for understanding how social enterprises can contribute to the
SDGs. Finally, conclusions are offered, implications for practice discussed, and
future research opportunities identified.

SOCIAL ENTERPRISES AND THE SDGs:

WHAT DO WE KNOW?
Before discussing what we know about social enterprises and the SDGs it is
important to define more clearly what both of these actually are. While we are
cognisant of ongoing definitional debates in the field of social enterprise research
and practice, social enterprises are broadly understood in this chapter to be
Social Enterprises and the Sustainable Development Goals 35

organisations that trade for a social and/or environment purpose (Austin,

Stevenson, & Wei-Skillern, 2006). A social, environmental or broader ethical
mission is central to what social enterprises do, why they exist, and to the
achievement of which they give primacy over profit-making (Defourny &
Nyssens, 2006; Peattie & Morley, 2008). This prioritisation of social over eco-
nomic value creation is often regarded as a key boundary separating social
enterprises from traditional business ventures even those engaged in advanced
forms of corporate social responsibility (CSR). Meanwhile, income generation
through trading, another widely identified trait of social enterprises, is used to
distinguish social enterprises from charities (Langdon & Burkett, 2004;
Smallbone, Evans, Ekanem, & Butters, 2001). Scholars have identified the non-
profit maximising approach of social enterprises as another key characteristic
(Holt & Littlewood, 2015). Others have also stressed the important role of stake-
holder participation in social enterprise governance (Defourny & Nyssens, 2006;
Thompson & Doherty, 2006), and noted their frequent co-operative origins
(Apostolopoulos, Newbery, & Gkartzios, 2018). In recent scholarship, social
enterprises have also been conceptualised as a form of hybrid organisation
(Doherty, Haugh, & Lyon, 2014; Haigh, Walker, Bacq, & Kickul, 2015; Holt &
Littlewood, 2015). Hybrid organisational forms are those not aligned exclusively
with the idealised characteristics of either private, public or non-profit organisa-
tions (Billis, 2010). Through their pursuit of dual social/environmental and
financial objectives, social enterprises can be considered an archetypal form of
hybrid organisation (Doherty et al., 2014).
Moving next to the SDGs. The SDGs are a set of 17 goals and 169 associated
targets developed and adopted by 193 UN member countries as part of the 2030
Agenda for Sustainable Development (UN, 2017a). This agenda and the SDGs
officially came into force on 1 January 2016. For the next 15 years these goals,
which apply universally, will be pursued by countries around the world. The
SDGs are the successor to, and build upon, the eight millennium development
goals (MDGs) which concluded in 2015 (UN, 2017b). The SDGs were devel-
oped by an Open Working Group established by the UN in January 2013, who
consulted with a range of interested parties including governments, civil society
actors, the scientific community and representatives of business. In the case of
business, this process predominantly entailed engagement with large-scale busi-
ness associations like the World Business Council for Sustainable Development
(Kolk, 2016). Indeed, this process has been critiqued for its relatively narrow
focus for example on MNCs, its preoccupation with size, and for ignoring the
full potential for micro-, small- and medium-sized enterprises to also contribute
to realisation of the SDGs (Social Enterprise UK, 2015). Critics have also sug-
gested that the SDGs fail to sufficiently acknowledge the important role business
in general will need to play if they are to be achieved, and more especially the
potential contribution of responsible trading, social entrepreneurship and social
enterprises (Social Enterprise UK, 2015).
Having explained both, what a social enterprise is, and what the SDGs are,
we turn now to work examining relationships between them. As would be
expected, given the relative newness of the SDGs, academic literature examining
36 DAVID LITTLEWOOD AND DIANE HOLT

