Technological Forecasting & Social Change 175 (2022) 121324

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Technological Forecasting & Social Change

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/techfore

Ambiguous roles of intermediaries in social entrepreneurship: The case of

social innovation system in South Korea
Jae-Yun Ho a, Semee Yoon b, *
a
Creative Technology Management, Underwood International College, Yonsei University, 85 Songdogwahak-ro, Yeonsu-gu, Incheon 21983, Republic of Korea
b
Sustainable Development and Cooperation, Underwood International College, Yonsei University, 85 Songdogwahak-ro, Yeonsu-gu, Incheon 21983, Republic of Korea

A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T

Keywords: Social entrepreneurship and ventures play increasingly important roles in social innovation to tackle wicked
Intermediary organization problems. Given that social ventures not only have limited resources but are also a relatively new form of
Social innovation system entrepreneurship, they often require help of intermediary organizations, actors in social entrepreneurship that
Social entrepreneurship
aim to deliver some level of social innovation in the context they work in and assist social entrepreneurs to build
Social venture
Social business
their capabilities and diffuse innovative ideas. These intermediaries also play various roles in supporting the
South Korea development and growth of social business ecosystems by linking and mediating different actors to build a
community of social innovators. While some of these are typical roles of accelerators or incubators in techno­
logical entrepreneurial systems, other mediating and networking roles are closer to those of intermediary or­
ganizations in the social economy. Due to the fragmented nature of the studies that investigate these issues from
a particular theoretical and practical perspective, there is a lack of systematic and comprehensive analysis of the
diverse roles of intermediaries in broader innovation ecosystems. To address this gap, this study adopts the
innovation systems approach and examines the various “ambiguous” roles of intermediary organizations in
support of social entrepreneurship. By highlighting the particular functions attributable to the nature and
characteristics of social business, this study also suggests how technology can facilitate the development of
sustainable social innovation systems.

1. Introduction practice and utilization of entrepreneurial capacities to improve society

and tackle wicked problems, such as extreme poverty and air pollution,
In his seminal book, “Theorie der wirtschaftlichen Entwicklung” are not new (Rovere et al., 2020). The emergence and expansion of so­
(The Theory of Economic Development), the founding father of the ac­ cial enterprises date back to the 19th century and has greatly contrib­
ademic fields of entrepreneurship and innovation Joseph Schumpeter uted to directly addressing social needs through products and services,
made a revolutionary statement. In his words, “not only with regard to rather than indirectly through corporate philanthropy (Rahdari et al.,
the economy but also socially the entrepreneur must be on top of the 2016; The Institute for Social Entrepreneurs, 2008). Nevertheless, the
pyramid of society (Schumpeter, 2002, p. 414).” While scholars have recent advances in and pervasive dissemination of information and
long identified entrepreneurs as catalysts and innovators that spur communications technology have opened up numerous opportunities
economic development, they paid relatively less attention to the entre­ for entrepreneurs with innovative ideas to participate in sustainable
preneurs’ role as drivers of social progress. social businesses and generate considerable societal impact (Akinyemi
In recent studies, we find an increasing awareness that social et al., 2013). Thus, there is increasing research that investigates how
entrepreneurship stimulates social change by attempting to solve soci­ social businesses implement technological and innovative activities to
etal problems through innovative strategies, such as the combination of deliver social innovation by adopting theoretical frameworks relevant to
resources, exploitation of opportunities for social value creation, satis­ technological innovation (Lamine et al., 2018; Peerally et al., 2019). In
faction of social needs, and development of social goods and services particular, Surie (2017) delineates how social entrepreneurship plays an
(Crisan and Borza, 2012; Morris et al., 2011; Rahdari et al., 2016). The essential role in developing an innovation system for renewable energy
concept of social entrepreneurship might be recent and novel, but the at both the macro and micro levels in India. This case also highlights the

* Corresponding author.
E-mail address: [email protected] (S. Yoon).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2021.121324
Received 7 December 2020; Received in revised form 25 October 2021; Accepted 27 October 2021
Available online 12 November 2021
0040-1625/© 2021 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
J.-Y. Ho and S. Yoon Technological Forecasting & Social Change 175 (2022) 121324

need for linkages within the local ecosystem and across other ecosystems study are presented in Section 4 and a discussion in Section 5. Section 6
to provide access to resources, mostly through the national innovation concludes the paper to reiterate the intermediary roles from the nature
system. and characteristics of social business and show how technology can be
Along with Surie (2017), many researchers have pointed out the used to support some of these intermediary functions.
mechanisms through which social entrepreneurs compare and contrast
with findings from traditional entrepreneurship. However, to explore in 2. Conceptual background
detail how a new ecosystem may be formed to address social needs,
which may not be readily addressed by market players who internalize The motivation of this study of intermediary organizations for social
third-party costs and benefits, understanding the broader institutional innovation comes from two different threads of literature: first, the
environment beyond national innovation systems is critical to see literature on social entrepreneurship, which continues to receive
whether there are business opportunities for new social entrepreneurs considerable attention as social entrepreneurs are one of the potential
(Hwang and Powell, 2005). In particular, formal institutions, such as channels to tackle wicked problems in our society; and second, the
incubators, accelerators, and co-working centers, have become more studies on innovation systems, which highlight the role of intermediary
prominent actors that promote the success of social entrepreneurs and organizations as key actors supporting innovation (Howells, 2006). To
ventures. As they not only tend to have limited resources but are also explore how these two research areas offer insights and complement
relatively new forms of entrepreneurship (especially in South Korea), each other in addressing the gaps in social value creation research
these new players need special institutional support to address complex (Saebi et al., 2019), this section briefly describes the current under­
challenges involving diverse stakeholders and multifaceted character­ standing of social entrepreneurship and social innovation systems and
istics while constantly struggling to avoid mission drift. Hence, such sets the foundation for the study.
incubators and accelerators seem to play increasingly diverse roles in the Social entrepreneurship research has spread widely in terms of both
growth of social entrepreneurship; they perform similar but distinct discipline and uses to bring about significant changes in the world. Thus,
functions from those organizations in scientific entrepreneurship (Bru­ numerous attempts have been made in social entrepreneurship studies
neel et al., 2012; Fuentelsaz et al., 2018). By providing education, to provide holistic reviews of specific issues (Bacq and Janssen, 2011;
facilitating network development, and linking and mediating across Doherty et al., 2014; Macke et al., 2018; Phillips et al., 2015; Rey-Martí
diverse actors, some of these roles are similar to those of intermediary et al., 2016; Short et al., 2009; Sassmannshausen and Volkmann, 2018;
organizations in the social economy (Vaillancourt, 2009). Rawhouser et al., 2019; Saebi et al., 2019). Considering that this study
The role of intermediaries has been recognized in the innovation examines the intermediaries promoting social entrepreneurship, we do
literature, filling in the gap between demand-side processes and supply- not delve into the various definitions of social businesses, but rather
side sources, and leveraging their functions to bring system-level policy adopt the view that social businesses pursue social value creation using
implications (Allen et al., 2007; Howells, 2006; Jenson et al., 2020; market-based approaches by either starting new businesses or changing
Klerkx and Leeuwis, 2008; Linton, 2000). While research on in­ the business strategies of existing organizations (Miller et al., 2012;
termediaries has grown in the innovation system literature, there is Zahra et al., 2009).
relatively less research on their functions in the social entrepreneurship Two dimensions of social entrepreneurship are commonly measured
sphere. Thus, to contribute to the literature, we define intermediary to distinguish whether an organization can be considered a social en­
organizations as actors in social entrepreneurship that also aim to affect terprise: first, whether the beneficiaries use the product or participate in
some level of social innovation in the context they work in and those that the process of value creation (Peerally et al., 2019); second, whether the
aim to support, yet not become social entrepreneurs. While some studies balance between the commercial arm and the social impact of a social
focus on accelerators or incubators in technological entrepreneurial enterprise can also be a characteristic of the organization; this is often
systems addressing certain social issues to a limited extent, studies on referred to as the double bottom line (Ramani et al., 2017; Santos et al.,
social economy focus only on intermediaries’ mediating and networking 2015). The dialog surrounding the first dimension highlights the social
roles. enterprises’ potential to address society’s unmet needs, whether due to
This study addresses this gap by adopting a systems approach to market failure or government failure (Teasdale, 2011). Meanwhile, the
social innovation to systematically analyze the diverse roles of social second dimension has gathered greater interest in viewing social en­
intermediaries from broader innovation perspectives and examine why trepreneurs as change agents, proving that there can be a new business
such functions are required to support social entrepreneurship. From a model that achieves both financial and social returns (Phillips et al.,
holistic and interdisciplinary view, which includes a multitude of actors 2015; Yunus et al., 2010), which does not necessarily prioritize financial
and factors working at many levels, the innovation systems approach returns over social impact (Engelke et al., 2015), or which eventually
allows for a more comprehensive understanding of how intermediary falls into mission drift, losing the social component (Muñoz and Kim­
organizations help create opportunities and address the barriers to social mitt, 2019).
entrepreneurs, social businesses, and broader ecosystems. Such an Given that one of the key interests in the literature is whether social
approach is undertaken to analyze cases of intermediary organizations entrepreneurs hold on to the social mission, there could be convergent
for social entrepreneurship in South Korea, which has often been cited as views in discussions on social entrepreneurship and innovation systems.
an exemplary case of 20th-century export-led industrialization through Recently, the concept of social innovation system (SIS) emerged from
investments in technological capabilities, transitioning from a devel­ innovation system studies pursuing US firms’ social innovation for
oping country to a high-income country (Westphal et al., 1985). The environmental sustainability, inspired by social discourses motivated by
unfolding of Korea’s social entrepreneurship sector provides a suitable various products of “heroic social entrepreneurs” (Carberry et al., 2019)
setting to analyze the dynamics of successful and unsuccessful mecha­ and also other non-market actors facilitating the social innovation pro­
nisms to foster a new market ecosystem that may require additional cess (Fulgencio and Le Fever, 2016). Highlighting interdependences and
understanding to supplement knowledge about catch-up growth relationships within a dynamic network of agents involved in the gen­
through government-led technological development (Dahlman et al., eration, diffusion, and utilization of technology, the concept of tech­
1987). nological innovation systems (TIS) emphasizes the importance of
The remainder of this paper is organized as follows. Section 2 pro­ economic competence, clustering of resources, and institutional infra­
vides a literature review of social entrepreneurship and social innova­ structure (Carlsson and Stankiewicz, 1991; Edquist, 1997). Along this
tion systems as a conceptual background to analyze the various roles of line of research, SIS is similarly defined as “an inter-connection of things
intermediary organizations. Section 3 introduces case studies and data or actors in developing, diffusing, and utilizing innovation targeting
sources and presents the methodology of the study. The results of the social issues or needs” (Fulgencio and Le Fever, 2016, p. 12). This leaves

2
J.-Y. Ho and S. Yoon Technological Forecasting & Social Change 175 (2022) 121324

room for an intermediary organization, identified by the concept of of legitimacy (Desa, 2012). This does not mean that intermediary or­
innovation systems, to take on the role of a fundamental player with ganizations are out of the picture in the context of social entrepre­
various roles supporting entrepreneurial actors and addressing relevant neurship. For example, the European Union examined the role of actors
innovation challenges or gaps (Clayton et al., 2018; Howells, 2006). that do not create social innovation but rather support social enterprises,
However, there has been limited research on applying the broader civil society organizations, and other actors in the social sector, high­
framework of the intermediaries studied in innovation systems to the lighting the various functions of intermediaries (TEPSIE, 2014).
field of social entrepreneurship; much of the social entrepreneurship Among recent studies on the roles of intermediaries in technological
literature has focused on the emergence of social entrepreneurs and innovation systems, we adopt the findings of Van Welie, Boon, and
recognizing other elements that facilitate social entrepreneurship and/ Truffer (2020), who highlight the role of intermediary organizations in
or promote social innovation. While Kivimaa and Boon, 2019) and the context of international development cooperation to improve the
(Kivimaa and Hyysalo, (2019) explore how the various types of inter­ quality of sanitation services. They point out the greater need for in­
mediary organizations facilitate environmental sustainability transition, termediaries to solve complex global societal challenges, because
they do not explicitly address social innovation. Instead, existing litera­ diverse stakeholders are involved in supporting and financing such
ture focuses on intermediary roles in TIS that address specific environ­ challenges that have immediate welfare consequences on the benefi­
mental issues, such as clean technology (Lukkarinen et al., 2018), ciaries. Moreover, the solution often requires the adoption of new
eco-innovation by Ecoprofit (Klewitz et al., 2012), and environmental technology and/or products. Thus, reviewing the literature on inter­
sustainability transition (Gliedt et al., 2018). mediary organizations in TIS, intermediaries are defined as actors or
From a systematic review of several case studies, Phillips et al. organizations carrying out a broad set of intermediary activities that can
(2015) offer insights showing that although the mission of social en­ be categorized into three key functions: articulation of activities
terprises is well aligned with the purpose of social innovation, taking required to support the initial growth of entrepreneurship, alignment of
advantage of social opportunity may not be an easy task because dispersed resources and talents through networks, and empowerment-
cross-sectoral partnerships are often required. Moreover, the range of and training-related activities to enhance entrepreneurship capabilities.
institutional support may vary depending on the context; while an This framework for TIS is adapted to understand the ambiguous roles of
interested social entrepreneur in the U.S. and U.K. may consider legal intermediary organizations in the context of this study, focusing on SIS
identity as a low-profit limited liability company (L3C) and community (see Fig. 1).
interested companies (CIC), respectively (Swanson and Zhang, 2011), A limited but increasing number of studies in diverse academic fields
social entrepreneurs across 45 countries were shown to have low levels have pointed out distinct forms of intermediary organizations

Fig. 1. Three key intermediary functions—adapted and revised from Van Welie, Boon, and Truffer (2020).

3
J.-Y. Ho and S. Yoon Technological Forecasting & Social Change 175 (2022) 121324

performing some of the aforementioned functions in support of social Korea. The social entrepreneurship concept was introduced by two ad­
innovation. The common theme of these studies is the importance of ministrations inspired by the efforts of European nations. They consid­
social capital fostered by intermediaries represented in various forms, ered social entrepreneurship to be a channel providing social sector jobs
such as incubators, accelerators, or funding platforms. Nicolopoulou (Hwang et al., 2017). Consequently, numerous government-led projects
et al. (2017) describe the relationship between a social incubator and an were set up after the enactment of the Social Enterprise Promotion Act in
incubatee in London. Spitzer-Shohat et al. (2020) provide a specific 2007, but growing concern about the sustainability of social enterprises
example of a social incubator model through a partnership between a led to the adoption of the Second Social Enterprise Promotion Plan in
local community and academia to enhance the public health of 2012 (Kim and Moon, 2017).
marginalized groups in Israel. Among the co-working spaces in Rome, Meanwhile, potential social entrepreneurs and intermediaries
Fiorentino (2019) finds that social incubators focus on the educational fostering social entrepreneurship began to appear on the scene. In 2013,
aspect. The focus on education may be a response to the managerial Root Impact, an SIS intermediary that originally started its services in
difficulties of social entrepreneurs (Al Taji and Bengo, 2019) in the so­ Samsungdong, was set up south of the Han River along with another SIS
cial enterprise sector, which can be overcome through skills and peda­ intermediary, ImpactSquare. A year later, Root Impact moved to
gogical tools. Seongsu SV, and in the same year, COW&DOG, another co-working
Despite the expanding roles of intermediary organizations in social space for social enterprises, opened there. Others have followed since
entrepreneurship, few studies have attempted to understand these roles then, and this area is now referred to as Seongsu SV or Seongsu Valley in
in the promotion of social innovation. Moreover, these studies either major newspapers. While this area has gained prominence, the social
focus on certain functions performed by particular types of intermediary fabric of SIS is complex. Despite the nickname “Seongsu Social Valley,”
organizations or analyze a limited social purpose through the traditional coined to mimic Silicon Valley, both social enterprises keen to deliver
lens of TIS, and therefore fail to capture the peculiarities of SIS. social impact while making profit and non-profit organizations (e.g., co-
Although Baskaran et al. (2019) consider the broad roles of business working spaces for social enterprises and cooperatives) coexist in
incubators and intermediaries in the Malaysian social enterprise sector, Seongsu SV and other parts of Seoul. This hybrid nature of SIS can also
their study is exploratory. Thus, there is a need for more systematic and be found in our case study, as it will be discussed in the following
comprehensive analyses using robust analytical frameworks. sections.
Moreover, even if the intermediary organizations in SIS perform We chose seven intermediary organizations that have played prom­
programs similar to those in TIS, such as mentoring services, training, inent roles in the development of Seongsu SV in our case studies (see
demo days, location services, and investment opportunities (Pauwels Table 1 for the detailed case profiles). Interestingly, all classified
et al., 2016), the lens through which their activities are analyzed may themselves as “intermediary organizations” supporting social in­
require multifaceted perspective because social enterprises constantly novators, despite the wide variety in their identities. All organizations
struggle to avoid mission drift, unlike traditional start-ups so that they have existed for at least five years, except for Impact Alliance (Case 4),
do not lose sight of social value while aiming to maintain their business which was developed by bringing together several extant social enter­
afloat. Furthermore, the social capital emphasized in the existing liter­ prises and intermediary organizations, including Root Impact,
ature may be even more complex in SIS. First, intermediaries need to COW&DOG, and Impact Square. Existing in various forms (e.g., non-
build up actor communities that cannot be completely transferred from profit corporations, limited companies, and public limited companies)
TIS that aims for social innovation, such as impact investors conversant and conducting diverse activities (e.g., education, networking, consul­
in the social entrepreneurship vocabulary and non-profit organizations ting, and funding investment), these organizations provide rich varia­
considering diversification of financial portfolios to become more tions, so allowing researchers to explore various functions of
self-reliant while remaining true to their social mission. Second, SIS intermediary organizations in supporting social entrepreneurship and
intermediaries need to focus on educating new talent to create a culture SIS. Performed in two rounds of iterations for increased validity, cases 1
that pursues both social entrepreneurship and innovation, so that em­ through 5 were first investigated in greater detail during the first round
ployees can communicate with various actors concerned about the social of case studies, followed by cases 6 and 7 for the purpose of verification;
impact (Al Taji and Bengo, 2019). no additional intermediary roles were identified during the second
As demonstrated in the emerging social entrepreneurship and inno­ round of studies, demonstrating the current study’s external validity.
vation literature, academic and public interest in both topics have grown The case studies used qualitative data collected from desk research
in the past decade. However, few studies have attempted to holistically and expert interviews to ensure triangulation and enhance the validity
understand the diverse functions of intermediary organizations in SIS, of the research. While documents, mainly collected online, provide
although their multifaceted characteristics are more complex than those detailed and accurate information on past activities, interviews help in
outlined in TIS research addressing social issues. Thus, this study carries understanding the background and provide detailed insights that may be
out in-depth analyses described in the following section for a more difficult to access through documentary sources. Eight in-depth semi-
comprehensive and systematic understanding of the broad intermediary structured interviews were conducted with experts between July and
types playing ambiguous roles supporting the overall SIS rather than September 2020. The experts were selected through snowball sampling,
helping individual social entrepreneurs or enterprises. based on their expertise and work experience in the social sector for at
least five years (see Table 1 for profiles of the interviewed experts).
3. Methodology During the first round of case studies, multiple interviews were con­
ducted for each case wherever possible to obtain multiple perspectives
For a systematic and comprehensive analysis of the role of inter­ (e.g., interviewees from co-working space providers and tenant organi­
mediary organizations in SIS, we adopt a case study approach that al­ zations for cases 1 and 2), thus increasing validity. All interviews, lasting
lows researchers to develop clearer and richer insights into relatively from 60 to 100 min, were recorded and subsequently transcribed for
new phenomena based on multiple data sources (Yin, 2009). In partic­ analysis.
ular, we chose the Seongsu Social Valley (now “Seongsu SV”) for our The interview transcripts, along with the data obtained through desk
case study. Located in the northeastern part of Seoul in Korea, Seongsu research, were coded using NVivo 12 software for Windows. Thematic
SV is now home to more than 300 entities in the social enterprise sector. analysis was conducted using the key intermediary functions presented
The area was once known for its small shops specializing in in Fig. 1 to verify the statements about the intermediary roles of the
custom-made shoes, but later young artists and social entrepreneurs studied organizations. As we walked through the thematic analysis, we
began to move in, thanks to the area’s relatively low rent scales (Yoon attempted to see how these roles differed from the intermediary roles in
et al., 2017). The social entrepreneurship sector is relatively new in TIS, owing to the nature and characteristics of SIS. Only the points that

4
J.-Y. Ho and S. Yoon Technological Forecasting & Social Change 175 (2022) 121324

Table 1
Profiles of intermediary organizations studied.
Case Name Year Legal status Main activities Identity (defined by Interviews with
no. est. themselves)

Case 1 Root Impact 2012 Non-profit Education, networking, providing Change maker Career development manager, Tenant
corporation space organization
Case 2 COW&DOG 2014 Limited company Networking, providing space Hub of social venture Representative director, Tenant
community organization
Case 3 SOPOONG 2008 Limited company Accelerating, mentoring, Impact capital, Impact Representative director
investment accelerator
Case 4 Impact 2018 Non-profit Networking, education Union Six member organizations
Alliance corporation
Case 5 Underdogs 2015 Public limited Education, mentoring Educator, trainer Director
company
Case 6 Impact Square 2010 Public limited Accelerating, consulting Impact business builder Director
company
Case 7 SEED:S 2010 Non-profit Developing SI/SB models, Researcher Manager
corporation incubating

were repeatedly brought up by multiple data sources were included in highlighted the importance of “solidarity” among social innovators, who
draft case study reports; some intermediary roles were also interpreted are often considered a minority.
to be more prominent than others, as described by the interviewees. Beyond such networks of individual innovators in SIS, intermediary
Interviewees were then asked to review the draft case study report to organizations also create and facilitate broader networks of themselves
increase the construct validity of the research. in regional, national, or even global contexts. Several intermediary or­
ganizations, such as Root Impact, SOPOONG, and Impact Square, initi­
4. Results ated the development of Impact Alliance, a group delivering collective
activities that cannot be done by individual organizations, such as
The results of the case study are summarized in Table 2. In this raising important social issues within broader SIS, influencing govern­
section, we discuss the intermediary roles found to be particularly ment policies, and organizing large databases for impact assessment.
important from case studies, owing to the nature and characteristics of Impact Square is also part of Social Value International and the Impact
social entrepreneurship and SIS. Management Project (IMP) practitioner community, both of which are
global networks of social innovators interested in advancing impact
assessment and evaluation. Such networks help intermediary organiza­
4.1. Creation and facilitation of new networks
tions build capabilities and allow them to play extended intermediary
roles beyond their scope.
Intermediary organizations create and facilitate new networks of
social innovators and entrepreneurs in various ways. They often provide
co-working or even co-living spaces for diverse actors to interact and 4.2. Resource mobilization
communicate with one another. As an interviewee in Case 1 pointed out,
“when they are geographically and physically close to each other, we In addition to providing services in co-working spaces, intermediary
believe that positive coincidences and creative activities may happen organizations offer further services and access to resources that facilitate
more frequently…, leading to further collaborations and innovations.” business development. These include the human and financial resources
For example, many interviewees noted that the collaboration between that social enterprises often lack.
Marymond, a fashion retailer upholding human rights, and DoHands, an First, intermediary organizations can help social enterprises identify
e-commerce logistics company fighting poverty, initiated in Heyground, and develop appropriate human resources. As an interviewee in Case 1
a co-living space operated by Root Impact, is a well-known story in noted, “one of the greatest needs of social ventures or social enterprises
Seongsu SV. The additional services and shared resources available in was the supply of capable workforce. As they do not have enough re­
such spaces (e.g., prototyping facilities, administrative services, and sources, it is impossible [for them] to go through suitable recruitment
welfare benefits) are also helpful for social enterprises with limited re­ processes, such as interviews, or provide necessary education and
sources to work more effectively on innovation activities. training.” While most social enterprises need experts across diverse
In addition, intermediary organizations arrange networking events business issues (including finance, marketing, branding, HR, and law),
and workshops to facilitate network development and support the ca­ they prefer flexible employment arrangements given their small size.
pacity building of social enterprises with limited resources. For example, Thus, intermediary organizations provide them with outsourcing plat­
COW&DOG organized workshops that address the key social entrepre­ forms that help them achieve economies of scale through flexible
neurship management issues, including finance, marketing, and impact employment. They also provide hired employees with common educa­
investment. Such educational programs can lead to the creation of tion and training programs to help them quickly adapt to specific social
alumni/mentoring networks (as in Cases 2 and 5), where actors can business contexts that are significantly different from what they are
further share and develop their knowledge and insight as well as seek generally used to.
advice. Some intermediary organizations (such as those in Cases 3 and 6)
Such positive impacts of networks as useful platforms for linking also offer help in mobilizing financial resources by raising funds from
relevant knowledge and resources have been widely acknowledged in diverse sources and investing in new social enterprises. While they play
entrepreneurial ecosystems. These networks play particularly important roles similar to those of typical accelerators or venture capital in
roles in the SIS, where peer support and learning are critical. As an entrepreneurial ecosystems, interviewees noted that they generally deal
interviewee in Case 3 noted, “while being an entrepreneur can be with greater patient capital, characterized by no expectation of quick
incredibly lonely, a social entrepreneur can be even more lonely, [and] profit. They look for investors willing to defer returns for an extended
so it is important to [help them] find an appropriate peer community period and thus provide social ventures with sufficient time to develop
that can provide emotional support and comfort… [Such community] is their businesses. This is particularly critical to social enterprises, which
also effective for peer mentoring.” Interviewees in Cases 5 and 6 also often require much more time to develop and test their business models

