Achieving Survival of Social Enterprise Through Entrepreneurial Marketing: An Empirical Analysis of Nigeria
Cosmas Anayochukwu NWANKWO
Profil Orcid et MacDonald Isaac KANYANGALE
Profil Orcid 
Publié en ligne: 18 nov. 2024
Pages: 259 - 272
DOI: https://doi.org/10.2478/fman-2024-0016
Mots clés
© 2024 Cosmas Anayochukwu NWANKWO et al., published by Sciendo
This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.
The entire world, including Africa, is growing increasingly enthralled with the endeavours of social enterprise (SEs). Indicators of increased activity include the rise of impact or social investing and the number of social start-ups, incubators and accelerators. SE appears to be a viable model that more and more nongovernmental organisations (NGOs) and civil society organisations (CSOs) are looking at to secure their long-term survival.
Nevertheless, Nwankwo and Kanyangale (2023) noted that there is a dearth of quantitative data regarding the number of SEs that are presently active in different nations, as well as information regarding their activities and effects. Using a strategic marketing approach that will ensure the continued existence of SEs in Nigeria, it is pertinent to better understand the nature and contribution of SE activity and create a baseline for gauging its development. Even though the concept of a social entrepreneur (SE) is still relatively new in Nigeria, a growing number of SEs are already demonstrating their potential by providing innovative solutions to societal issues and challenges in a variety of industries across the country. SE is a social economy player whose main objective is to improve society instead of making profit for its owners or shareholders. It operates by bringing goods and services to market in an original and creative manner, and it mainly uses its earnings to support social objectives. Its approach to open and responsible management explicitly includes stakeholders impacted by its business operations, such as customers, employees and other stakeholders.
To have a positive social impact, SEs are initiatives that cross industry boundaries and blend socially driven goals with commercial logic (Sandén and Äng, 2017). Because they combine innovative and entrepreneurial practices with a commitment to both social and economic goals, SEs blur the lines between the nonpublic and private sectors and are often referred to as hybrid organisations. The contradictory features of the organisational form of SE are a growing area of study in many academic disciplines, and researchers are keen to understand and explain them (Nwankwo and Kanyangale, 2023). Despite substantial efforts to define the concept of SE, no consensus definition has yet been reached (Sandén and Äng, 2017). Shaw and Carter (2007) claim that the SE's heterogeneity and diversity in terms of organisational form, structure, activities carried out and clientele cause the lack of definition. Because they are commonly used to refer to ‘SE’ which frequently has the same goals as social entrepreneurship is led by SEs. This terms ‘social entrepreneurship’ SE and ‘social innovation’ can also be confusing (Luke and Chu, 2013; Ghods, 2019).
To achieve long-term business sustainability, stakeholders across all sectors must implement appropriate business and marketing strategies for both social and conventional ventures to achieve entrepreneurial success. The performance and survival of businesses worldwide are significantly and favourably impacted by the entrepreneurial marketing (EM) strategy, according to studies by Nwankwo and Kanyangale (2022a) and Otika, Nwaizugbo and Olise (2019). According to Nwankwo and Kanyangale (2022b), EM is a unique concept that stands out for a variety of reasons, including its inherent informality, field specificity, opportunistic nature, founder–entrepreneur involvement and heavy reliance on networking. Entrepreneurs who exhibit these creative problem-solving skills, proactive behaviour, measured risk-taking and opportunity-focused behaviour tend to survive in this competitive environment. EM is a less-traditional and disorganised practice that depends on the initiative and motivation of particular people to effect change, according to Chell, Haworth and Brearley (1991). Finding possibilities by identifying the relationships between facts is the process of intuitive learning (Chell, et al., 1991). Due to their predilection for conceptual thinking and possibility discovery, abstract thinkers who are more likely to generate new opportunities are frequently linked to intuitive entrepreneurs. Scholarly works discussing marketing typically define marketing differently than EM does. Conventional marketing is a term used to describe an organised framework for marketing that calls for a careful planning process based on research to guarantee appropriate target market selection and marketing mix as well as competitive product positioning (Nwaizugbo and Anukam, 2014).