their relationship with social enterprises, and social entrepreneurship more

broadly, is still limited. Nevertheless, some examples can be found. For instance,
Buzinde, Shockley, Andereck, Dee, and Frank (2017) theorise social entre-
preneurship in tourism studies and consider how social entrepreneurial tourism
can potentially contribute to the SDGs. Meanwhile, Sheldon, Dredge, and
Daniele (2017) discuss the SDGs in relation to moving the research agenda on
social entrepreneurship and tourism forward. In a further relevant study,
Wanyama (2016) examines the potential for cooperatives to contribute to the
SDGs, particularly the goal in relation to decent work, as does Gicheru (2016).
Meanwhile, Ramani, SadreGhazi, and Gupta (2017) consider the role of social
entrepreneurship in contributing to the achievement of SDG6, sustainable man-
agement of water and sanitation, particularly in India. Finally, Rhadari, Sepasi,
and Moradi (2016), drawing upon a lens of Schumpeterian theory, present a
canvas for the realisation of the SDGs with social enterprises and social entre-
preneurship identified as critical agents in this process.
Scholarship examining the previous MDGs and their relationships with social
enterprises and entrepreneurship is also relevant to discussions in this chapter.
Over the course of the 15 years in which the MDGs were active, work explicitly
examining relationships between the MDGs and social enterprises and entre-
preneurship remained limited. Albeit, examples can be found including Edward
and Tallontire (2009), Seelos, Ganly, and Mair (2006) and Seelos and Mair
(2005). However, where social entrepreneurship scholars considered the MDGs,
their engagement was often limited to high-level references about how social
enterprises and entrepreneurship could contribute positively towards the
achievement of the MDGs suggesting this can also be the case for the SDGs.
Or else, this came in the form of in-depth empirical case studies focussing on the
work of particular social enterprises in contributing to one or a limited number
of the MDGs (Azman, 2013; Galvin & Iannotti, 2014). Overall, the body of
work on social entrepreneurship and the previous MDGs remained quite frag-
mented, and it lacked a clear research agenda. It remains to be seen whether
such an agenda and cohesive body of work will grow on social enterprise, social
entrepreneurship and the SDGs. It is hoped that this chapter can contribute
towards this task.
Looking beyond the social entrepreneurship research field, an insight is also
provided by more general business and management literature, especially work
considering activities of corporate social intrapreneurship, and firm engagement
with the SDGs through CSR (Kolk, 2016; Kolk et al., 2017; Leisinger, 2015). In
addition, practitioner work on social enterprise and the SDGs also provide
insights for this chapter. As identified earlier, Social Enterprise UK has pro-
duced work expounding the potential of social enterprise to contribute to the
SDGs and arguing the case
for the important role that social enterprises and businesses with a social purpose can play in
driving sustainable and inclusive development, tackling inequality, and helping to address
some of the biggest challenges targeted by the UN’s Sustainable Development Goals. (Social
Enterprise UK, 2015, p. 4)
Social Enterprises and the Sustainable Development Goals 37

This potential contribution of social entrepreneurs, enterprises and entre-

preneurship to the SDGs is further stressed by Velath (2016) and Powell (2016),
both affiliated with the Ashoka Foundation, who identify social entrepreneurs
as vital to the achievement of the SDGs. While these practitioner works provide
a call to action and often present inspiring stories of social enterprises and entre-
preneurs contributing to the SDGs, they provide fewer conceptual insights with
additional academic work needed. Nevertheless, other relevant works by practi-
tioners include that by Sonen Capital (2017) who are developing a framework
for assessing the impact of social enterprises using the SDGs and drawing upon
the Global Impact Investing Network’s IRIS framework. In this framework,
they aim to bridge metrics used in IRIS with the longer-term targets and metrics
associated with the SDGs. In the context of this chapter, while we consider this
worthwhile, as identified previously, we also consider it somewhat premature,
and in our conceptual framework, take one step back to try and first better
understand how social enterprises can contribute to the SDGs, rather than
developing a framework to quantifiably measure any such contributions.
In this section, we have defined what a social enterprise is and also explained
the SDGs and their origins. We have furthermore explored extant literature con-
cerning their intersection. We find that such work, especially of an academic
nature, remains limited and the field as a whole still quite disparate in the con-
cerns addressed, and where conversations are occurring. In the work that does
exist, impact has been the subject of some attention, including efforts to develop
tools to measure the impact and contribution of social enterprises to the SDGs,
especially by practitioners. Yet we argue that before we can measure such
impact, it is first necessary to better understand how social enterprises can con-
tribute to the SDGs. In the following sections a framework for doing this is
therefore developed and presented.