5
J.-Y. Ho and S. Yoon Technological Forecasting & Social Change 175 (2022) 121324

Table 2
Intermediary roles identified from case studies.
Intermediary roles Summary of relevant activities Evidence from cases
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Articulation
Articulation of needs & expectations • Training program to practice market research for client organizations V
• Open market to collect customer feedback and explore market potential V
• Accelerating program to define the impact-business model (IBM) where social value and V V
profit are aligned
Advancement of aims (increasing social (In SIS) V V V
values) • Research and discussion to achieve consensus on “impact-driven social business”
• Research and development on appropriate models of social innovation and relevant V V
governance
(In broader society) V V V
• Communicating with broader corporate arenas and the public to increase their
understanding of the social impact
Policy formation & implementation • Policy suggestion/consultation with government as policy partner V V V
Market formation (acceleration of • Developing distribution channels to reach customers more easily V V V
application & commercialization) • Accelerating program to launch β-service and identify niche markets V V
Alignment
Creation and facilitation of new networks** • Provision of co-working & co-living spaces to increase interaction between innovators V V V V V
• Networking events & workshops V V V
• Creating alumni networks (from education/accelerating programs) V V V
• Creating a network of relevant organizations (local, global) V V V
Resource mobilization (including finance & • Outsourcing experts in general business issues (e.g., law, marketing, finance, HR, branding) V V V V V
HR)** • Education programs to attract, recruit, & re-educate HR V V V V
• Managing financial resources & investing in new businesses V V
Intermediary roles Summary of relevant activities Evidence from cases
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Gatekeeping, brokering, configuring & • Identifying and introducing potential funding opportunities (from corporates, NGOs, V V V V V
aligning interests** governments, VCs)
• Connecting innovators within/outside SIS (including social entrepreneurs, corporates) for V V V
business opportunities
• Connecting innovators with experts in other entrepreneurial activities (e.g., design, IT, V V V V
manufacturing, logistics)
• Connecting innovators with other intermediaries and mentors V V
Learning
Knowledge development (gathering, • Development of social business models through collaboration in entrepreneurial networks V V V
processing, generation & combination) • Development of social business models through accelerating programs V V V
• Development of social business models through collaboration between entrepreneurs and V V
corporates
Communication & knowledge • Communication media (e.g., newsletter, magazine, podcast, website, book) or events (e.g., V V V V V V
dissemination* lecture, talk, conference) to distribute distilled information/knowledge and lessons learned
• Database/platform of manual to archive and distribute accumulated know-hows/best V V V
practices
• Communication of global trends and information on social business V V
Education & training** • Educating potential social innovators (e.g., young people, corporate employees) on basics of V V V V
social business/entrepreneurship
• Basic training for new employees V V
• Short courses/workshops for career/business development training V V V V
• Education programs on impact business/accelerating V V V
Provision of advice & support** • Basic management/administrative services V
• Improving working environments (e.g., physical spaces, childcare services, welfare benefits) V V V V V V V
• Research/data processing services V V V
• Accelerating programs to provide mentoring/consulting services V V V V V
Entrepreneurial activities (prototyping & • Accelerating programs to help develop/pivot/validate business models V V V
piloting) • Providing spaces/facilities to help develop/test prototypes/pilot services V V
Legitimation (assessment & evaluation of • Examining/evaluating impact of social businesses V V
social impact)* • Developing/communicating appropriate KPIs/methods for impact assessment V V V
• Tracking/analyzing data for impact assessment V V
• Helping with accreditation/certification processes V

Note: The interpretation of strength (indicated by *) is based on how many interviews brought about related issues and how they described them.

because they need to simultaneously generate financial profits and 4.3. Gatekeeping, brokering, configuring, and aligning interests
address social problems, as noted by multiple interviewees. As an
interviewee in Case 3 noted, “social entrepreneurs often start their Intermediary organizations play an important role in identifying
business with a social mindset, rather than a business mindset. However, such patient capital and linking it with appropriate social enterprises.
these ventures cannot survive unless they become profitable busi­ These roles include brokering and aligning the interests of social in­
nesses… We first help them transform their identity from social in­ novators and a wide variety of local and global investors, from the
novators to social entrepreneurs… Then we put a lot of time and efforts government and NGOs to corporates and venture capital investments.
to pivot their business models so that their social values and [financial] While these roles are important in general entrepreneurial ecosystems,
profits are well aligned (thus called Impact-Business Model, IBM).” Even intermediary organizations in SIS also play significant roles as trans­
greater time and effort may be required during such a transformation in lators who provide the rationale in terms of business to potential in­
Korea, where social entrepreneurship is relatively new, increasing the vestors who, in turn, provide funding to social businesses. As an
need for patient capital. interviewee in Case 1 noted, they need to “sympathize with the vision

6
J.-Y. Ho and S. Yoon Technological Forecasting & Social Change 175 (2022) 121324

and dream of social business… As [social entrepreneurs’] approach and 4.5. Education and training
solutions are often unconventional and financially less competitive… it
is usually more challenging to prove that [their idea is worthy of fund­ Most intermediary organizations examined in this study provide
ing].” Intermediary organizations thus devote more time and effort to education and training programs to diverse target groups, from current
directly connect with and generate opportunities in which social values employees of social enterprises to the general public interested in social
can be effectively communicated to potential investors with aligned business. Various education programs have been developed to promote
vision and interests. Such translation is crucial because social entre­ the building and development of the overall SIS.
preneurs’ strong focus on social benefits may lead them to underem­ An increasing number of educational programs were introduced in
phasize the economic benefits that are critical for prospective investors Cases 1, 5, 6, and 7 to educate young people (high school or university
in making funding decisions. students/graduates) on the basics of social business and entrepreneur­
Beyond aligning financial resources, intermediary organizations also ship. Often, a practical curriculum is provided in partnership with
help align the business opportunities of social entrepreneurs and big existing social enterprises or the local community to help them identify
corporations, particularly those interested in corporate shared value. For real-world problems and go through the stages of developing sustainable
example, an interviewee in Case 6 noted a partnership between social business solutions. By providing opportunities for learning by doing
enterprises and Lotte Chemical, a global chemical company producing through hands-on experience and mentoring, such programs are effec­
the largest number of plastic bottles in Korea. As the company is inter­ tive in developing the mindsets and training skills necessary in social
ested in building a sustainable value chain for recycling these bottles, a entrepreneurship. They also help build a broad community of social
collaborative project is designed involving SuperBin, a social venture business by increasing young people’s interests in this field and linking
that manufactures AI-based recycling robots, and conscious fashion them with existing social enterprises. As noted by interviewees in Cases
brands (such as LAR) producing clothes and shoes using recycled ma­ 5 and 6, similar programs in big corporations, where managers and
terial. While such collaborative partnerships provide “useful opportu­ employees have opportunities to develop business models to create
nities for social ventures to test their prototypes and demonstrate social corporate shared values, help expand the overall SIS by promoting the
impact… there is a high potential for misperception and misunder­ engagement of a broader group of stakeholders.
standing [when working with big corporations], and so social ventures Intermediary organizations also provide diverse training programs to
often lose a deal or miss potential opportunities.” Intermediary organi­ assist the capacity building of social enterprises with limited resources.
zations thus play an important role in bridging the communication gap They provide basic training to new employees (as in Case 1) or career
between social innovators from different working cultures speaking development training for current employees (e.g., team building, busi­
different business languages, thereby facilitating effective collaboration. ness communication, time management) (as in Case 5), both of which
While the intermediary organizations’ role in aligning such diverse are important in developing the competencies of junior employees but
resources and opportunities is important, their gatekeeping role is also cannot be easily provided by social enterprises with practically no HR
highlighted by multiple interviewees (in Cases 3 and 6). With the recent department. Intermediary organizations in Cases 2, 3, 6, and 7 also
increase in opportunities for social enterprises and social entrepre­ provide business development training (e.g., business strategy, mar­
neurship, there has been an increase in the number of organizations with keting, data analytics, definition, and assessment of social impact), some
unclear social missions claiming social values. Intermediary organiza­ of which are part of the incubating/accelerating programs supporting
tions need to filter out such unqualified players and provide valid advice the development and growth of social businesses. In addition, several
to protect the overall SIS and ensure sustainable development. Hence, advanced training programs on impact investment/accelerating (as in
they play important roles as organizations that ensure quality control Cases 3 and 6) are designed to educate managers and investors with
and accreditation, increasing the credibility of the social business and expert social business knowledge. All these educational and training
the overall SIS. programs facilitate the capacity building and networking of innovation
In addition, intermediary organizations act as brokers, configuring, actors at various levels, thereby leading to the development of a broader
and aligning the interests of various SIS actors. Bringing together the SIS.
social innovators in related sectors/fields helps facilitate collaboration
and also allows for effective mentoring relationships between more 4.6. Provision of advice and support
experienced and nascent entrepreneurs. Intermediary organizations also
connect social entrepreneurs with the external expertise required for While structured educational and training programs help enhance
entrepreneurial activities in areas, such as design, IT, and social business acumen, certain needs for customized individual men­
manufacturing. Cases 1, 2, and 6 particularly show that connecting so­ toring and consulting remain to be met. Thus, intermediary organiza­
cial innovators with logistics and distribution channels accelerates the tions provide relevant services either directly or through suitable experts
commercialization of products/services to reach customers, thus facili­ using their networks. Although similar services are provided by typical
tating market formation. accelerators or incubators in entrepreneurial ecosystems, more attached
consulting and support may be required in social entrepreneurship,
which is often more challenging and adventurous than general entre­
4.4. Communication and knowledge dissemination preneurship, as noted by several interviewees (in Cases 2, 3, 5, and 6).
According to an interviewee in Case 3, “while there are general pro­
To support the development and growth of SIS, intermediary orga­ cesses of entrepreneurship, such as customer definition, market
nizations use various communication channels (e.g., newsletters, mag­ research, and product development, all ventures have particular char­
azines, podcasts, websites, and books) and events (e.g., lectures, talk acteristics in terms of business models, stages of business development,
concerts, and conferences) to disseminate information and knowledge and capabilities of team members… [Different social ventures] even
about social business/entrepreneurship. Sharing distilled information have different priorities in terms of addressing social problems and
about lessons learned and best practices can help social innovators pursuing social values.” Such added particularities and specificities
accumulate their know-how and build their capabilities, as well as in­ make individual mentoring and coaching services more effective and
crease their awareness and understanding of the general public. As there thus prevalent in supporting social entrepreneurship.
is limited information available, especially in the context of the short Intermediary organizations also provide various services to improve
history of social business in Korea, archiving and communicating such social enterprises’ working environments, which are generally too small
knowledge (sometimes in the form of databases) contributes signifi­ to achieve economies of scale. In addition to the services and shared
cantly to building and developing SIS in general. resources available in co-working spaces (e.g., relaxing spaces, basic

