Considerations For Scaling a Social Enterprise: Key Factors and Elements

It is important for a social enterprise to identify what the key driver is for scaling, as this will impact which factors are more influential and what the social enterprise needs to focus its attention on. There are several drivers that prompt a social enterprise to consider scaling. The most common may be demand-driven, defined as 1) a different need within the cohort they are already serving, 2) the same need in a different community that their social enterprise can address, or 3) an inherent disadvantage or flaw in society that requires systemic change (Stirzaker, Galloway, Muhonen and Christopolous, 2021). Another less researched reason is leader driven, the personal desire of the social entrepreneur to scale (Smith et al., 2016). This mirrors commercial organisations where individual motivation is cited as one of the primary reasons for scaling (Cliff, 1998; Wiklund and Shepherd, 2003). Whilst there is a growing body of research into what inspires a social entrepreneur to start their journey in social enterprise (Dey and Lehner 2017, Dey and Steyaert 2016), the research into what drives a social entrepreneur to scale is limited. However, research by Smith et al. (2016) finds that a desire for control by a social entrepreneur may influence the decisions made during the scaling process; specifically, the level of moral intensity experienced may influence which routes to scaling they follow. Scaling may also be opportunity driven when scaling is instigated by an opportunity from an external force such as a financial opportunity. By including drivers as a factor in our framework, we call attention to how the motivation to scale may influence the decisions made during the scaling process and might provide a point of reflection for the social entrepreneur to recognise this positioning and ensure all viable options are evaluated, eliminating any bias to ensure maximum social impact when scaling.

Moore et al., (2015) define the most common forms of scaling, which are discussed in the literature, as Scale Deep, Scale Out or Scale Up. A social enterprise may choose to ‘Scale Deep’ by increasing its impact in its home community – where they are already serving the community. This approach is often used in W.I.S.E.s (Work Integrated Social Enterprises) where a social enterprise is creating employment for a marginalised group. The Irish social enterprise, Shuttleknit which provides employment to members of the Travelling community, is just one example of a social enterprise using a scale deep approach to change attitudes towards the Travelling community. A ‘Scale Out’ approach seeks to spread its impact to other communities – when the same need is identified in a different community. ‘Books At One’ brings accessibility to bookshops to local areas where it may not be deemed commercially attractive to traditional commercial booksellers and is a prime example of a social enterprise using this approach. Books at One now operates in 3 locations around Ireland with further plans to scale out. A ‘Scale Up’ approach seeks to impact systemic change by for example affecting policy. We see many examples of social enterprises in the circular economy using this approach such as The Rediscovery Centre that not only strive to demonstrate practical circular economy approaches through their Rediscover Fashion, Furniture, Paint and Cycling social enterprises but also have a focus on advocacy work to influence and change national policy.

Each of these types of scaling will require different approaches (Moore et al., 2015; Van den Bosch and Rotmans, 2008; Westley, Antadze, Riddell, Robinson and Geobey, 2014). What form of scaling the social enterprise is pursuing, scaling up, scaling out or scaling deep, will greatly affect what strategies and routes it will consider so it can achieve the anticipated social goal (Omann, Kammerlander, Jager, Bisaro and Tabara, 2020).