It is not always possible to apply the core principles and accepted marketing techniques that drive large corporations to the context of SE. As such, it is not surprising that a large number of small and medium enterprises (SMEs) and social venture owners and managers have a pessimistic view of traditional marketing concepts and prioritise other business operations over marketing initiatives (Resnick, et al., 2016; Nwankwo and Kanyangale, 2023). Research suggests that entrepreneurial and marketing skills are essential for the survival and growth of SMEs, including the SE, despite the modest appearance of this approach (Ka-souf, et al., 2009; Lusch and Vargo, 2014). Academics studying marketing and entrepreneurship are increasingly interested in the study of marketing for entrepreneurs (e.g. new ventures marketing), marketing for entrepreneurial ventures (e.g. growth and innovation-oriented ventures) or entrepreneurship for marketing (innovative marketing). For academics studying entrepreneurship and marketing, the marketing question in the context of SE has brought to light two important concerns. The first problem is with the idea of marketing as it is used by business owners who make decisions in a setting characterised by straightforward policies and processes that allow for flexibility, quick feedback, quick decision-making and improved understanding and sensitivity to customer needs. The dearth of marketing experts among Nigerian SEs highlights the significance of business owners in marketing. If Nigerian social ventures are to succeed in the volatile, uncertain, complex and ambiguous (VUCA) environment, they need to leverage resources that are currently beyond their control and practise innovative, risk-taking, proactive and cooperative marketing.
The second problem is that the qualitative and quantitative EM components that are essential to understanding the nature of social venture marketing have not yet been fully analysed by researchers, according to Effiom and Edet (2018:118) and Nwankwo and Kanyangale (2023). EM highlights that any business, regardless of size, age or resources, should approach marketing with an entrepreneurial mindset. The study of marketing strategies used by incredibly successful companies to launch, expand and/or support their entrepreneurial endeavours is the focus of EM, a subfield of qualitative marketing. This is not the average mass marketing campaign. But EM's quantitative component makes clear that this kind of marketing is targeted at new and/or small companies. In addition to being newer (because of things like a lack of established market partner relationships and procedures within the firm) and smaller (because of things like limited financial and human resources, limited market power and a small customer base), the quantitative component of EM highlights the risk associated with innovative, risk-managed and proactive marketing activities.
Funders and beneficiaries are drawn to SE through a combined marketing effort (Kannampuzha and Suoranta, 2016). To support itself, the dual activity looks for donations and other forms of assistance (Dees, 1998). As a result, when an SE is growing, its entrepreneur might need to use its marketing strategy to approach different funding sources. Certain aspects of it, such as resource leveraging, calculated risk-taking, customer intensity, value creation, market sensing, proactiveness and alliance, mesh well with EM in that context (Nwankwo and Kanyangale, 2023). EM boosts the value of the entrepreneurial process and helps business owners share their ideas (Rezvani and Fathollah-zadeh, 2020). Other scholars have also attempted to apply EM in different contexts. For example, Sodhi & John (2021) studied how EM affects SME performance and how it combines entrepreneurial orientation (EO) and EM to increase SME efficacy. Nwankwo and Kanyangale (2022a) combined EO, market orientation (MO), market-driving orientation (MDO) and teamwork orientation (TO) to examine the impact of EM on the survival of manufacturing SMEs. In various studies, other academics have examined different facets of SE, such as social innovation and SE development (Huang, 2016), the impact of EM on creative marketing in SMEs (Rezvani and Fathollahzadeh, 2018) and others. The literature that has been mentioned indicates that over the past few decades, EM and SE have been the focus of substantial research. To completely comprehend how EM is used in SE, an integrated EM approach is still required.
The market for SE marketing is still unexplored despite research, especially in Nigeria. Scholars approach the market more with a ‘trial and error’ mentality because they lack the necessary marketing experience and competence in making future projections. This study next goal is to synthesise EM to increase the effectiveness of using SE to approach the market. Furthermore, no EM models have been created or are widely accepted as being successful in resolving the problems in the SE sector. All the EM models that are currently in use were developed keeping the needs of large and small businesses in mind. Nwankwo and Kanyangale (2023) examined a few of the previously developed EM models, such as those by Nwankwo and Kanyangale (2022a), Mort, Weerawardena and Liesch (2012), Kilenthong, Hills and Hultman (2015), Bjerke and Hultman (2002) and Hamali, et al., 2016. In light of the new integrative model's nuance, which emphasises the critical factors influencing the development and survival of SEs worldwide while acknowledging the importance of networking, this paper made minor modifications to the model. To assist SE in this unpredictable economic environment, function efficiently, and grow in a sustainable manner, this study is poised to create and investigate a novel EM model for SE.
There are several ways to define proactiveness. According to Merriam-Webster (2015), being ‘proactive’ means ‘managing a situation by forcing things to happen or by getting ready for potential future issues’. Thus, proactive approaches to customers and the market are characteristic of entrepreneurial marketers (Holmes and Jorlöv, 2015). Proactiveness is described by Olannye and Eromafuru (2016) as ‘an entrepreneurial willingness to dominate competitions through a combination of proactive and aggressive moves, thus introducing new products or services ahead of the competition and acting in anticipation of future demands to create change and shape the environment’. The innovative strategy used by SEs to address environmental and social issues is referred to as proactiveness. It involves taking initiative, anticipating challenges and actively seeking opportunities to create positive change. However, according to Nwankwo and Kanyangale (2023), proactiveness has significant effects on SEs in the following areas:
Increased impact: Proactiveness enables SEs to identify emerging social issues and proactively develop innovative solutions. By staying ahead of the curve, they can have a greater impact on the communities they serve and address evolving social needs effectively. Enhanced reputation and credibility: Being socially proactive helps SEs build a strong reputation as organisations that are committed to create positive change. This can attract more customers, investors and partners who align with their values and are more willing to support their initiatives. Long-term sustainability: SEs that are proactive in addressing social problems are more likely to achieve long-term sustainability. By actively seeking out opportunities, adapting to changing circumstances and staying relevant, they can better navigate challenges and continue making a difference over time. Collaboration and partnerships: Social proactiveness can foster collaboration and partnerships with other organisations, government agencies and community stakeholders. By taking the initiative to engage with others, SEs can leverage collective resources, knowledge and expertise to create more comprehensive and impactful solutions. Policy influence and advocacy: SEs that demonstrate social proactiveness often have a stronger voice in shaping policies and advocating for positive social change. They can actively engage in policy discussions, provide evidence-based insights and influence decision-makers to create an enabling environment for social innovation. Competitive advantage: Social proactiveness can give SEs a competitive edge in the market. By being proactive in identifying and addressing social needs, they can differentiate themselves from traditional businesses and attract customers who prioritise socially responsible products and services. Empowered employees: A culture of social proactiveness within an SE can empower employees to take ownership and contribute to the organisation's mission. When employees feel encouraged to be proactive, they are more likely to bring forth ideas, contribute to innovation and take initiative in their work.
In the context of SE in this study, proactiveness refers to the capacity of the SE to identify and attend to innate, unseen or unfelt needs that clients have not yet realised they have.
The term ‘innovation’ originates from the Latin word ‘innovare’ meaning ‘new’ (Stenberg, 2017:2). One definition of innovation is trying something new (Farniha, Ferreira and Gouveia, 2016). Innovation can also be a technology and strategy for creating new target markets, production processes and markets themselves (Baskara and Mehta, 2016). This means that to take advantage of a gap in the market, social businesses of all sizes must innovate and quickly adapt to shifting consumer demands and market dynamics (Linton, 2019). However, social innovativeness has a significant effect on SEs. That is, the dimension involves developing and implementing new ideas, approaches and solutions to social problems. SEs are organisations that use business models to address social or environmental issues, so social innovation is a key component of their work. Being socially innovative means that SEs can create new products, services and business models that address social and environmental challenges more effectively than traditional approaches (Nwankwo and Kanyangale, 2023). This helps them attract more customers, investors and partners who are interested in supporting socially responsible organisations.
In addition, innovativeness helps SEs to stay competitive, adapt to changing circumstances and continue to grow and expand their impact over time. This is especially important in today's fast-paced and rapidly changing business environment. Overall, innovativeness is a critical factor in the survival of SEs, and organisations that are able to foster a culture of innovation are more likely to achieve social and environmental goals. Innovation within a company is noteworthy for its wide range, which includes processes, people, products, services and operations. Thus, this study is consistent with the definition of social innovation provided by Nwankwo and Kanyangale (2023), which is ‘the ability of a firm to engage in creative processes, experimentation of novel ideas, which may result in the creation of new production techniques and the introduction of new products or services to existing or new markets’. According to this description, social innovation allows managers of SEs to focus on new ideas that lead the organisation to explore new products, services and markets.
The concept of taking calculated risks has been used extensively in academic literature. The term ‘risk’ is a neologism, according to sociologist Niklas Luhmann, that has developed from traditional to modern ideology (Nwankwo and Kanyangale, 2023). The term ‘residuum’ was used to characterise and define all maritime trades, as well as ‘the legal issues that arise from loss and damage’ (Allah and Nakhaie, 2011:76). In the 16th century, the terms ‘loss and damage’ were called ‘riezgo and rischio’ (Aven, 2014:21). However, as the term ‘risk’ gained more traction, the traditional concepts of loss, damage and bad luck began to shift (Bijloos, 2017:25). According to Kapepa and Van Vuuren (2019:7), risk-taking is defined as ‘the tendency to take bold decisions, such as venturing into unknown new markets, committing a significant amount of resources to endeavours with uncertain outcomes, and borrowing heavily with a chance of failing’. Thus, SEs’ ability to survive and thrive depends critically on their ability to take calculated risks. When done strategically, taking calculated risks allows SEs to innovate, adapt and grow in a competitive environment. By carefully evaluating potential risks, SEs make informed decisions that have the potential to lead to positive outcomes, such as increased impact, improved financial sustainability and expanded reach.
However, it is important for SEs to strike a balance between taking risks and ensuring the sustainability of their operations. Failure to properly assess risks or taking excessive risks can lead to negative consequences, such as financial losses, damage to reputation or even organisational failure. Therefore, it is essential for SEs to develop a risk management strategy that considers their unique mission, goals, stakeholders and operating environment. While taking calculated risks can be beneficial for the survival and growth of SEs, it is crucial for organisations to approach risk-taking with caution, foresight and a thorough understanding of the potential implications. By integrating risk management practices into their operations, SEs can maximise their chances of achieving long-term success while staying true to their social mission. Most significantly, risktaking in the context of EM encompasses the firm's willingness to take a chance on the opportunity as well as its capacity to employ deliberate strategies to reduce the risk involved.
This is an essential part of EM models because SEs usually have limited resources to address the numerous and diverse needs of their external (customers) and internal (employee) constituencies. EM adopters are not limited by the resources at their disposal because they employ multiple strategies to leverage resources. These involve ‘stretching resources much further than competitors do, exploiting resources that others are unable to realise, using other people's resources to achieve their own goal, combining the resources of two firms to increase value as well, and using specific resources to obtain additional resources and recycling’ (Nwaizugbo and Anukam, 2014:93). Resource leveraging plays a vital role in the success of SEs. By effectively utilising financial, human, physical, knowledge, networking, technological and policy resources, SEs enhance their capacity, expand their impact and create sustainable solutions to social and environmental challenges (Nwankwo and Kanyangale, 2022c).
A crucial part of EM activities in this study is resource leveraging. It involves making creative and effective use of a business's resources to achieve challenging objectives. Most significantly, SEs are unable to utilise both tangible and intangible resources if they do not conduct their operations with an entrepreneurial mindset. Therefore, possessing entrepreneurial skills entails not only being proactive, imaginative, risk-averse, autonomous and aggressive, but also being resourceful in the management and application of the meagre resources at one's disposal. According to this research, resource leveraging refers to the ability to recognise underutilised resources and understand novel applications for those resources.
Customers are given top priority by successful businesses in their organisational goals. Customer intensity or centricity has been a topic of much discussion in marketing literature. Deshpandé, Farley and Webster (1993:27), for example, define it as ‘the set of philosophies that places the customer's interests first without ignoring those of all other stakeholders (including owners, managers, and employees) to develop a longterm profitable enterprise thus’. Customer intensity has a significant effect on the survival of SEs because it relies on customer support and engagement to sustain their operations and further their social missions. A high level of customer intensity, characterised by strong customer loyalty, repeat business and positive word-of-mouth referrals, can contribute to the longterm success and growth of an SE. When SEs prioritise building strong relationships with their customers, they can increase customer satisfaction, trust and retention. This, in turn, leads to a more stable revenue stream, increased brand awareness and a larger impact on the communities they serve (Nwankwo and Kanyangale, 2023).
To sustain high levels of customer intensity, SEs must constantly evaluate and modify their strategies. Changes in market trends, shifts in consumer preferences and emerging competition can all affect customer relationships and loyalty. In actively engaging with customers, soliciting feedback and responding to their needs, SEs can enhance customer intensity and increase their chances of sustainable growth and survival. Therefore, customer intensity plays a critical role in the survival of SEs. By prioritising customer relationships, meeting customer needs and adapting to changing market dynamics, SEs can cultivate a loyal customer base that supports their mission and contributes to their long-term success. In this study, customer intensity characterises how a business behaves in a social context. These business operations should provide a positive customer experience both before and after the sale to promote financial success, customer loyalty and repeat business. It is a tactic that argues a social organisation's objectives ought to be guided by the maxim ‘the needs of the customer come first’.