SOCIAL ENTERPRISES AND THE SDGs:

A CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK
Whether it is the cocoa-growing Fairtrade certified Kuapa Kokoo co-operative
in Ghana contributing to SDG-1 ‘No poverty’ or Goodwill Industries in the US
working in the field of ‘job-preparedness’ and work integration for people in
challenging circumstances and contributing to SDG-8 ‘Decent work and eco-
nomic growth’, social enterprises around the world are contributing towards the
achievement of the SDGs. In this section, we introduce our conceptual frame-
work for understanding how social enterprises can contribute to the SDGs.
Examples of global social enterprises are deployed in explaining the framework’s
development and to illustrate its use. These examples are a mix of prominent
global social enterprises about which significant material is publically available
online, and social enterprises with whom the authors have previously under-
taken research.
However, before proceeding further, we acknowledge several caveats. First,
we recognise that the SDGs may resonate more or less strongly with the work of
different social enterprises globally. Social enterprises may address needs other
38 DAVID LITTLEWOOD AND DIANE HOLT

than those articulated in the SDGs, perhaps especially in developed economies.

Accordingly, for such social enterprises, and their key constituents, understand-
ing how they can contribute to the SDGs may be of limited value, and the
SDGs are less important than other social value creation indicators. Secondly,
there is variation in the degree to which social enterprises have engaged with the
SDGs; this includes in their external communications about their work. It may
therefore be that social enterprises are contributing significantly to the SDGs
but do not convey their impact in terms of the SDGs for varied reasons.
Conversely, it may be that social enterprises engagement with and impacts on
the SDGs may be quite ceremonial with the aim of garnering current donor sup-
port. There are therefore limitations in relying on public communications to
position social enterprises as examples in our framework. Nevertheless, given
that this positioning is for illustrative purposes, and that the focus of the frame-
work is on understanding how social enterprises can contribute to the SDGs and
not measuring such contributions and impact, we do not regard this as a prob-
lem. Finally, in the framework, there is no value judgement implied if social
enterprises are not significantly engaging with the SDGs, and also if they are, in
the ways in which this is occurring.

Social Enterprise Value Chains and the SDGs

In their work for Business Call to Action and the UNDP, Leagnavar et al.
(2016) suggest that traditional firms can contribute to the achievement of the
SDGs through core business activities, philanthropy or public private partner-
ships. The ways in which social enterprises can contribute to the SDGs are
somewhat different to those of traditional firms. Holt and Littlewood (2015)
identify that social enterprises may generate positive social and environmental
impacts throughout their value chains. This includes: during the input stage, for
example through ethical sourcing of products; in their operations, where for
instance they may employ individuals from marginalised populations; through
the products and services they offer, for example solar lights, affordable sanitary
pads, etc.; through their profits or surpluses that may be distributed to members,
for example in a cooperative; or through direct programmes and interventions,
for example educational outreach, the construction of water infrastructure, etc.
Drawing upon Holt and Littlewood (2015), we argue that through social value
creation along their value chains social enterprises may also contribute to the
achievement of the SDGs.
The first dimension of our conceptual framework therefore relates to how
social enterprises contribute to the SDGs in their value chains and in particular
the degree to which contributions are confined to one or a small number of
value chain activities, or extend throughout. There are social enterprises where
all or most value chain activities directly impact the SDGs. There are also social
enterprises where their contributions to the SDGs are concentrated on a limited
number or even one aspect of the value chain; in these latter instances, it is still
recognised that other value chain activities may support these contributions.
Social Enterprises and the Sustainable Development Goals 39