Scaling a social enterprise is not an easy or straightforward path (Martin and Osberg, 2015). To determine which form of scaling the social enterprise will follow, it will first need to determine the Critical Success Factors (CSFs) involved in achieving the desired social impact of their mission (Dees et al. 2004). In his seminal paper, Rockart (1979, p. 5) defined critical success factors as “the limited number of areas in which results, if they are satisfactory, will ensure successful competitive performance for the organisation. They are the few key areas where things must go right for the business to flourish. If results in these areas are not adequate, the organisations efforts for the period will be less than desirable”. If a social enterprise can identify which CSFs account for the most impact but require the least cost and effort, it will be an easier path to scale (Bradach and Grindle, 2014). Defining these CSFs is not simple; social enterprises need to dig deep into their existing operations and social impact strategies to determine what their core scalable CSFs are. Bradach and Grindle (2014) refer to this process as ‘unbundling’. A social enterprise must put sufficient time and reflection into creating its social impact model and, during this process, interrogate each aspect of its operations. A social enterprise may find that it is its organisational model, its programme, or its principles that are the scalable element. For example, when a national network of public charter schools in the U.S., ‘Knowledge is Power Program’ (KIPP), realised they could scale out their successful social enterprise to achieve greater social impact, they first evaluated what their core elements for achieving social impact were. They found that great leadership is at the core of great schools. From this realisation, they have built ‘KIPP’s principal-training model’, which enabled them to extend their social impact without adding significantly to their size (Cohodes, Setren and Walters, 2021). However, it is often not clear-cut, and the lines can be blurred regarding what the core scalable element is, or it may be a combination of several aspects of the enterprise’s social value proposition. Gerald Chertavian, founder of social enterprise ‘Year Up’ uses the catchphrase - scaling what works; Year Up has been successfully addressing youth unemployment through short term intensive training since 2000. Still, the challenge of low-income young adults out of work in the U.S. persists; Chertavian is keen to close the gap between what they have done and what still needs to be done (Bradach and Grindle 2014). He recognises that focusing solely on those their organisation directly serves, limits the potential of social impact. Instead, Chertavian, (2014, p.1) outlines the critical success factors as “establishing proof points, forging strong partnerships, and changing social norms across multiple sectors to drive real collective impact”. For example, Year Up advocate to large corporations to remove screening criteria that may particularly impact low-income areas. This is why it is imperative that a social enterprise spends sufficient time considering their core strategic elements that are to be scaled for the most impact whilst choosing which form of scaling to follow.

An in-depth study by the BridgeSpan group, Ditkoff and Grindle (2017) uncovered five key critical success factors that were common among NGOs that had reached large-scale social impact, which can also be applicable to social enterprise. These include building a shared understanding of the problem and its ecosystem, setting a winnable milestone and honing a compelling message, designing approaches that will work at a massive scale, driving (rather than assuming) demand, and embracing course correction. To achieve this, a deep understanding of the social issue the social enterprise is addressing is needed, knowing how the space operates and interacts with other social issues is important. For example, homelessness cannot be addressed in isolation, often it is interlinked with mental health issues (Fischer and Breakey, 1985).The CSFs defined by an organisation will influence what resources are required and lead to a clearer understanding of how financing, their organisational model, technology, data, institutional frameworks, and government policy, impact and should be addressed when scaling their social enterprise (Bradach and Grindle, 2014; Han and Shah, 2020; Mulgan, 2006; Seelos and Mair, 2005). Seelos and Mair (2019) refer to the Green Zone when a social enterprise is effectively operating in its impact creation zone and positively managing any uncertainty. CSFs may be very specific to the social enterprise but without having a clear understanding of these CSFs, the social enterprise is less likely to achieve an increase in social impact success and operate in its Green Zone (Seelos and Mair, 2019).

Having understood its CSFs the social enterprise will then be better informed to start to look at the more practical and operational side of scaling. The routes to scaling, capabilities and supports – that are discussed next, are factors which continuously interact together to achieve sustained social impact.

After determining what is driving the scaling journey, what form of scaling is most appropriate and assessing targeted critical success factors, a social enterprise can begin with operational considerations such as the practical route it will take to scaling. Our conceptual model highlights that this is not a linear path. Social enterprises will need to circle back and re-imagine their scaling journey when faced with barriers or indeed additional opportunities.

Routes to scaling have received the most attention in the literature, and as we will see below, there are many options. The extant literature focuses on examining routes to scaling from different perspectives, including bricolage (Baker and Nelson, 2005), supply and demand (Mulgan, Tuck, Ali and Sanders, 2007), stage models for social impact scaling (Dees et al., 2004; Lyon and Fernandez, 2012) and pathway approaches (Elkington and Hartigan, 2008). We will now outline and consider the impacts of each of these routes on the process of scaling.

Baker and Nelson (2005) found that social enterprises have learned that achieving the desired social impact within the constraints they operate in requires them to apply and combine the know-how and resources they have available to them to address social issues, and this concept has become known as bricolage. Bricolage is the most common default route to scaling deployed, often without knowledge, by most social enterprises. Bricolage addresses critical needs and challenges by problem-solving using an iterative process where potential ideas and solutions are piloted, evaluated and implemented (Bacq, Ofstein, Kickul and Grundy, 2015) in an environment that is resource deficient (Garud and Karnøe, 2003). Entrepreneurs frequently use bricolage in the start-up phase as a necessity – and often with great success. However, it can, without sufficient consideration, become the de facto strategy of the organisation and have negative results. Dees et al. (2004, p.3) state the impact of remaining in a bricolage strategy can “blind social sector leaders to promising options and bias them towards a limited set of strategies.”

The effectiveness and suitability of bricolage as a route to scaling have been widely debated. Bricolage has been found necessary and perhaps essential in new market disruption, but there is a curvilinear relationship between entrepreneurial bricolage and innovation as it ultimately restricts long-term growth (Busch and Barkema, 2020). When looking at the factors presented in our conceptual model, defaulting to bricolage can result in significantly negative impacts on the scaling journey as it may prevent the social enterprise from seeking the crucial resources required to effect long-term impact (Kickul, Griffiths and Gundry, 2010).

Several researchers (Gabriel, 2014; Mulgan et al., 2007; Seelos and Mair, 2005; Waitzer and Paul, 2011) have put forward alternative models to propose the roadmap of progressing towards scaling social impact. We now consider some of the most common routes to scale that a social enterprise can deploy as an alternative to bricolage; we consider their appropriateness for application in a social enterprise context and how each may influence the scaling process.

The supply-demand route to scaling is most reflective of traditional commercial approaches to scaling. The basic premise is that when demand increases, supply increases, and therefore there is growth. Mulgan et al. (2007) argue that to effectively scale as an organisation; two factors must be present, an identifiable demand and sufficient capacity in an organisation to deliver and capitalise on the demand. In a social enterprise scaling context, this route to scaling was found to be effective when the need to engage with a given social issue is recognised by customers who are willing to pay for it, either directly (as an arms-length transaction) or indirectly (customers who pay for a good/service on behalf of those who cannot) (Westley and Antadze, 2010). However, the supply-demand approach does not interrogate the effectiveness of the social innovation, so whilst there may be capacity within the organisation, and an identified or perceived short-term demand for the product or service provided by the social enterprise, the innovation itself may not be addressing and solving the underlying social issue. It is reasonable to suggest that a social enterprise pursuing this route to scaling might refer back to CSFs to identify what elements create social impact and proceed from there.

A ‘three-step strategy approach’ to scaling social impact has been developed by several researchers to provide a clear and easy way to navigate the scaling process. The most debated in the literature are those by Dees et al. (2004) and Lyon and Fernandez (2012). Lyon and Fernandez (2012) put forward routes to scale that propose 1) organisational scaling, 2) scaling through formal relationships, and 3) scaling through open access. Organisational scaling can be pursued through a variety of routes; diversification, expansion of the number of services, expanding to new geographic locations, or increasing volume. These routes to scaling are complementary to the ‘forms of scaling’ (scaling up and scaling out) as outlined by Moore et al. (2015).

Organisational scaling is the most traditional route to scaling and is likely the most familiar to social enterprises; however, it may be focused on organisational growth and, similar to some of the short-comings discussed in the supply-demand model, may not sufficiently take into consideration the scaling of social impact as a primary focus of scaling for social enterprises (Islam, 2020a). This reinforces how imperative it is that a social enterprise has already identified and deeply understands its CSFs, before selecting organisational scaling as a route to scaling.