Value creation is essential for the survival and success of SEs because it exists to create positive social and environmental impact while also generating financial sustainability. By effectively creating value for their stakeholders, including customers, employees, partners and the community, SEs can enhance their relevance, credibility and long-term viability. The creation of value by SEs involves not only delivering high-quality products or services, but also addressing key social and environmental challenges in innovative ways. By aligning their mission-driven goals with market demand and societal needs, SEs can differentiate themselves, attract support and build a strong reputation within their target communities. Furthermore, value creation goes beyond traditional metrics such as profit margins or market share. SEs often measure success based on the impact they have on people and the planet. They strive to improve the well-being of individuals, promote sustainable practices and contribute to positive social change.
Based on Rezvani and Khazaei (2014), a company's marketing and entrepreneurial approach is centred on adding value. According to Kotler and Keller (2016), a company's ability to generate value is essential to its survival. According to Lindgreen, Hingley, Grant and Morgan (2012), two competing schools of thought regarding value creation have emerged in the recent marketing literature: the value of (augmented) goods and services and relationships. According to Nwankwo and Kanyangale (2022a), value in the context of goods and services is understood to be the sum of the purchase price and the subjective marginal value that is determined by the buyer's value system. According to Aminu (2016), value and price are individualistic. Therefore, to enhance survival prospects, SEs should continuously evaluate and enhance their value creation strategies. This includes staying attuned to stakeholder feedback, monitoring performance indicators related to their social mission and adapting to evolving market conditions. By demonstrating their value proposition and impact, SEs can increase their resilience, gain the trust of supporters and secure the resources needed to fulfil their mission over the long term.
Market sensing, according to Mu (2015), is the ability of a business to forecast changes in the market and spot new opportunities by utilising information obtained from its corporate ecosystem. According to Osakwe, Chovancova and Ogbonna (2015:34), it is critical to understand unfulfilled market needs. In this study, the term ‘social market sensing’ refers to the ability of SEs to look around them and identify potential business opportunities. This ability helps the company stay ahead of its competitors by allowing it to innovate, anticipate and monitor customer needs and trends (Nwankwo and Kanyangale, 2020). Market sensing highlights the importance of opportunity identification and refinement as a basis for launching new businesses, whether from a personal or a corporate perspective. The entrepreneurial method of identifying particular market demands deserves more thought.
This dimension is important when looking for a new market niche. Nwankwo and Kanyangale (2019) list exchange, sharing or co-developing products, technologies or services, and voluntary business agreements as characteristics of the social alliance. ‘An agreement between two companies working on the same horizontal level in the market to share resources for carrying out a desired project in which the two parties have a shared interest’ is what strategic analysts define as an alliance (Zamir, Sahar and Zafar, 2014:25). Businesses are forming alliances for a number of reasons, including distribution, access to new markets, sharing of innovations and organisational learning, and avoiding the costs and risks of raising their profile and recognition in the public eye. As per Zamir, et al. (2014), social alliances have an effect on the performance of an organisation through their ability to promote a firm's expansion, innovation, prevention of business mortality, acceleration of organisational learning and reputation management. An alliance is the formal agreement between two or more businesses in an SE to pool resources and exchange resources.
The study focused on the owner-managers of SMEs in the social enterprises sector. The study adopted quantitative research approach. Three hundred and eighty-seven owner managers were chosen for the study using a stratified random sampling technique. Following a pilot study, data were gathered using a structured questionnaire. Cronbach’s alpha coefficient analysis was done to determine the study's reliability. Factor analysis, both exploratory and confirmatory, was used to validate the results. The assumptions were assessed through structural equation modelling (SEM), using International Business Machine - Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (IBM SPSS)-AMOS version 27. A preliminary multivariate analysis study was conducted to ensure that the assumptions of homoscedasticity, linearity, multicollinearity and normality were not broken. The preliminary test used the following criteria. The chi-square value was used to evaluate the overall fitness of the model as well as the degree of discrepancy between the covariance matrices and the sample. The relevant P-value and the degree of freedom were provided by this study. The normed-chi-square value (CMIN/DF) must be greater than 5, according to the established protocol.
The degree of variance resulting from estimated population covariance and the fitness of the structural model can be ascertained using the goodness-of-fit index (GFI) and the adjusted goodness-of-fit index (AGFI). The range of values for GFI and AGFI is 0–1, with 0.8 and higher than 0.9 being regarded as an excellent match. An additional crucial metric for assessing the fitness of a model, such as the one described in this paper, is the root mean squared error of approximation (RMSEA). The range of values is 0.05–0.1, where an acceptable fit estimate is indicated by a value less than 0.08.