An example of a social enterprise in which most value chain activities can be

seen to impact the SDGs is the Mumwa Crafts Association (MCA) in Zambia.
MCA is a craft producer association based in Western Zambia, the country’s
poorest region, and has more than 3,000 members living in rural communities.
During the input stage, the MCA is contributing to SDG-15 ‘Life on Land’, and
in particular sustainable use of natural resources and particularly forestry man-
agement. In the production phase poor rural producers gain training, livelihoods
and an income, contributing to SDG-1 ‘No poverty’ among others. The MCA
uses its profits for programmes and interventions in health, sustainable energy,
additional livelihood creation and also investing in water and sanitation infra-
structure. These activities contribute to various SDGs including SDG-6 ‘Clean
water and sanitation’, SDG-7 ‘Affordable and clean energy’ and SGD-3 ‘Good
health and well-being’.
A contrasting example of a social enterprise where its contributions to the
SDGs are concentrated on a more limited number of value chain activities is the
US social venture TOMS. TOMS is an apparel retailer that operates a social
business model whereby for every purchase consumers make, TOMS helps pro-
vide shoes, sight, water and safer birth services to people in need in the develop-
ing world. While TOMS is strongly committed to responsible business practices
throughout its operations and across its value chain activities, its most powerful
contributions to the SDGs lie in the donation and use of profits, generated
through sales, for social purposes. Eyewear retailer Warby Parker, also in the
US, provides a further example of this buy-one-give-one social business model.
A different model, and a further example where a social enterprise’s contribu-
tions to the SDGs are more concentrated within its value chain, is that of (some)
work integration social enterprises (WISE). Globally, this is a common form of
social enterprise that has been widely studied (Davister, Defourny, & Grégoire,
2004; Teasdale, 2010). WISE’s particular focus is on work integration for mar-
ginalised individuals and those who face challenges entering and staying in
work, for example, homeless people, ex-prisoners, those struggling with sub-
stance abuse, etc. In the case of WISE organisations, their contributions to the
SDGs may be concentrated particularly in the operations and employment
aspect of their value chain, with other value chain activities largely supporting
this. An example of such a WISE in a developing country context is the Kenyan
social enterprise Streetwise that provides training and employment for homeless
youths from Nairobi’s slums.
The situation is, however, often more complex than currently described. As
identified previously in the chapter, social enterprises globally may adopt a vari-
ety of often complex organisational forms. For example, it may be that a social
enterprise comprises a non-profit entity whose project activity is subsidised by a
for-profit venture. Story Pirates in the US is one such social enterprise. Story
Pirates provides after-school writing and drama programmes to underserved
schools (linked to SDG-4), while also producing stage shows for the public.
Story Pirates established its for-profit venture, of the same name, to accommo-
date growing ticket sales for its productions, with revenues from this used to
subsidise its social activities. Another example of such complexity is provided by
40 DAVID LITTLEWOOD AND DIANE HOLT

the Egyptian social enterprise SEKEM. Established in 1977 by the social entre-
preneur Dr. Ibrahim Abouleish, SEKEM now comprises a variety of social
enterprising initiatives under a holding company. These initiatives are in a range
of fields from sustainable agriculture to the production of health products and
also include a cooperative.
The first example of Story Pirates raises the question of any SDG value chain
analysis should focus, on the for-profit or the non-profit venture? In the second
example of SEKEM, meanwhile there are clearly multiple value chains that
would need to be considered in relation to their contributions to the SDGs. In
the case of Story Pirates, we advocate focussing on the value chain activities of
the non-profit entity where the contribution to the SDGs is realised, with this
approach suggested for other social enterprises adopting similar structures. In
the case of SEKEM, it may be more helpful to consider its constituent ventures
individually and to then assess how each is potentially contributing to the SDGs
through their respective value chain activities. For example, SEKEM’s Pharma
ATOS venture procures a significant portion of its inputs from other SEKEM
social enterprise companies, while in production it provides jobs for local
women and supports their development, in terms of products it also develops,
manufactures and supplies needed healthcare products, while the SEKEM
Development Foundation has a 10% profit share in the company. This segmen-
tation approach is recommended for other large complex social enterprises, and
organisations engaging in social entrepreneurship, with its use illustrated again
in the following section.
In summary, the above discussions have identified the degree to which social
enterprise contributions to the SDGs are concentrated in particular value chains
activities as the first dimension of our conceptual framework. As has been dis-
cussed, and illustrated, social enterprises may operate models where contribu-
tions are concentrated on particular value chain activities. Alternatively, such
contributions may stem from multiple or even be spread across all value chain
activities. It has further been discussed how this is not always a straightforward
task, although examples have been deployed to show how this may still be
accomplished even in more complex social enterprises.