7
J.-Y. Ho and S. Yoon Technological Forecasting & Social Change 175 (2022) 121324

administrative services, such as mailing), basic employee benefits (e.g., 3. Finally, they assist social enterprises with complex but relevant
childcare services, health plans, and leisure services) are provided to accreditation/certification processes (e.g., B Corporation).
create a positive and carefree working environment where everyone can
increase productivity. Such support for the mental health of social in­ 5. Discussion
novators/entrepreneurs is particularly important because they are
vulnerable to compassion fatigue when actively working for the social By adopting the innovation systems approach to social entrepre­
good (as opposed to personal growth and financial returns), as noted by neurship, the case studies identified various roles provided by inter­
all interviewees. An interviewee in Case 1 also pointed out that social mediary organizations in supporting a broad SIS, similar to those
innovators/entrepreneurs may often be discouraged from repeated suggested by Van Welie et al. (2020). Present in diverse forms and types
failures in solving difficult social problems and, hence, might require of governance, these organizations focused on different intermediary
support for mental health. roles (education, networking, investment, or consulting) depending on
their core activities and mission. Nevertheless, they generally play
4.7. Legitimation (assessment and evaluation of social impact) multiple roles simultaneously because all the activities and functions of
innovation systems are closely related to one another. The positive
Several interviewees highlighted the role of intermediary organiza­ interaction between system functions is critical to strengthen the overall
tions in assessing and evaluating the impact of social business. While the functioning of innovation systems, as highlighted in the studies of TIS
demonstration of such an impact on potential investors is critical to the (Bergek et al., 2008; Hekkert et al., 2007). For example, an interviewee
growth of business and overall SIS, early social enterprises may not have in Case 6 stated that
the resources and capabilities to effectively communicate the impact
themselves, as pointed out by interviewees in Cases 3 and 6. “Although we seem to conduct multiple [different] activities, they
For a rigorous assessment, intermediary organizations often need to are all in a single [continuous flow] line… Co-working spaces help
develop their own key performance indices (KPIs) and measurement not only build the community but also bring in [new] social in­
methods, as agreed upon by social businesses and investors. While novators. We provide them with education programs to identify and
financial performance can be easily assessed and evaluated using develop good [potential entrepreneurial] teams… We then provide
financial metrics, such as profitability and net capital ratio, it is rela­ them with business and investment opportunities by connecting
tively challenging to measure the performance of early ventures that them with [corporate] partners and investors. Impact assessment and
usually have no concrete data and low profitability. Their early invest­ evaluation are required during such matching … and we conduct
ment decisions are often based on the perceived or anticipated financial research to improve [such evaluation]… By publishing and dissem­
values of venture companies. It is even more challenging to assess their inating useful content created throughout these activities, we attract
performance in terms of social impact. As pointed out by an interviewee more social innovators from diverse sectors, and so on.”
in Case 3, “although many standards/reporting frameworks are devel­
oped, such as Global Reporting Initiative (GRI) or Impact Reporting and The functions of intermediary organizations have not been defined
Investment Standards (IRIS), they are both imperfect and often inap­ from the start of their institutional existence. Instead, these functions
propriate for early social ventures… Because it takes even more time to have been added and evolved over time, as necessary and required by
create the expected outcome with significant social values… [not to the SIS. According to an interviewee in Case 2, “as this ecosystem has
mention that] different social ventures focus on different social values.” been rapidly evolving over the past 10 years… there is no fixed
Intermediary organizations help address these issues by developing [guideline or] reference as to the roles and types of intermediary orga­
appropriate methods to evaluate the impact of social business (such as nizations in the social sector… They thus play more flexible, versatile,
Social Value International used in Case 6) and effective means to and sometimes even ambiguous roles” in supporting SIS. Different
communicate it to potential investors and the general public (such as the stakeholders with different interests and needs have emerged in SIS,
Impact Accelerating Manual published in Case 3). Given that social calling for various intermediary roles. Various intermediary organiza­
ventures face difficulty in collecting, interpreting, and managing data tions under different types and forms appeared, focusing on particular
for social impact measurement, Case 6 runs its own R&D center working sets of activities depending on their capabilities and target stakeholder
on impact assessment, called Impactology, as an attempt to facilitate the groups. Despite such complexity and ambiguity, the current study sys­
process of social impact evaluation of social ventures. By answering tematically analyzes the wide gamut of roles played by intermediary
questions in a series of eight steps, social ventures can document their organizations in supporting social entrepreneurship.
social impact, and the result is shown as a report. It is the only inter­ While such expanding models of intermediary organizations are
mediary organization that is a partner of the Impact Management generally similar to the evolution of business incubators’ value propo­
Project, a global forum that shares standards for social impact mea­ sitions in the early years of technical entrepreneurship (Bruneel et al.,
surement among diverse stakeholders, such as the MacArthur Founda­ 2012; Pauwels et al., 2016), there are increased challenges due to the
tion, the Bank of America, KPMG, BlackRock, Climate Disclosure characteristics of social entrepreneurship and SIS. The following sub­
Standards Board, Sustainability Accounting Standards Board, the In­ sections discuss how such challenges require intermediary organizations
ternational Finance Corporation of the World Bank, and the United to play particular roles and how technology may support these roles, as
Nations Development Programme (IMP). highlighted in the case studies.
Several legitimation functions related to assessment and evaluation
have also been identified in case studies. First, Impact Square provided 5.1. Intermediary roles due to the double bottom line
services to assess the social values and impact created by other busi­
nesses, such as the corporate social responsibility (CSR) programs of big While the key difference between social business and general for-
corporations. Second, appropriate data need to be collected and profit business is in their contribution to increasing social values and
continuously tracked for the accurate assessment and evaluation of so­ achieving social missions, they simultaneously need to live up to the
cial impact, leading to the development of social enterprises and broader market expectations of remaining financially sustainable (Santos et al.,
SIS. While such data can be tracked by individual social enterprises, they 2015). To serve these potentially conflicting purposes and missions,
need to be reviewed and validated to increase the reliability of the social businesses attempt to carefully balance their social and economic
collected data, as noted by an interviewee in Case 6. Third, the social impacts, while intermediary organizations play various roles in sup­
impact of an intermediary organization on a broader SIS is assessed by porting this balancing act (Al Taji and Bengo, 2019).
evaluating the collective impact of social ventures invested in, as in Case First, intermediary organizations play a significant role in educating