In the study, an incremental fit index (IFI) called the normed fit index was employed. With this tool, the chisquare values of the null and chi-square models are compared. Since the values are between 0 and 1, it follows that a value of greater than 0.9 is required for the model to be deemed to be a good match. An altered version of normed fit index (NFI) is called the comparative fit index (CFI). A good match is indicated by a CFI value greater than or equal to 0.9, and a perfect match is indicated by a CFI value greater than or equal to 0.95. The Tucker–Lewis index and IFI were two additional IFIs used in the study to evaluate model fitness.
The dimensions of EM used as a measurement include innovativeness, proactiveness, calculated risk-taking, resource leveraging, customer intensity, value creation, alliance and market sensing. Table 1 shows the correlation coefficients between EM and SE’s survival in Nigeria, the mean score, standard deviation and exploratory factor analysis loading.
(
| Item | Mean | SD | Factor loading | Item total correlation |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| EM |
||||
| Innovativeness | 3.57 | 0.953 | 0.725 | 0.642 |
| Alliance | 3.21 | 0.719 | 0.711 | 0.648 |
| Proactiveness | 4.72 | 0.831 | 0.693 | 0.572 |
| Resources leveraging | 3.10 | 1.041 | 0.661 | 0.458 |
| Value creation | 3.78 | 1.237 | 0.604 | 0.695 |
| Calculated risk-taking | 4.66 | 1.630 | 0.598 | 0.519 |
| Customer intensity | 5.95 | 2.014 | 0.572 | 0.418 |
| Market sensing | 4.18 | 1.212 | 0.551 | 0.506 |
Note: Kaiser–Meyer–Olkin (KMO) = 0.787,
EM: entrepreneurial marketing, SD: standard deviation
(
| Estimate | |||
|---|---|---|---|
| SEs | <--- | Innovativeness | 0.882 |
| SEs | <--- | Proactiveness | 0.924 |
| SEs | <--- | Calculated risk-taking | 0.812 |
| SEs | <--- | Resources leveraging | 0.781 |
| SEs | <--- | Customer intensity | 0.490 |
| SEs | <--- | Value creation | 0.830 |
| SEs | <--- | Alliance | 0.631 |
| SEs | ---> | Market sensing | 0.343 |
Reliability was frequently used in this paper to evaluate the degree of internal consistency of the various measurements that were part of the study construct. The internal consistency of the factors and the corresponding items that surfaced from the exploratory factor analysis (EFA) assessment were examined independently using IBM SPSS statistics version 27's Cronbach's alpha coefficient. The innovativeness (0.778), proactiveness (0.753), calculated risk-taking (0.673), resource leveraging (0.711), customer intensity (0.687), value creation (0.664), alliance (0.726) and market sensing (0.662) are the Cronbach's alpha coefficients. An internal consistency of 0.813 was found for a factor that measured SE's survival using five items. Since all the Cronbach's alpha coefficients in the measurement model were greater than 0.600, no factor was left out. The EM model in this paper was analysed using the model measurement shown in Figure 1 based on the EFA findings. This figure illustrates the confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) and the structural model of EM SEs’ survival in Nigeria. The validity of all factors, or constructs, was measured statistically in this study through EFA. This assisted in the choice of factors that were included in the CFA or in model measurement.
Structural model illustrating the effects of entrepreneurial marketing (EM) on survival of social enterprises (SEs) in Nigeria
(
Note: CMIN/DF = 1.719, GFI = 0.887, AGFI = 0.935, NFI = 0.917, IFI = 0.922, Tucker–Lewis index (TLI)= 0.915, CFI = 0.931, RMSEA = 0.049, chi-square = 538.321, DF = 143, P = 0.000
The GFIs were generated by the CFA of all unobserved constructs, which were analysed as shown in Figure 1. The indexes indicate that the constructs and the data set are perfectly matched. Confirming the validity of the model measurement, all factor loadings in the measurement model were statistically significant at P < 0.01. This shows that the psychometric properties, or CFA of the constructs used in this paper, were led by the modification indices, theoretical propositions and factor loadings. Having confirmed the fitness of the proposed model through the model measurement depicted in Figure 1, it is pertinent to apply and analyse the formulated study hypothesis using SEM.
The fundamental GFIs propose a perfect fit of the model to the data. In addition, all the structural model paths were significant at P < 0.01. This suggests that the survival of SEs in Nigeria is significantly impacted by EM.