Broad or Focused Contributions to the SDGs

Once it has been identified where in their value chains social enterprises may be
contributing to the SDGs, and whether this contribution is confined to one or a
small number of value chain activities or is more extended, it is then possible to
assess whether this contribution focusses on a single or limited number of SDGs
(or even a particular SDG target), or if it encompasses multiple SDGs. This is
the second dimension of our conceptual framework.
For some social enterprises, their contributions to the SDGs will focus on
one or a limited number of SDGs or even SDG targets. One example of this is
the previously discussed social enterprise Story Pirates whose contributions
relate particularly to SDG-4 ‘Quality education’. Another example of a more
focussed potential contribution to the SDGs is provided by the Australian social
Social Enterprises and the Sustainable Development Goals 41

enterprise Thank You Water (TYW). TYW was established in 2008 in response
to the global challenge of the almost one billion people worldwide that do not
have access to safe drinking water on a daily basis. TYW sells a range of water
but also baby, body care and food products, with 100% of its profits used to
fund safe water, food and hygiene and sanitation services around the world.
TYW’s activities can therefore be linked particularly to the achievement of
SDG-6 ‘Clean Water and Sanitation’.
However, social enterprises through their value chain activities also have the
potential to contribute simultaneously to multiple SDGs. Some of the earlier
examples introduced illustrate this. For example, MCA in Zambia which through
its various activities may be contributing to elements of SDG-1 ‘No poverty’,
SGD-3 ‘Good health and well-being’, SDG-6 ‘Clean water and sanitation’,
SDG-7 ‘Affordable and clean energy’ among others. Meanwhile, SEKEM’s
Pharma ATOS venture is another good example of this, potentially contributing
to the SDG-3 ‘Good health and well-being’, SDG-8 ‘Decent work and economic
growth’ and SDG-5 ‘Gender equality’ among others. Interestingly, SEKEM
representatives identify explicitly both that it is contributing to particular SDGs
but also that it has been contributing to the aspirations of the SDGs, and inte-
grating these into its business strategy, since the 1970s (SEKEM, 2017).
As discussed earlier in the chapter, social enterprises come in a variety of
forms, and indeed may form part of a larger entity. Two cases illustrate this
point well and also show how our framework can be deployed in such situations.
Enactus is an international non-profit organisation dedicated to inspiring stu-
dents to improve the world through entrepreneurial action. Enactus has student
programmes in university campuses around the world with these programmes
running social entrepreneurial initiatives. One example of this is the Right Light
Project led by Enactus students in the UK where solar light entrepreneurs are
being supported in Kenya, Uganda and Madagascar. Enactus identifies that this
work contributes particularly to SDG7 ‘Affordable and clean energy’, but
also SDGs 1, 3 and 8. In another example, Enactus students at the Tenaga
National University KSHAS in Malaysia worked with local community
members to set up a social enterprise bee keeping business which they identify as
impacting SDGs 1, 2, 8 and 17 (see Enactus, 2018). In this example both student
social ventures are contributing to multiple SDGs.
Another organisation in which social enterprises form part of a larger whole is
BRAC (2017). BRAC is a large global NGO founded in Bangladesh in 1972 but
that now operates in a range of countries across varied fields. BRAC operates 16
social enterprises, these include Aarong which works in the craft sector, BRAC
Dairy, BRAC Handmade Paper and BRAC Fisheries among others. Each of these
potentially contributes towards the achievement of multiple SDGs. For example,
the work of BRAC Handmade Paper can be linked to SDG-12 ‘Responsible con-
sumption and production’, SDG-1 ‘No poverty’, and SDG-5 ‘Gender equality’
among others. Meanwhile the work of BRAC Fisheries can be linked to the
achievement of SDG-14 ‘Life below the water’ and again SDG-1 and SDG-5
among others. In these examples from BRAC it can again be seen that social enter-
prises are contributing to a broader range of SDGs.
42 DAVID LITTLEWOOD AND DIANE HOLT

We have now identified, and illustrated with examples, the second dimension
of our framework, namely whether social enterprise contributions to the SDGs
are broad encompassing multiple SDGs, or are they more focused on one or a
small number of SDGs.