Another route to scaling, scaling through formal relationships, proposes deployments such as spin-out organisations, social franchising, and quality standards (Lyon and Fernandez, 2012). These routes to scaling are seen as causing less of a resource drain on the core social enterprise and may create an efficient way of scaling social impact. This approach creates a more sustainable path with adequate resources to cope with demand, but it also requires the relinquishment of some control which may present a challenge, particularly for founder social entrepreneurs. As highlighted earlier, a social entrepreneur’s motivation to scale and desire for control may influence their consideration of this route to scale. Our proposed conceptual model considers the influence of each factor, prompting a social entrepreneur to consider their motivations before selecting or indeed dismissing a particular route to scaling.

There are some examples of successful social franchising as a route to scaling that have been adopted in Ireland with organisations such as Siel Bleu, which are a social franchise of a French organisation, and THE Homeshare, a social franchise of a UK model and most recently the UK social enterprise AMT acquired 55 coffee bars across Ireland and the UK to convert them into social enterprises. However, to the best of the authors’ knowledge there is only one relatively new example of social franchising being used as a route to scale by Irish social enterprises ‘Books At One’. This route to scaling is an underexplored option in research and practice and has a potential for further research with practical implications.

Open access methods such as training and accredited courses, establishing networks to share good practices, or providing open-source material and encouraging learning is another route to scaling that has been debated in the literature (Lyon and Fernandez, 2012). Adopting this route to scaling may result in the social enterprise having less control over the impact and having to rely on learners implementing and following the correct procedures and values of the social enterprise (Bretos, Diaz-Foncea and Marcuello, 2020). With the advances in technology, we have seen an increased number of social enterprises pursuing this route to scaling, such as Grow Remote, an Irish social enterprise that promotes remote working and assists employers and employees to adapt to remote working, has scaled significantly over the past year partially using an open access strategy (Grow Remote, 2022).

Using a comparative structure, Dees et al. (2004) also put forward a three-step strategy approach to scaling using the terms branch, affiliation, and dissemination. Dees et al. (2004) highlight that crucial to the success of a route to scaling is identifying the core elements or CSFs of the social enterprise that are key to scaling the social impact. Again, this serves as a reminder that the factors of scaling are closely interrelated and a social enterprise may need to iteratively review factors as they encounter fresh challenges.

There has been a significant reduction in the popularity of branching as an option for scaling over the past ten years from 77% to 33% within Ashoka fellows while affiliations, or partnerships have seen an increase from 70% to 86% (Waitzer and Paul, 2011). This could be due to the higher costs involved in scaling through branching or, perhaps more likely, the advancement of technology facilitating easier communication, training, and accountability.

Several researchers (Elkington and Hartigan, 2008; Gabriel, 2014; Mulgan et al., 2007; Seelos and Mair, 2005; Waitzer and Paul, 2011) have put forward a ‘pathway model’ to propose a model of scaling social innovation. Open-source change-making and smart networks have been discussed as being dual pathways to route to scaling set out by Waitzer and Paul (2011, p.144) in response to their finding that many “great social innovations too often remain local”. Elkington and Hartigan (2008) point out that social enterprises are now reaching the consensus that scaling effectively occurs not through an enterprise but rather through an ecosystem.

There are several empirical examples of this ecosystem expansion model, such as Valid Nutrition, a social enterprise that produces a ready-to-use food product to address malnutrition. Their philosophy is not to import solutions into the developing world, but to add value to society and industry locally (Valid Nutrition, 2021). This approach supports the development of a sustainable ecosystem where the supplier farmers have a secured income, and there is a multiplier effect on local communities, resulting in Valid Nutrition increasing their impact without adding additional organisational capacity.

Like Valid Nutrition, many social enterprises now realise they are more successful when integrated as part of a wider ecosystem (Montgomery, Dacin and Dacin, 2012). This has led to the increased development of smart networks. Smart networks reflect the position that a single organisation cannot achieve large-scale social change without support. A mission-centred smart network can deliver much more significant results than a lone operating social enterprise (Waitzer and Paul, 2011). The interactions of a scaling social enterprise with the ecosystem are further discussed in a later section.

