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

• the ability to be part of multiple ecosystems increases the “penetration” of social entrepreneurs’ solutions to different levels of public good creation, enhances the uniqueness of the solutions and business models created by social enterprises.

To summarize, I would like to emphasize that the effective tools used today by traditional business organizations are not just relevant for social entrepreneurship, but should be widely demanded and applicable in this area due to the specifics and characteristics of the organizations described above.

RESULTS OF A STUDY OF THE BEHAVIOR OF ORGANIZATIONS WITH A HIGH LEVEL OF SOCIAL IMPACT IN THE VUCA ENVIRONMENT

Undoubtedly, the COVID-19 pandemic has become a major challenge not only for the society, but also for organizations and states. Pandemic times are associated with uncertainty, unpredictability of the onset and development of events, and the scale of their impact on all areas of social and economic life of people. Both businesses and nonprofit organizations found themselves in a new paradigm, where decisions about further development had to be made quickly, coherently within the team, without knowing the consequences and the probability of occurrence of anticipated events.

The Impact Hub Moscow Social Innovation Support Center, together with scientists from the Graduate School of Management at St. Petersburg State University and the University of Massachusetts, conducted a study, “Social Entrepreneurship in the Age of the Pandemic,” from June 2020 to January 2021. The goal of the study was to identify the changes that occurred in the sector during the COVID-19 pandemic. The researchers paid special attention to innovations and strategies that helped organizations survive the crisis.

The majority of Russian social enterprises participating in the study were small businesses (12 %) and microbusinesses (82 %). The overall age of the companies was 5–6 years — when the pandemic started, they were in the development and growth stages.

Social enterprises of all organizational and legal forms took part in the study. All respondent organizations were divided into three types, depending on the main method of income generation: “commercial,” “non-profit,” and “hybrid” organizations. Most of the revenue of “commercial” organizations came from the sale of their goods and services, while “non-profit” organizations derive most of their income from external funding sources (such as grants, donations). Finally, “hybrid” companies combine income from the sale of goods and services with donations and grants.

The study “Social Entrepreneurship in the Age of the Pandemic” helped experts identify several key trends indicating that many social entrepreneurs had not only been able to withstand these difficult times, but also to turn the challenges of the environment into opportunities for their organizations. Thus, during the pandemic, 74 % of “commercial” and 61 % of “hybrid” companies managed not only to maintain but also increase their sales revenues.

Figure 1. Geographic coverage of social enterprises(%)

The pandemic impacted the geographic expansion of organizations, as reported by 50 % of the respondents. The majority of respondents said their growth was influenced by the online work format (78 % of the respondents of those who answered “yes” to the question — “Has your business experienced a geographic expansion?”) (See Figure 1).

The pandemic generally increased the number of innovations being introduced. 53 % of the social entrepreneurs presented products that were groundbreaking for their companies and for the market as a whole.

Another important aspect that reflects the stability of organizations relates to maintaining the number of employees. In most organizations (85 %) the number of staff either remained the same or even increased. Organizations that operate on “hybrid” or predominantly external funding (“non-profit” organizations) were in the best position to retain headcount.

Overall, it can be noted that the overall picture among those who participated in the survey is quite positive. Social entrepreneurs have been able to maintain their positions on most critical factors, and some have even improved their performance. However, it is also necessary to mention the limitation of the study related to the “survivor effect”; in other words, the survey involved mainly those organizations that survived the crisis period and continued their activities. But despite this limitation, the important question, of course, is what strategies were used by those social entrepreneurs who had been able to cope with the challenges of a turbulent period.

The study highlighted three types of strategies, each packing a set of specific strategic actions: