Позитивные изменения. Том 2, № 3 (2022). Positive changes. Volume 2, Issue 3 (2022)

For this factor we see opposing trends, with significant differences in the assessment of the image of a social entrepreneur in relation to their home country: p <0.001 between Belarus and Kazakhstan, p = 0.013 between Belarus and Russia, p = 0.056 between Kazakhstan and Russia.

Another interesting trend was that the respondents from all three countries rated only gave high scores in this factor to the image of a social entrepreneur from the United States. Respondents from Belarus and Russia do not attribute this property to any other country.

Figure 3. Country image scores by factor 3 “More of a commercial rather than social entrepreneur, an unsuccessful businessman; a loner, working without a team.”

The respondents from Kazakhstan demonstrate a completely different perception of this property. They attribute it to the definition of social entrepreneurs in all countries, including their own. Respondents from Kazakhstan also have a significantly different perception of the social entrepreneur in Russia compared to Belarus (p=0.001), and so do respondents from Russia when describing a social entrepreneur from Kazakhstan (p=0.005).

As for assessments of the “perfect country,” the respondents from Belarus show a substantial difference compared to the representatives of Kazakhstan (p = 0.006) and Russia (p = 0.048) (See Figure 4).

For factor 4, we can also recognize a trend common to the first two factors, that is a more positive characterization of the image of a social entrepreneur in the United States and “under perfect conditions,” compared to the characteristics that respondents applied to their home country and “other countries.” As we can see, respondents from Belarus generally do not describe social entrepreneurs in their country as supported by the state and the church. Their estimates differ significantly from those of the respondents from Russia (p <0.001) and Kazakhstan (p = 0.001). The respondents from these two countries also gave positive ratings to this factor, with a level above zero. Respondents from Belarus also attribute this characteristic to the image of a social entrepreneur in Russia, and this assessment is significantly different from the Russian (p = 0.023) and Kazakh (p = 0.005) respondents.

Figure 4. Country image scores for factor 4 “Not supported by the state and the church”

CONCLUSION

Based on our analysis of the findings, the following main conclusions can be drawn:

1. There are four main factors in assessing the image of the social entrepreneur in each of the three countries: Kazakhstan, Belarus and Russia. These factors are;

• An effective entrepreneur creating social value, offering an innovative solution to a social problem with the support of foundations, investors, and the public;

• Dependent on outside funding, weak business, not supported by the state and society, unhappy person;

• More of a commercial rather than social entrepreneur, an unsuccessful businessman; a loner, working without a team;

• Not supported by the state and the church.

2. Images of social entrepreneurs in the CIS countries — Russia, Kazakhstan and Belarus — have significantly different properties from the definition of social entrepreneurs in the United States and social entrepreneurs “under perfect conditions.” In general, the social entrepreneurs of their own and other CIS countries are described as “weaker,” that is, less effective and less innovative; they depend on external funding and are not supported by the government, the public, and the church. The respondents rated the image of a social entrepreneur in the United States as much closer to the “perfect” conditions than in each of the three countries surveyed.

3. There is a specific characteristic inherent in the image of social entrepreneurs in the United States. According to the respondents, it is “profit-oriented,” that is, their activities are more commercial than social. Conversely, study participants from Russia and Belarus believe that social entrepreneurs in their countries are more focused on social outcomes and solving social problems. Meanwhile, respondents from Kazakhstan believe that social entrepreneurs are more profit-oriented in all three countries.