We see similarities in Mulgan et al. (2007) five pathways to scale: advocacy, networks, programmes, franchising, and direct control, and more recent research (Elkington and Hartigan, 2008; Han and Shah, 2020; Weber, Kroeger, et al., 2012). Elkington and Hartigan (2008) see the key to scaling as requiring collaborative leadership and the mapping of key agents. In their 5-stage pathway to scale, they have created a model of change charting a social enterprise’s progress through the stages of Eureka, Experiment, Enterprise, Ecosystem, and System Change, with the crucial space of scaling in the transition from enterprise to scaling.

A social enterprise may select the most relevant approach or a combination of approaches and adapt them at different times. It is important to note that social enterprise’s strategic choices in its early days may influence its future evolution (Bauwens, Huybrechts and Dufays, 2020) and so this needs due consideration. We have outlined several of the varied routes to scaling discussed in the literature. Rather than examining them in isolation, it is vital we begin to fully understand their interconnectivity and influence. Without considering the influence of factors such as drivers to scale and CSFs not only from the outset of the scaling journey but throughout the process, a social enterprise could inadvertently make a costly choice. Whilst each of these routes to scaling may create an increase in social impact, they will only be successful if applied in the right conditions.

Underpinning the route to scaling is the readiness and capabilities development of a social enterprise. This is a key factor in terms of execution. Readiness is a factor that has also received much attention in the literature and is a feature in many approaches which highlight how a social enterprise can determine and evaluate what it needs to have in place to successfully scale. A social enterprise planning to scale will need to evaluate what the systems are first. These can include technology, finance, HR systems a social enterprise needs in place to ensure it has a greater infrastructure in place to manage an increased remit (Bloom and Chatterji, 2009; Bloom and Smith, 2010; Cannatelli, 2017; Dees et al., 2004; Gauthier et al., 2019; Weber et al., 2012). We propose that through understanding their CSFs and selecting their route to scaling, a social enterprise may discover the need for new, different resources such as enhanced capabilities and skills to be in place to operationally execute their scaling plan. The ability of the social enterprise in the securing or non-securing of these capabilities may mean the type of scaling, the route to scaling or indeed the CSFs need to be re-adjusted. This again highlights how closely interlinked each factor in the process of scaling may be. If a social enterprise does not understand their CSFs, they may have inadequate systems in place or implement the wrong resources which could have a detrimental effect to the social impact it achieves. Scaling a social enterprise is far more complex than in the commercial sector, as the focus is not on simply growing an organisation (Austin, Stevenson and Wei-Skillern, 2006).

To aid with the process of evaluating required capabilities, Dees et al. (2004) put forward the ‘5 R’s Model’. Following through the process of evaluating ‘Readiness, Receptivity, Resources, Risks and Returns’, a social enterprise can identify how they are ready to scale and what gaps need to be addressed to scale successfully. Following on from determining readiness – the organisation must look at receptivity, resources, risks, and returns before determining if the social enterprise is ready to scale. If through this process, the social enterprise determines it is not ready to scale or encounters significant barriers, such as the inability to secure resources, it will have identified key areas for development to get them to that readiness stage. This can help as a point of reflection; a social enterprise may discover that they need to revisit their routes to scaling to simplify and allow them to proceed or perhaps seek a collaborative partner; it also shows how social enterprises may move between the factors of the model rather than following a set linear path.

When moving through the above-outlined process of the 5R model, a social enterprise will likely spend considerable time evaluating the resources required. To carry out this evaluation of resources, the SCALERS model may be useful (Bloom and Chatterji, 2009). Perhaps the most well-documented model of social enterprise scaling is known by the acronym SCALERS (staffing, communications, alliance building, lobbying, earnings generation, replication, and stimulating market forces), which outlines necessary capabilities a social enterprise might need to achieve success in scaling (Bloom and Chatterji, 2009). The capabilities the social enterprise has must deliver the identified CSFs of the social enterprise. For example, Irish social enterprise ‘Women for Elections’ sees advocacy as one of their CSFs to deliver their goal of systemic change within the Irish political system, so the skillset of advocacy and campaign management is likely to be a capability they require on their team. This model recognises that each of the SCALERS drivers or capabilities is impacted by external situational contingencies such as potential allies, access to start-up capital, public support, labour needs, supportive public policy, or dispersion of beneficiaries. These situational contingencies can either enhance or suppress the influence of the SCALER’s capabilities in a social enterprise. Deployment of all SCALERS at the same time may not be required for successful scaling; for example, a social enterprise may achieve significant success in scaling without using lobbying tactics, or it may be the key driver of success in its scaling.