Conceptual Framework
Whether social enterprise contributions to the SDGs are confined to one or a
small number of value chain activities or extend throughout value chains, and
whether these contributions focus on one or a small number of SDGs or multi-
ple SDGs, have been identified as the dimensions for our conceptual framework.
This framework is illustrated in Fig. 1 with example social enterprises positioned
on it. This positioning is qualitative, and based on available online materials
and in some instances direct research with these social enterprises.
Based upon these dimensions it is possible to identify four broad groupings
of social enterprises. The first we describe as Focused contributors. These are
social enterprises like Warby Parker and TYW whose contributions are concen-
trated in a particular area of their value chains in this instance profits or sur-
pluses, which are donated to charitable causes and with these contributions
narrowly focused on one or a small number of SDGs. The second grouping are
the Focused integrated contributors. These are social enterprises that focus on
contributing one or a relatively small number of SDGs but with these contri-
butions made across multiple value chain activity areas. Story Pirates might be
one example of such a social enterprise. The third grouping are Broad contribu-
tors like TOMS whose impacts on the SDGs stem mostly from a particular

Fig. 1. Conceptual Framework of How Social Enterprises Can Contribute to the

SDGs.
Social Enterprises and the Sustainable Development Goals 43

aspect of its value chain in this case its profits or surpluses, which are
donated but who are contributing to many different SDGs simultaneously. In
the case of TOMS as part of its explicit communication of its engagement with
the SDGs it identifies that it contributes to various goals through its giving part-
ners. For example, TOMS identifies that shoes donated by giving partners
‘directly deliver to the targets in Goals 2, 3, and 4’, while donations to water giv-
ing partners contribute to SDG-6 (TOMS, 2017). The final group are Broad inte-
grated contributors with examples like the MCA, BRAC Handmade Paper and
some of the other BRAC ventures, as well as Pharma ATOS. These social enter-
prises contribute to a variety of SDGs across multiple value chain activities.
It should be highlighted that the position of social enterprises within the
framework presented in Fig. 1 is dynamic. For example, through the develop-
ment of new programmes and activities social enterprises may expand the num-
ber of SDGs to which they contribute. Social enterprises may also choose to
reconfigure their value chain activities so that more contribute to the SDGs or
indeed fewer. As indicated previously in the chapter there is also no hierarchy to
the different groupings identified. Focused contributor social enterprises, inte-
grated or otherwise, can impact deeply one or just a few SDGs, while broad con-
tributors of either kind may only shallowly impact multiple SDGs. It may also
be that social enterprises that contribute to the achievement of the SDGs also
create significant social value in areas other than those recognised in the SDGs.

CONCLUSIONS, IMPLICATIONS AND FUTURE

DIRECTIONS
This work has considered how social enterprises can contribute to the SDGs,
with a framework for understanding this potential contribution presented and
illustrated drawing upon global examples. In so doing our work makes a num-
ber of contributions. To date, there has been limited academic study of how
business is engaging with and can contribute to the SDGs; this is especially the
case in relation to social enterprises. Our work therefore contributes towards
addressing this gap. Furthermore, while attempts have been made, especially by
practitioners, to develop frameworks for measuring the impact of businesses,
including social enterprises, on the SDGs, we regard these efforts as somewhat
premature. A better understanding of how social enterprises can contribute to
the SDGs is needed first, with the novel conceptual framework developed and
presented in this chapter providing a first step in this process. This in turn has
implications for practice by potentially informing the development of more
robust social enterprises SDG impact assessment tools. Additionally, our work
has implications for practice in showcasing different social enterprise models
globally that can contribute to the SDGs. Finally, our work has implications for
national and international policy makers in illustrating that social enterprises
can be positive agents in the achievement of the SDGs. Such policy makers need
to look beyond just private, public and non-profit entities, and recognise the role
hybrid social enterprises can also play. Indeed, hybrid social enterprises in many
ways seem to encapsulate the spirit of SDG 19 ‘Partnerships for the goals’.
44 DAVID LITTLEWOOD AND DIANE HOLT

Given the limits identified in existing scholarship on social enterprises and the
SDGs there remains substantial scope for further enquiry. Future research on this
topic might examine why some social enterprises are engaging with and communi-
cating their commitment to the SDGs and why others are not. Understanding
how such engagement occurs, including the identification of different models, but
also its depth, whether it is real or something more symbolic, and why, are also
important topics worthy of future study. Given the emergent nature of the field of
research on social enterprises and the SDGs, and the need for theory develop-
ment, in-depth case study work focussing on particular social enterprises would
also be valuable. Another area for work would be to develop robust more aca-
demically informed impact assessment frameworks. Studies examining the geogra-
phies of social enterprise engagement with the SDGs are also needed. Finally,
there is still much about the engagement of social enterprises with the previous
MDGs that we do not know, and indeed it would be interesting to compare this
with emerging patterns of engagement with the SDGs.
To conclude, social enterprises and the SDGs is a subject ripe for further aca-
demic enquiry. This chapter aims to provide a useful early contribution to the
field. Better understanding of how social enterprises can contribute to the SDGs
also clearly has important implications for policy and practice, especially if we
are to make substantial progress in achieving the global goals and meet the 2030
Agenda for Sustainable Development.