8
J.-Y. Ho and S. Yoon Technological Forecasting & Social Change 175 (2022) 121324

and training social innovators on how to manage the tensioned balance challenges in communication. In particular, the large divide between
between social and economic impacts. They first help social entrepre­ non-profit organizations (with greater social missions) and for-profit
neurs equip themselves with a business mindset, which they often lack, corporations (with greater economic missions) calls for more discus­
so that they can “have a double-helix DNA with social values and sus­ sions and communication to identify their common areas of interest, but
tainable business models… continuously interacting with each other to this is challenging because of the different languages and working cul­
create [greater] impact in the society” (SOPOONG, 2019, p. 5). Inter­ tures to which they are accustomed. Other stakeholders in the general
mediary organizations also facilitate team building, which is particu­ entrepreneurial environment are also more used to the jargon of for-
larly important in social entrepreneurship because the dedication to and profit businesses. Consequently, intermediary organizations ease the
building consensus on the common social vision of team members is market entry of social enterprises by translating each other’s language.
critical to sustainable social business. A significant amount of time and An interviewee in Case 6 highlighted the following:
effort is required to define their social missions and develop their
business models to create both social values and financial profits. While “Although products [by social ventures] may offer high potential
similar education and training services are also provided by conven­ benefits to suppliers and distributors, it has always been difficult for
tional accelerators/incubators to support ventures’ business growth them to clearly understand the products that emphasize or focus on
(Pauwels et al., 2016), social enterprises often need to go through more social values. Thus, we need to translate different languages used by
intensive entrepreneurial experiments to develop and test the minimum the two different groups – those using the language in the for-profit
viable products (MVPs) serving both social and market needs. Depend­ community and social ventures using the language in a non-profit
ing on the maturity of the SIS, social enterprises can enhance their community. The distribution sector is one of the areas with the
process of impact creation through mentoring and training programs greatest language gaps in communication, yet is critical for the
offered by intermediary organizations (Baskaran et al., 2019; Nic­ growth of social ventures, so we have been working hard [to link
olopoulou et al., 2017). These business models and MVPs can vary them] in this area.”
widely depending on the teams’ priorities in terms of social values and
impact. Individual mentoring and consulting are thus more common by Even actors with greater social missions may have different priorities
accelerators/incubators in SIS than similar organizations in TIS, as noted in terms of social values, making their collaborations more complicated.
by multiple interviewees from the case studies. In addition, other Thus, more time and effort are required to align the diverse interests of
innovation actors new to SIS need to learn the implications of such a various stakeholders while overcoming institutional and cultural gaps
tensioned balance in social business. While such education and training between different institutional environments (Van Welie, Boon and
programs are critical to the development of adequate human resources Truffer, 2020). This is especially the case when working with the gov­
in SIS, they are not sufficiently provided by either current educational ernment or large corporations that generally go through multiple
institutions or social enterprises with limited resources. decision-making stages, as noted by many interviewees. Consequently,
The problems of balancing the social and economic impacts of social for social entrepreneurs to deliver their innovation to the market, there
businesses also call for additional intermediary roles in alignment, is a crucial need for the introduction to and network expansion into the
particularly concerning resource mobilization. Intermediary organiza­ broad SIS community, as it is for TIS (Clayton et al., 2018). Hence,
tions in TIS generally provide opportunities for access to external re­ intermediary organizations play significant roles in aligning, brokering,
sources (Bruneel et al., 2012), but those in SIS often attempt to mobilize and mediating across diverse stakeholders in SIS, facilitating their
patient capital characterized by longer time horizons, as social entre­ communication and collaboration.
preneurs require more time and effort to develop viable business models. Although a wide range of stakeholders is involved in SIS in Korea,
Thus, intermediaries in SIS spend more time identifying potential in­ this is still a small community/network lacking general public aware­
vestors with aligned visions and communicating with them with regard ness. Intermediary organizations thus play important roles in creating
to the entrepreneurs’ social vision and mission. In addition, interme­ and facilitating networks of social innovators that support the devel­
diary organizations focus on creating community networks to facilitate opment and growth of overall SIS. Education programs help build the
peer mentoring and learning for social entrepreneurs because individual community by recruiting new social innovators into the SIS. Various
mentoring and consulting, though more effective, are constrained by other programs communicate and disseminate knowledge about social
limited resources. Such a peer community is also effective in providing business/entrepreneurship and help increase the general public’s un­
peer support and solidarity, which are crucial for social entrepreneurs derstanding and interests. In addition, the creation of distribution
who are vulnerable to compassion fatigue and alienation. channels (either by themselves or with the help of logistics partners)
accelerates the commercialization of new products/services and also
5.2. Intermediary roles due to a wide variety of stakeholders helps social enterprises easily reach customers in the general market,
thus facilitating market formation.
Partly because of the multiple purposes of generating both social and
economic impacts, a wide variety of stakeholders are involved in social 5.3. Needs for technology in supporting these intermediary roles
business as well as broader SIS (Fulgencio and Le Fever, 2016; Van
Welie, Boon and Truffer, 2020), which in turn requires intermediary As discussed earlier, the nature of social entrepreneurship and rele­
organizations to play a greater role in aligning them. As an interviewee vant SIS, as well as the particular characteristics of SIS in Korea, call for
in Case 5 pointed out, “while general entrepreneurship is simply con­ greater roles of intermediary organizations to mediate across a wide
cerned with customers or end-users when building business models, range of stakeholders, while helping them balance the social and eco­
social entrepreneurship needs to take other issue parties into account, nomic impacts. Intermediary organizations face even greater challenges
such as beneficiaries.” Even with the traditional intermediary roles of in their intermediary roles because of the nature of entrepreneurship.
networking and mediating among innovation actors, they are from While more time and effort are generally required to support social
diverse backgrounds, from non-profit organizations to big corporations entrepreneurship, speed is also critical to the development and growth
interested in corporate social values, all of which may collaborate with of venture companies. They also involve high levels of uncertainty and
one another. There are also various funding agencies, from conventional risk, especially when requiring technological development to scale up
body funding entrepreneurship, such as government and venture capi­ solutions satisfying social and market needs (Van Welie, Boon and
tals, to additional funders, such as philanthropic enterprises and crowd Truffer, 2020).
funders (Fulgencio and Le Fever, 2016). Case studies suggest that some of these challenges may be addressed
With such a large variety of stakeholders, there could be increased by advances in data-driven impact assessment, facilitated by the

9
J.-Y. Ho and S. Yoon Technological Forecasting & Social Change 175 (2022) 121324

effective use of technology. Techniques to systematically measure, store, appropriate resources, linking diverse actors and aligning their interests,
and analyze a large amount of relevant data and information can providing educational and training programs, and legitimizing through
improve the assessment and evaluation of impacts generated by social assessment and evaluation of social impact. While many of these roles
enterprises, which, in turn, help their effective communication, sup­ may seem similar to the intermediary roles in TIS, the intermediary
porting the alignment of different interests across the diverse stake­ organizations in SIS are often found to play more complex and ambig­
holders involved. In particular, the intermediary functions of resource uous roles in supporting social businesses with multiple purposes
mobilization and gatekeeping can be significantly facilitated when the (generating both social and economic impacts) and involving a wide
potential impact of social enterprises is clearly demonstrated and variety of stakeholders. This study contributes to the literature on social
effectively conveyed to stakeholders unfamiliar with the concept of so­ entrepreneurship by clarifying the role of intermediaries in fostering
cial values. This can lead to greater investment and business opportu­ value creation for social innovation.
nities for social entrepreneurs, supporting the development and growth This research on intermediary organizations in SIS contributes to the
of the overall SIS. field of sustainable social business in terms of both scholarship and
In fact, social intermediaries have been found to place more practical implications. First, the paper furthers the conceptualization of
emphasis on social impact measurement than incubators and accelera­ SIS through the delineation of diverse social actors and businesses
tors for traditional entrepreneurship (Sansone et al., 2020). Despite their pursuing social innovation to tackle wicked problems in society. In
importance, impact assessment and communication have received particular, this is one of the first studies in the social business literature
relatively limited attention among Korean SISs. The decision to allocate to identify the diverse roles of intermediary organizations in supporting
resources to determine indicators to track medium-term outcomes and a broader SIS by combining insights from multiple theoretical and
long-term impact is often associated with the growth of impact in­ practical perspectives. We also clarify their functions by compartmen­
vestors, who are keen to check the measurable impact of potential firms talizing their roles, which are distinct and generally more expansive
to invest (Gupta et al., 2020), as seen in the U.S. market. Every social than those of the intermediary organizations in TIS because of the nature
enterprise has different social impacts that are assessed differently using and characteristics of social entrepreneurship targeting both social and
different measures. It is also difficult to find adequate and reliable var­ economic outcomes. Despite their wide range of roles, the ambiguity of
iables for the effective quantification of social impacts, many of which intermediary organizations in promoting social entrepreneurship has
are qualitative in nature. Once appropriate measures are chosen for each been revealed by categorizing their activities into three groups: articu­
case, we would need the cumulative data of extended periods for a lation, alignment, and learning (adapted and revised from Van Welie
meaningful assessment, although the data can change dynamically et al., 2020). Based on this outline of roles, other stakeholders interested
along with business development. All these factors make impact in the synergies created in the integration of social entrepreneurship and
assessment extremely challenging; however, according to an inter­ social innovation will be able to parse out functions that are provided or
viewee in Case 2, most venture companies do not even have the re­ lacking in the respective SISs.
sources to collect some types of data. While intermediary organizations’ various functions have fostered
Considering the recent growth in impact investment in South Korea, emergence and growth of social entrepreneurship in a society with a
investors will require both tangible social impact measurements and limited understanding of sustainable social businesses, several chal­
effective communication based on the data. There is a famous saying by lenges remain to guarantee sustainability of such growth. The lack of
Peter Drucker, a widely known and influential thinker on management: expertise and funding to ensure reliable and recurrent impact mea­
“what gets measured gets managed.” Many interviewees thus high­ surement and updated reporting is the main bottleneck that could later
lighted the need for data and analytic technologies, allowing for threaten the growth of this sector, especially because both impact in­
improved impact measurement and communication through systematic vestors and Generation Z consumers have been reported to be more
data collection and analysis. A large database of fine-grained informa­ careful and explorative on both social and economic impact delivery.
tion on the various dimensions of social impact needs to be developed This gap can be reduced through improved assessment and evaluation of
and managed using advanced technologies, such as blockchain (Al Taji social impact facilitated by the effective use of technology. In particular,
and Bengo, 2019) and big data analytics. These technologies can support advanced technologies, such as blockchain and big data analytics, can
more accurate and reliable impact assessment based on concrete evi­ support data gathering and analysis of various dimensions of social
dence, which can strengthen the legitimation functions of intermediary impact, thus allowing more accurate and reliable impact assessment
organizations as well as the additional mediating and aligning roles based on concrete evidence. This can further allow effective communi­
across diverse stakeholders involved in SIS. Archived data can also be cation of the impact generated by social businesses, leading to the
utilized for further development and dissemination of knowledge alignment of varying interests and knowledge dissemination across
regarding sustainable social businesses and their impact, leading to the diverse stakeholders involved in broader SIS. Thus, data technology can
development and growth of overall SIS. Thus, facilitating data collection be a catalyst for sustainable social businesses and relevant SISs. How­
and analysis processes required for impact assessment and communi­ ever, this requires more sophisticated public–private partnerships to
cation, technology can be a catalyst for sustainable social businesses and frequently and seamlessly integrate and analyze various forms of data,
relevant SISs. Nevertheless, there remains a need for either a program of such as publicly available administrative data and business-owned
an intermediary organization, such as Impactology, or a social venture’s customer satisfaction comments and interviews. Considering that solu­
in-house employee equipped with soft skills to translate how prosocial tions surfacing from SISs often tackle wicked problems, such data
venturing is reflected through the data. collection will not only be useful to sustain social business but also
contribute to documenting how much progress is being made for the
6. Conclusion relevant United Nations Sustainable Development Goals.
This study further suggests areas for future research on social
This study presents a systematic analysis of the various functions of entrepreneurship and the intermediary organizations that support them.
intermediary organizations that play increasingly flexible and versatile As the current research is limited to offering more or less a snapshot of
roles in the rapidly growing social entrepreneurial sector. By combining intermediaries in a relatively underdeveloped SIS, further in-depth an­
the insights from social entrepreneurship and the systems approach to alyses of the evolving roles of intermediary organizations throughout
technological innovation, this study adopts a holistic and multifaceted the growth and development of social entrepreneurship may provide a
perspective to examine diverse intermediary roles supporting a multi­ more detailed and complete picture of the complex scene of SISs. More
tude of actors at different levels of broader SIS. In particular, the study detailed research is also required by delineating the different interme­
highlights their growing roles in facilitating new networks, mobilizing diary roles performed by organizations in different forms (e.g., limited

10
J.-Y. Ho and S. Yoon Technological Forecasting & Social Change 175 (2022) 121324

companies, non-profit corporations, and government agencies) and Fiorentino, S., 2019. Different typologies of “co-working spaces” and the contemporary
dynamics of local economic development in Rome. Eur. Plan. Stud. 27 (9),
targeting the various types of social businesses (e.g., cooperatives, for-
1768–1790. https://doi.org/10.1080/09654313.2019.1620697.
profit businesses with a social impact, and socially responsible com­ Fuentelsaz, L., Maicas, J.P., Montero, J., 2018. Entrepreneurs and innovation: the
panies), which may provide richer insights into the creation and design contingent role of institutional factors. Int. Small Bus. J. 36 (6), 686–711. https://
of intermediary organizations that effectively promote overall SISs. Last doi.org/10.1177/0266242618766235.
Fulgencio, H., Le Fever, H., 2016. What is the social innovation system? A state-of-the-art
but not least, because the current research is conducted only in the single review. Int. J. Bus. Innov. Res. 10 (2–3), 434–452. https://doi.org/10.1504/
context of South Korea, case studies of different countries with different IJBIR.2016.074837.
cultural or institutional backgrounds may enrich our understanding of Gliedt, T., Hoicka, C.E., Jackson, N., 2018. Innovation intermediaries accelerating
environmental sustainability transitions. J. Clean. Prod. 174, 1247–1261. https://
intermediary organizations, ensuring the development of sustainable doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.11.054.
SISs across diverse contexts. The current study thus has opened up broad Gupta, P., et al., 2020. Social entrepreneurship research: a review and future research
opportunities for scholars and practitioners of social business to explore agenda. J. Bus. Res. 113, 209–229. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2020.03.032.
October 2019.
and investigate how to effectively spur the growth of SIS to tackle Hekkert, M.P., et al., 2007. Functions of innovation systems: a new approach for
problems unanswered in our societies. analysing technological change. Technol. Forecast. Soc. Change 74 (4), 413–432.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2006.03.002.
Howells, J., 2006. Intermediation and the role of intermediaries in innovation. Res.
Declarations of Competing Interests Policy 35 (5), 715–728. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2006.03.005.
Hwang, D.S., et al., 2017. Social enterprise in South Korea. Soc. Enterp. J. 13 (4),
none. 362–375. https://doi.org/10.1108/sej-09-2017-0047.
Hwang, H., Powell, W.W., 2005. Institutions and entrepreneurship. In: Alvarez, S.A.,
Agarwal, R., Sorenson, O. (Eds.), Handbook of Entrepreneurship Research. Springer,
Acknowledgments Boston, pp. 201–232. https://doi.org/10.4337/9781784718237.00011.
Jenson, I., Doyle, R., Miles, M.P., 2020. An entrepreneurial marketing process
perspective of the role of intermediaries in producing innovation outcomes. J. Bus.
This work was supported by the Yonsei University Research Grant of
Res. 112 (June), 291–299. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2019.09.054. Elsevier.
2019 (2019–22–0213) and the National Research Foundation of Korea Kim, T.H., Moon, M.J., 2017. Using Social enterprises for social policy in South Korea: do
(NRF) grant funded by the Korean government (MSIT) (NRF- funding and management affect social and economic performance? Public Adm. Dev.
2021R1G1A1004699). The authors would like to thank all interviewees 37 (1), 15–27. https://doi.org/10.1002/pad.1783.
Kivimaa, P., Hyysalo, S., et al., 2019. Passing the baton: how intermediaries advance
for sharing their knowledge and experiences, which provided invaluable sustainability transitions in different phases. Environ. Innov. Soc. Transit. 31
insights into the research. The data collection and interview transcrip­ (January), 110–125. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eist.2019.01.001.
tion assistance provided by undergraduate research assistants are also Kivimaa, P., Boon, W., et al., 2019. Towards a typology of intermediaries in
sustainability transitions: a systematic review and a research agenda. Res. Policy 48
greatly appreciated. (4), 1062–1075. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2018.10.006.
Klerkx, L., Leeuwis, C., 2008. Matching demand and supply in the agricultural
References knowledge infrastructure: experiences with innovation intermediaries. Food Policy
33 (3), 260–276. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodpol.2007.10.001.
Klewitz, J., Zeyen, A., Hansen, E.G., 2012. Intermediaries driving eco-innovation in
Akinyemi, J.O., et al., 2013. Innovation and Technology for Social Enterprises. Available
SMEs: a qualitative investigation. Eur. J. Innov. Manag. 15 (4), 442–467. https://doi.
at. https://europa.eu/capacity4dev/file/21447/download?token=uxl3PyYq.
org/10.1108/14601061211272376.
Al Taji, F.N.A., Bengo, I., 2019. The distinctive managerial challenges of hybrid
Lamine, W., et al., 2018. Technology business incubation mechanisms and sustainable
organizations: which skills are required? J. Soc. Entrep. 10 (3), 328–345. https://doi.
regional development. J. Technol. Transf. 43 (5), 1121–1141. https://doi.org/
org/10.1080/19420676.2018.1543724. Routledge.
10.1007/s10961-016-9537-9.
Allen, J., James, A.D., Gamlen, P., 2007. Formal versus informal knowledge networks in
Linton, J.D., 2000. The role of relationships and reciprocity in the implementation of
R&D: a case study using social network analysis. R D Manag. 37 (3), 179–196.
process innovation. EMJ - Eng. Manag. J. 12 (3), 34–38. https://doi.org/10.1080/
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9310.2007.00468.x.
10429247.2000.11415080.
Bacq, S., Janssen, F., 2011. The multiple faces of social entrepreneurship: a review of
Lukkarinen, J., et al., 2018. An intermediary approach to technological innovation
definitional issues based on geographical and thematic criteria. Entrep. Reg. Dev. 23
systems (TIS)—The case of the cleantech sector in Finland. Environ. Innov. Soc.
(5–6), 373–403. https://doi.org/10.1080/08985626.2011.577242.
Transit. 26, 136–146. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eist.2017.04.003. April 2017.
Baskaran, A., et al., 2019. Social entrepreneurship and inclusive growth: attributes,
Macke, J., et al., 2018. Where do we go from now? Research framework for social
perceptions and roles of business incubators and intermediaries in Malaysia. Sci.
entrepreneurship. J. Clean. Prod. 183, 677–685. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
Technol. Soc. 24 (3), 486–506. https://doi.org/10.1177/0971721819873186.
jclepro.2018.02.017.
Bergek, A., et al., 2008. Analyzing the functional dynamics of technological innovation
Miller, T.L., et al., 2012. Venturing for others with heart and head: how compassion
systems: a scheme of analysis. Res. Policy 37 (3), 407–429. https://doi.org/10.1016/
encourages social entrepreneurship. Acad. Manage. Rev. 37, 616–640.
j.respol.2007.12.003.
Morris, M.H., Webb, J.W., Franklin, R.J., 2011. Understanding the manifestation of
Bruneel, J., et al., 2012. The evolution of Business incubators: comparing demand and
entrepreneurial orientation in the nonprofit context. Entrep. Theory Pract. 35 (5),
supply of business incubation services across different incubator generations.
947–971. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-6520.2011.00453.x.
Technovation 32 (2), 110–121. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
Muñoz, P., Kimmitt, J., 2019. Social mission as competitive advantage: a configurational
technovation.2011.11.003.
analysis of the strategic conditions of social entrepreneurship. J. Bus. Res. 101,
Carberry, E.J., et al., 2019. Social movements as catalysts for corporate social innovation:
854–861. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2018.11.044. November 2018.
environmental activism and the adoption of green information systems. Bus. Soc. 58
Nicolopoulou, K., et al., 2017. An incubation perspective on social innovation: the
(5), 1083–1127. https://doi.org/10.1177/0007650317701674.
London Hub – a social incubator. R D Manag. 47 (3), 368–384. https://doi.org/
Carlsson, B., Stankiewicz, R., 1991. On the nature, function and composition of
10.1111/radm.12179.
technological systems. J. Evol. Econ. 1 (2), 93–118. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
Pauwels, C., et al., 2016. Understanding a new generation incubation model: the
tics.2008.03.003.
accelerator. Technovation 13–24. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
Clayton, P., Feldman, M., Lowe, N., 2018. Behind the scenes: intermediary organizations
technovation.2015.09.003, 50–51.
that facilitate science commercialization through entrepreneurship. Acad. Manag.
Peerally, J.A., De Fuentes, C., Figueiredo, P.N., 2019. Inclusive innovation and the role of
Perspect. 32 (1), 104–124. https://doi.org/10.5465/amp.2016.0133.
technological capability-building: the social business Grameen Danone Foods
Mitra Crisan, C., Borza, A., 2012. Social entrepreneurship and corporate social
Limited in Bangladesh. Long Range Plann. 52 (6), 101843 https://doi.org/10.1016/
responsibilities. Int. Bus. Res. 5 (2). https://doi.org/10.5539/ibr.v5n2p106.
j.lrp.2018.04.005.
Dahlman, C.J., Ross-Larson, B., Westphal, L.E., 1987. Managing technological
Phillips, W., et al., 2015. Social innovation and social entrepreneurship: a systematic
development: lessons from the newly industrializing countries. World Dev. 15 (6),
review. Group Organ. Manag. 40 (3), 428–461. https://doi.org/10.1177/
759–775. https://doi.org/10.1016/0305-750X(87)90058-1.
1059601114560063.
Desa, G., 2012. Resource mobilization in international social entrepreneurship: bricolage
Rahdari, A., Sepasi, S., Moradi, M., 2016. Achieving sustainability through
as a mechanism of institutional transformation. Entrep. Theory Pract. 36 (4),
Schumpeterian social entrepreneurship: the role of social enterprises. J. Clean. Prod.
727–751. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-6520.2010.00430.x.
137, 347–360. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2016.06.159. Elsevier Ltd.
Doherty, B., Haugh, H., Lyon, F., 2014. Social enterprises as hybrid organizations: a
Ramani, S.V., SadreGhazi, S., Gupta, S., 2017. Catalysing innovation for social impact:
review and research agenda. Int. J. Manag. Rev. 16 (4), 417–436. https://doi.org/
the role of social enterprises in the Indian sanitation sector. Technol. Forecast. Soc.
10.1111/ijmr.12028.
Change 121, 216–227. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2016.10.015. Elsevier
Edquist, C., 1997. Systems of innovation: technologies, institutions and organizations.
Inc.
Long Range Plann. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0024-6301(98)90244-8.
Rawhouser, H., Cummings, M., Newbert, S.L., 2019. Social impact measurement: current
Engelke, H., et al., 2015. Opportunities for social enterprise in Germany - evidence from
approaches and future directions for social entrepreneurship research. Entrep.
an expert survey. Technol. Forecast. Soc. Change 90 (PB), 635–646. https://doi.org/
Theory Pract. 43 (1), 82–115. https://doi.org/10.1177/1042258717727718.
10.1016/j.techfore.2014.01.004.