It is critical to be mindful that the study hypothesis is further deconstructed into eight as follows:
Ho1: Innovativeness has no significant effect on the survival of SEs in Nigeria. Ho2: Proactiveness has no significant effect on the survival of SEs in Nigeria. Ho3: Calculated risk-taking has no significant effect on the survival of SEs in Nigeria. Ho4: Resource leveraging has no significant effect on the survival of SEs in Nigeria. Ho5: Customer intensity has no significant effect on the survival of SEs in Nigeria. Ho6: Value creation has no significant effect on the survival of SEs in Nigeria. Ho7: Alliance has no significant effect on the survival of SEs in Nigeria. Ho8: Market sensing has no significant effect on the survival of SEs in Nigeria.
The results of Ho1–Ho7 from the structural model revealed that innovation (effective structural change (ESC) index = 0.882, P <, 0.01), proactiveness (ESC = 0.924, p <, 0.01), calculated risk-taking (ESC = 0.812, p < 0.01), resource leveraging (ESC = 0.781, p < 0.01), customer intensity (ESC = 0.490, p < 0.01), value creation (ESC = 0.830, p < 0.01) and alliance (ESC = 0.631, p < 0.01) have a significant and positive effect on Nigerian SEs. On this point, the null hypotheses (Ho1–7), which states that innovativeness, proactiveness, calculated risk-taking, resource leveraging, customer intensity, value creation and alliance have a significant effect on the survival of SEs in Nigeria, were rejected. This implies that the way and manner with which SEs adopted and implemented these EM dimensions in the Nigerian social ventures contribute significantly to the survival of SEs in Nigeria. The study further revealed that the use of modern devices, internet facilities, advancement in technologies, risk calculated, cooperation with both the internal and external forces and recognition of customers/clients as the ‘kings’ have steered up the achievement and success that SEs enjoyed in recent times. However, market sensing depicts an insignificant effect on the survival of SEs in Nigeria.
Global academics and business experts have responded favourably to the use and assessment of EM in SEs. Numerous academics have contended, based on extant literature, that EM is best understood in the context of profit-making and ought not to be researched or used in the context of SEs. Numerous scholars have additionally contended that since SEs are established for non-profit purposes, EM tools should not be used to measure them. Because of this, it is thought that the application and implementation of EM dimensions in SEs will have an impact due to the dynamic nature of customers and clients.
It is important to consider the theoretical stance, methodological diversity and important findings when placing EM in the context of SE. First off, there is a dearth of a solid theoretical framework or academic validation for EM research conducted in the context of Nigerian SEs. Researchers, including Olannye and Eromafuru (2016), Olaniyan, Ogbuanu and Oduguwa (2017), Nwankwo and Kanyangale (2022a) and others, have examined the EM phenomenon in a variety of SMEs' sectors. The lack of interest and research on SEs among them has resulted in a lack of clarity regarding how EM contributes to the sustainability and survival of SEs in Nigeria.
The results of this study demonstrate that EM significantly and favourably affects SE survival in Nigeria. Seven EM dimensions—innovativeness, proactiveness, calculated risk-taking, resource leveraging, customer intensity, value creation and alliance—are significant, as shown by the test statistics. All dimensions did not, however, appear to have the same impact on SE survival. It is interesting to note that the current study's analysis of market sensing shows that it has little bearing on SE survival in Nigeria. This result conflicts with the corpus of current knowledge. For example, market sensing was one of the dimensions used in a research study by Nwankwo and Kanyangale (2022a) measuring the survival of manufacturing SMEs in Nigeria. The researchers concluded that market sensing is significantly related to survival. In this context, survival is the capacity to move forwards in the face of difficulty.
It is interesting to note that, as SMEs overcome the risk associated with being new and small, innovation has a major and positive impact on survival in the early phases of the company. Lumpkin and Dess (1996) made it clear that while different stages of a firm's development require different inputs, not all EM dimensions are equally relevant or appropriate for enhancing a firm's performance. More academic study is required to understand how the innovative cultures of mature SEs help or hurt SMEs' ability to survive.