REFERENCES
Apostolopoulos, N., Newbery, R., & Gkartzios, M. (2018). Social enterprise and community resil-
ience: Examining a Greek response to turbulent times. Journal of Rural Studies, doi:10.1016/j.
jrurstud.2018.03.017. Retrieved from https://reader.elsevier.com/reader/sd/39CD51FBF6A6
ABB1F49E7523D0486E599CE0EF5757C17676F8B3040CE1B84A4070E2411301935816FFD
44EA80F8386DF
Austin, J., Stevenson, H., & Wei-Skillern, J. (2006). Social and commercial entrepreneurship: Same,
different, or both? Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 31(1), 1 22.
Azman, F. (2013). Sustainable development in developing countries: The role of social entrepreneurs.
International Journal of Public Administration, 36(5), 293 304.
Billis, D. (2010). Hybrid organizations and the third sector. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
BRAC. (2017). Social enterprises. Retrieved from http://www.bracuk.net/what/social-enterprises/
Buzinde, C., Shockley, G., Andereck, K., Dee, E., & Frank, P. (2017). Theorizing social entre-
preneurship within tourism studies. In P. Sheldon & R. Daniele (Eds.), Social entrepreneurship
and tourism. Tourism on the Verge. Cham: Springer.
Davister, C., Defourny, J., & Grégoire, O. (2004). Work integration social enterprises in the European
Union: An overview of existing models. Working Papers Series, no. 04/04. Liege: EMES
European Research Network.
Defourny, J., & Nyssens, M. (2006). Social enterprise in Europe: Recent trends and developments.
Social Enterprise Journal, 4(3), 202 228.
Doherty, B., Haugh, H., & Lyon, F. (2014). Social enterprises as hybrid organizations: A review and
research agenda. International Journal of Management Reviews, 16, 417 436.
Edward, P., & Tallontire, A. (2009). Business and development Towards re-politicisation. Journal
of International Development, 21(6), 819 833.
Enactus. (2018). Enactus takes on the 2030 Global Goals. Retrieved from http://enactus.org/
globalgoals/
Social Enterprises and the Sustainable Development Goals 45