As a result of their empirical research, Gauthier et al. (2019) more recently suggested two further capabilities necessary for effective scaling – internal systems (processes and procedures used to run the organisation) and client selection (deciding which clients to serve and equally which not to). Whilst these additions are of interest, it is of note that their empirical research was limited to a sole organisation and so requires further endorsement. However, this research does further reinforce that a more connected, global approach is required for scaling.

The operational strategies a social enterprise will deploy to achieve its planned scaling has been the focus of several researchers (Bloom and Smith, 2010; Bradach, 2003, 2009; Bradach and Grindle, 2014; Elkington and Hartigan, 2008; Mulgan, 2006). It is within the operational strategies that we see the closest comparisons to for-profit organisations (Bradach and Grindle, 2014). For example, Bradach (2009) outlines some key tools and tactics that social enterprises have used to expand their impact far beyond what would seem possible from their size. These are practical, operational strategies that a social enterprise can utilise to scale their impact as opposed to their organisations, but they do rely on a very strong organisational core. Many of these strategies reflect the advances in technologies that allow organisations to scale at lower costs – for example, ‘convert bricks to clicks’ models have seen social enterprises using and creating platforms that can be easily expanded, resulting in the moving of resources to an online platform as opposed to a traditional physical expansion. The Irish social enterprise Thriftify is an excellent example of this model, working alongside traditional brick and mortar charity shop models to create an online platform to help charity shops reach more customers without a costly physical expansion and using AI technology to maximise the experience. Using the Thriftify partner platform, a charity shop in a remote area can easily access customers across the country regardless of their location.

Mulgan et al. (2007) highlight some of the key capabilities that are deemed necessary and need to be explored to facilitate successful scaling – such as leadership. The right leadership is crucial in any organisation, but the complex and varied demands on a social enterprise leader are particularly challenging. Social enterprises are in pursuit of social and commercial goals, which, far from being complementary, are often associated with conflicting identities, value systems, and norms (Battilana and Dorado, 2010; Tracey, Phillips and Jarvis, 2011). We can understand these competing goals using the Paradox Theory – which offers a view into the complex nature of managing competing demands in an organisation (Smith, Binns and Tushman, 2010). The leadership of social enterprises must manage these competing demands simultaneously. Smith, Besharov, Wessels and Chertok (2012) delved deeper into this issue and created a paradoxical leadership model for social entrepreneurs to help manage these conflicts. The model outlines three skills that a social enterprise leader must embrace to manage these competing demands - Acceptance, Differentiation, and Integration. The model highlights key skills in each of these stages, which are not typically comparable with skills required in commercial settings. Rather than consistently prioritising one demand over the other – a social enterprise leader must learn to embrace the differences and learn to make sense of them in a different way, reframing contradictions from ‘Either/Or’ dilemmas to ‘both/and possibilities’ (Bartunek and Franzak, 1988). Although there is a common acknowledgement of these competing demands, there is little research to identify the skills required to manage them in a complementary manner that avoids consistent conflict or reprioritisation. As the social and commercial demands of the social enterprise grow, there can be a fundamental lack of understanding as to how to integrate these two goals, and they are dealt with in isolation rather than in tandem (Smith et al., 2012). With the increased offering of third-level education focusing specifically on social enterprises, there are more opportunities for learning how to manage these challenges (Halsall, Oberoi and Snowden 2022). In social enterprises that are working with vulnerable individuals, the front-line staff and support staff may be in agreement with the overarching goal of the social enterprise but may differ on how things run operationally on a day-to-day basis. In start-up mode, it can be easier to keep all staff members aligned, but as the organisation grows and more formal structures and governance are necessary, it is imperative to ensure the overarching goals and operational goals remain closely aligned (Rigby, Sutherland and Noble, 2018). Failure to recognise this challenge may result in a reluctance of the social enterprise to accept the need for new capabilities or enhanced systems which may lead to failed scaling attempts.