Proactiveness is one of the EM dimensions that, according to the study, has a strong and positive significant impact on the survival of SEs in Nigeria. More significantly, innovativeness and other factors are surpassed by proactiveness as the best indicators of SE survival in Nigeria. Proactivity can also be found at the organisational level (Duru, et al., 2018; Nwankwo and Kanyangale, 2019), not just at the individual level (e.g. owner-managers, employees). Proactiveness has a significant and positive impact on SMEs' survival, according to multiple studies by academics like Amah and Eshegheri (2017) and Aroyeun, et al. (2019). However, it is interesting to see how this effect varies on SMEs' performance. For example, a study by Duru, et al. (2018) on the impact of EM performance of SMEs in Abuja, Nigeria, found a positive and significant relationship between proactiveness and SMEs' performance. It is believed that SMEs must perform well to survive (Holmes and Jorlöv, 2015). The study's findings highlight the proactive role that owner-managers play in moving more quickly than their rivals when it comes to launching new ideas, implementing strategies and introducing new products that have a positive impact on SE survival. Entrepreneurial marketers should be proactive in their interactions with customers and the market, according to Holmes and Jorlöv (2015). Being proactive also means not just adjusting to circumstances or waiting for things to work themselves out, but also taking charge and making things work.
It is not surprising that resource leveraging, prudent risk-taking and alliance showed a positive and significant impact on SE survival in Nigeria. SEs can increase their chances of surviving by implementing resource leveraging strategies, which involve utilising a firm's resources creatively and effectively to accomplish difficult goals (Holmes and Jorlöv, 2015) or adopting and utilising the resources of another firm through an alliance to produce new goods, services or ideas. SEs face resource-related challenges and the liability of being small. In contrast to resource leveraging and alliance, calculated risk-taking in this study demonstrated a more substantial impact on SE survival. This demonstrates how risk-averse owners/managers of SEs in Nigeria appear to comprehend the importance of risk aversion, seeming job security, being aware of risk-related projects and hiring risk-takers.
Stretching resources far further than competitors does often prove beneficial in the context of resource leveraging and alliances in SEs. In addition, SEs use resources in ways that others cannot, utilising others' resources to further their own specific objectives. By doing so, two businesses can pool their resources to produce more value, which can then be recycled and used to obtain other resources (Nwankwo and Kanyangale, 2020). Although the focus of this study is on how resource leveraging, calculated risk-taking and alliances affect SE survival, it is noteworthy that numerous studies that have examined the relationship between EM performance and SE survival have yielded conflicting and ambiguous findings (Kapepa and Van Vuuren, 2019). For instance, a study conducted in 2014 by Nwaizugbo and Anukam looked at the performance of 20 SME owner-managers in the Imo State, Nigeria, Owerri service sector. They came to the conclusion that SMEs' performance is influenced by resource leveraging. In the southeast of Nigeria, Nwankwo and Kanyangale (2023) studied 364 manufacturing companies. They discovered that the formation of alliances was unimportant. In the context of non-SEs in Abuja, researchers have discovered that calculated risk-taking somewhat improves SMEs' performance (Duru, et al., 2018).
However, value creation shows a strong and favourable significant effect on SE survival in Nigeria. Customer satisfaction, customer services, customer loyalty and customer preferences were the main focuses of value creation in this study because they have a significant and favourable impact on SEs' ability to survive.
This suggests that customers are more likely to stick with the SE when their needs are met by the services provided or goods made available. The SE would profit greatly from this, which would ultimately ensure the business's survival. Therefore, customer intensity—which showed a weak but positive significant effect on survival—showed that Nigerian owner-managers of SEs lack a true understanding of the fact that their customers are the reason their business exists. To keep and retain a customer, it is necessary to comprehend their needs and build a mutually beneficial relationship with them.
Given that the SE was founded with the express purpose of resolving social issues, it is appropriate to emphasise the significance of EM in SE activities in light of the study that looked at the impact of EM dimensions in SEs. EM is a popular marketing tactic that has been used in profitable business operations and has produced amazing outcomes when used appropriately. It is interesting to note that EM dimensions—like innovativeness, proactiveness, calculated risk-taking, resource leveraging, customer intensity, value creation and alliance—when applied and implemented in SEs would produce better results in reducing social problems in Nigeria and elsewhere.
In summary, this study has advanced the understanding of EM in SEs. Scholars and professionals are alerted to the use of EM dimensions in SEs by this study. Since these dimensions in the SEs sector have not been validated by any prior studies, this noteworthy finding is crucial to the body of knowledge. Any owner-manager can use these crucial, verified dimensions to help turn the capital and vision of SEs into reality.
Thus, the study suggests that practitioners embrace and apply EM dimensions as the fundamental facilitators that would allow SEs to continue operating in Nigeria and other countries. To understand why market sensing is unimportant to SE survival, more research needs to be done.