Galvin, M. D., & Iannotti, L. (2014). Social enterprise and development: The KickStart Model.
Voluntas: International Journal of Voluntary and Nonprofit Organizations, 26, 1 21.
Gicheru, E. (2016). The role of the co-operative enterprise model in implementing the Sustainable
Development Goals (SDGs) in Least Developed Countries (LDCs). Report for the UN.
Retrieved from http://www.un.org/esa/socdev/egms/docs/2016/Coops-2030Agenda/Gicheru.pdf
Haigh, N., Walker, J., Bacq, S., & Kickul, J. (2015). Hybrid organizations: Origins, strategies,
impacts and implications. California Management Review, 57(3), 5 12.
Holt, D., & Littlewood, D. (2015). Identifying, mapping and monitoring the impact of hybrid firms.
California Management Review, 57(3), 107 125.
Kolk, A. (2016). The social responsibility of international business: From ethics and the environment
to CSR and sustainable development. Journal of World Business, 51, 23 34.
Kolk, A., Kourula, A., & Pisani, N. (2017). Multinational enterprises and the sustainable develop-
ment goals: What do we know and how to proceed? Transnational Corporations, 24(3), 9 32.
Langdon, D., & Burkett, I. (2004). Defining social enterprise enterprising ways to address long-term
unemployment. Queensland: New Mutualism Group.
Leagnavar, P., Leone, F., & Nagasaki, T. (2016). Measuring impact: How business accelerates the sus-
tainable development goals. Report produced by Business Call to Action and the Global
Reporting Initiative. Retrieved from https://www.globalreporting.org/resourcelibrary/Meas-
suring%20Impact_BCtA_GRI.pdf
Leisinger, K. (2015). Business needs to embrace sustainability targets: Companies that do not align
their management strategies with sustainable development goals will lose out. Nature,
528(7581), 165.
Peattie, K., & Morley, A. (2008). Eight paradoxes of the social enterprise research agenda. Social
Enterprise Journal, 4(2), 91 107.
Powell, B. (2016). A global battle plan: Social entrepreneurs needed to accomplish UN’s sustainable
development goals. Forbes. Retrieved from https://www.forbes.com/sites/ashoka/2016/09/13/a-
global-battle-plan-social-entrepreneurs-needed-to-accomplish-un-goals/2/#bf46e41b4f35
PWC. (2017). Sustainable development goals How will they impact your business? Retrieved from
https://www.pwc.com/gx/en/services/sustainability/sustainable-development-goals.html
Ramani, S. V., SadreGhazi, S., & Gupta, S. (2017). Catalysing innovation for social impact: The role
of social enterprises in the Indian sanitation sector. Technological Forecasting and Social
Change, 120, 216 227.
Rhadari, A., Sepasi, S., & Moradi, M. (2016). Achieving sustainability through Schumpeterian social
entrepreneurship: The role of social enterprises. Journal of Cleaner Production, 137, 347 360.
SDG Compass. (2017). The SDG Compass provides guidance for companies on how they can align their
strategies as well as measure and manage their contribution to the realization of the SDGs.
Retrieved from https://sdgcompass.org/
Seelos, C., Ganly, K., & Mair, J. (2006). Social entrepreneurs directly contribute to global develop-
ment goals. In J. Mair, J. Robinson, & K. Hockerts(Eds.), Social entrepreneurship
(pp. 235 275). New York, NY: Palgrave Macmillan.
Seelos, K., & Mair, J. (2005). Entrepreneurs in service of the poor: Models for business contributions
to sustainable development. Business Horizons, 48(3), 241 246.
SEKEM. (2017). Making it explicit: Embedding the SDGs into the core business. Retrieved from
http://www.sekem.com/en/making-it-explicit-embedding-the-sdgs-into-the-core-business
Sheldon, P. J., Dredge, D., & Daniele, R. (2017). Moving tourism social entrepreneurship forward:
Agendas for research and education. In P. Sheldon & R. Daniele (Eds.), Social entrepreneur-
ship and tourism. Tourism on the Verge. Cham: Springer.
Smallbone, D., Evans, M., Ekanem, I., & Butters, S. (2001). Researching social enterprise. London:
Small Business Service.
Social Enterprise UK. (2015). Think global trade social. Retrieved from https://www.britishcouncil.
org/sites/default/files/seuk_british_council_think_global_report.pdf
Sonen Capital. (2017). Assessing the impact of social enterprises using the U.N. sustainable development
goals and IRIS. Retrieved from http://www.sonencapital.com/news-posts/assessing-impact-
social-enterprises-using-u-n-sustainable-development-goals-iris/
46 DAVID LITTLEWOOD AND DIANE HOLT

Teasdale, S. (2010). Models of social enterprise in the homelessness field. Social Enterprise Journal,
6(1), 23 34.
Thompson, J., & Doherty, B. (2006). The diverse world of social enterprise: A collection of social
enterprise stories. International Journal of Social Economics, 33(5 6), 399 410.
TOMS. (2017). TOMS for global goals. Retrieved from http://www.toms.co.uk/global-goals
Toniic. (2017). Toniic Institute Sustainable development goals Impact theme framework. Retrieved
from http://www.toniic.com/sdg-framework/
UN. (2017a). 17 Goals to transform our world. Retrieved from http://www.un.org/sustainabledevelopment/
UN. (2017b). Millennium development goals and beyond 2015. Retrieved from http://www.un.org/
millenniumgoals/
Velath, S. (2016). Social entrepreneurs are vital to the achievement of the UN Sustainable Development
Goals by 2030. Retrieved from https://medium.com/change-maker/social-entrepreneurs-are-
vital-to-the-achievement-of-the-un-sustainable-development-goals-by-2030-aa9f579466c1
Wanyama, F. O. (2016). Cooperatives and the sustainable development goals: A contribution to the
post-2015 development debate. Retrieved from http://repository.mut.ac.ke:8080/xmlui/handle/
123456789/87