When a social enterprise has determined the specific capabilities it requires for scaling, there will invariably be gaps that cannot be filled by its existing or proposed resources. These required supports may be temporary, such as consultant support or longer-term financial support with investment or loans.

Increasingly social enterprises engage with the wider ecosystem of funders, advocates, educational institutions, or network organisations to leverage the external support and expertise required. The importance of external support and, indeed the need for organisations to garner political and social support to achieve their social goals has been well documented (Bacq and Eddleston, 2018; Bloom and Skloot, 2010; Santos, Pache and Birkholz, 2015). The Irish social enterprise ecosystem is made up of policy and statute, research and education, networks, support and advocacy and financial intermediaries (O’Shaughnessy, 2016).

Scaling in social enterprise occurs more recently not through an enterprise but rather as an ecosystem (Elkington and Hartigan, 2008). An ecosystem is defined as “an array of interacting organisations, individuals (collectively related to as “actors”), elements, relationships, and conditions that either enable or impede innovation” (Hoffecker, 2018, p.14) and, more specifically, a social enterprise ecosystem is defined as a set of attributes that collectively creates a conducive environment for social enterprises to thrive (Bloom and Dees, 2008).

Han and Shah (2020) and Weber, Kroeger, et al. (2012) put forward two models of scaling through ecosystems. The ecosystem of scaling social impact theoretical framework which was created by Han and Shah (2020) integrates both systemic and organisational level factors. This framework highlights five key elements: financing, processing of scaling (organisational level factors), government policy, and institutional infrastructure (systemic level factors), and outlines the relationship between each element. Within the process of scaling elements, different strategies are used by organisations to scale their social impact. These strategies are underpinned by technology and data (Crutchfield and Grant, 2012). This framework aims to understand how to scale a social enterprise beyond solely organisational growth to include the growth of social impact. The networks, associations, and intermediaries can amplify the impact of the sector by creating the standard and criteria across the board (Han and Shah, 2020). This framework is innovative in its attempt to incorporate the existing potential support and influence of external factors like government policy and institutional infrastructure (governance).

With social enterprises operating in a more connected world than ever, it is evident from the literature that they must take account of the world around them, leveraging external supports and being aware of external influences. In Ireland, we have seen an increase in the ecosystem supports available to social enterprises through both governmental initiatives such as Awareness Raising Initiatives for Social Enterprises (ARISE) (DRCD, 2021) and intermediaries’ accelerators such as Rethink Ireland (Rethink Ireland 2022). However, growth through an ecosystem also comes with a cautionary tale that the social enterprise needs to ensure it is aware of potential unintended consequences of scaling through an ecosystem; for example, a social enterprise engaging in strong advocacy work may trigger hostile government relations, which could have a negative impact in the future (Islam, 2020b). It is important to consider the influence these choices may have when scaling, for example a grass-roots social enterprise engaged in advocacy may not experience the same challenges as a nationally co-ordinated organisation.

More recent research focuses on an ecosystem approach of scaling, recognising that key actors and stakeholders involved in the development of a social enterprise can act as significantly influential supports (Han and Shah, 2020). We see other more practical developments of this approach with Scotland that has declared itself as ‘the most supportive in the world for social enterprises’ (Roy, McHugh, Huckfield, Kay and Donaldson, 2015 p.1). This statement is largely supported by their development of a comprehensive ecosystem including social procurement, a supportive policy, the availability of financial and non-financial supports for social enterprise (Roy et al., 2015).

Research like Han and Shah’s (2020) framework starts to bring together and interconnect the relationship of different key elements both internally and externally. These concepts look to address the social enterprise holistically, but there has been limited empirical research on the effectiveness of this approach.