11
J.-Y. Ho and S. Yoon Technological Forecasting & Social Change 175 (2022) 121324

Rey-Martí, A., Ribeiro-Soriano, D., Palacios-Marqués, D, 2016. A bibliometric analysis of The Institute for Social Entrepreneurs, 2008. Evolution of the Social Enterprise industry :
social entrepreneurship. J. Bus. Res. 69 (5), 1651–1655. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. A chronology of Key Events. Available at. https://socialent.org/documents/EVOLUT
jbusres.2015.10.033. Elsevier Inc. IONOFTHESOCIALENTERPRISEINDUSTRY–ACHRONOLOGYOFKEYEVENTS.pdf.
Rovere, R.L.La, et al., 2020. Bridging the literature on innovation systems and Vaillancourt, Y., 2009. Social economy in the co-construction of public policy. Ann.
entrepreneurial ecosystems: cross-fertilizations for understanding knowledge- Public Coop. Econ. 80 (2), 275–313.
intensive, social and environmental entrepreneurship. In: Tsvetkova, A., Van Welie, M.J., Boon, W.P.C., Truffer, B., 2020. Innovation system formation in
Schmutzler, J., Pugh, R. (Eds.), Entrepreneurial Ecosystems Meet Innovation international development cooperation: the role of intermediaries in urban
Systems. E csg cvdward Elgar Publishing, Cheltenham, pp. 21–40. sanitation. Sci. Public Policy 47 (3), 333–347. https://doi.org/10.1093/scipol/
Saebi, T., Foss, N.J., Linder, S., 2019. Social entrepreneurship research: past scaa015.
achievements and future promises. J. Manage. 45 (1), 70–95. https://doi.org/ Westphal, L.E., Kim, L., Dahlman, C., 1985. Reflections on The Republic of Korea’s
10.1177/0149206318793196. acquisition of technological capability. In: Rosenberg, N., Frischtak, C. (Eds.),
Sansone, G., et al., 2020. Are social incubators different from other incubators? Evidence International Technology Transfer. Praeger, New York.
from Italy. Technol. Forecast. Soc. Change 158, 120132. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. Yin, R., 2009. Case Study Research: Design and Methods. Sage Publications, Thousand
techfore.2020.120132. ElsevierJuly 2019. Oaks, 4th edn.
Santos, F., Pache, A.-.C., Birkholz, C., 2015. Making hybrids work: aligning business Yoon, J., Park, J., Bae, Z., 2017. The effects of entrepreneurial ecosystem on
models and organizational design for social enterprises. Calif. Manage. Rev. 57 (3), entrepreneurial activities of social ventures: the case study of seongsu social valley in
36–58. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1835-9310.1982.tb01239.x. Seoul, South Korea’. Social Enterprise Studies 19 (1), 91–134.
Sassmannshausen, S.P., Volkmann, C., 2018. The scientometrics of social Yunus, M., Moingeon, B., Lehmann-Ortega, L., 2010. Building social business models:
entrepreneurship and its establishment as an academic field. J. Small Bus. Manag. 56 lessons from the grameen experience. Long Range Plann. 43 (2–3), 308–325. https://
(2), 251–273. https://doi.org/10.1111/jsbm.12254. doi.org/10.1016/j.lrp.2009.12.005. Elsevier Ltd.
Schumpeter, J., 2002. Theorie der wirtschaftlichen Entwicklung. Am. J. Econ. Sociol. 61 Zahra, S.A., et al., 2009. A typology of social entrepreneurs: motives, search processes
(2) https://doi.org/10.3790/978-3-428-47725-8. and ethical challenges. J. Bus. Ventur. 24 (5), 519–532. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
Short, J.C., Moss, T.W., Lumpkin, G.T., 2009. Research in social entrepreneurship: past jbusvent.2008.04.007. Elsevier B.V.
contributions and future opportunities. Strateg. Entrep. J. 3, 161–194. https://doi. Impact Management Project. (Accessed 9 November 2021).
org/10.1002/sej.
SOPOONG, 2019. Impact Accelerating Report 2019. Available at. https://sopoong.net/
Jae-Yun Ho is Assistant Professor of Creative Technology Management at Underwood
impact. Accessed: 18 August 2020.
International College of Yonsei University in Korea. She conducts research in the area of
Spitzer-Shohat, S., Essa-Hadad, J., Rudolf, M.C.J., 2020. Development of a novel social
innovation management and policy, with particular interests in technology strategy and
incubator for health promoting initiatives in a disadvantaged region. BMC Public
entrepreneurship. She obtained a PhD in Engineering and an MPhil in Technology Policy,
Health. 20 (1), 1–9. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12889-020-08990-1.
both from University of Cambridge. She also has a mechanical engineering background
Surie, G., 2017. Creating the innovation ecosystem for renewable energy via social
and industrial experience in both technical and policy consulting.
entrepreneurship: insights from India. Technol. Forecast. Soc. Change 121, 184–195.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2017.03.006. Elsevier Inc.
Swanson, L.A., Zhang, D.D., 2011. Complexity theory and the social entrepreneurship Semee Yoon is Assistant Professor of Sustainable Development and Cooperation at Un­
zone. Emerg. Complex. Organ. 13 (3), 39–56. derwood International College, Yonsei University (South Korea). She is also affiliated with
Teasdale, S., 2011. What’s in a Name? Making sense of social enterprise discourses. the Center for Environmental Economics and Policy at Columbia University. Her research
Public Policy Adm. 27 (2), 99–119. https://doi.org/10.1177/0952076711401466. interests lie primarily at the nexus of development and environment to enhance liveli­
TEPSIE, 2014. Building the social innovation ecosystem in Europe. Deliverable 7.3 of the hoods of the poor through Science, Technology and Innovation (STI) for UN Sustainable
FP7-project. Available at. http://www.sigeneration.ca/wp-content/uploads/2 Development Goals.
014/12/TEPSIE-Graphic.pdf.

12