Resumo

Social entrepreneurship has been presented as an important economic phenomenon which has been observed on a global scale (Austin, Stevenson & Wei-Skillern, 2006). Unlike traditional entrepreneurship, social entrepreneurship is typically measured qualitatively. In this sense, some studies, for example, the one of Comini (2016), have been conducted with the purpose of analyzing social innovation generated by social enterprises. This gap in literature was what encouraged us to develop a scale to measure and map social innovations in social entrepreneurships.

As we noticed in literature a lack of tools able to better understand social innovations generated by social entrepreneurships, this paper presents the following research question: How do Brazilian social entrepreneurs identify social innovations in terms of typology, depth and geographical coverage? As this area of knowledge is still incipient in the present literature, this study has the objective to deepen the knowledge about social innovation and verify the depth at which it occurs, the types of social innovation generated by social entrepreneurships, and its geographical occurrence.

The lack of clarity on the term "social innovation" can be attributed not only to its analytical status, but also to its simplistic use as a "buzzword" in a multitude of used policies (Moulaert, MacCallum & Hiller, 2013). This lack of consensus between the experts in social innovation can also be explained by the contemporary subject, as verified in a study on meta-synthesis of social innovation conducted by Moraes-da-Silva, Takahashi and Segato (2016).

To develop the scale, we followed the procedures pointed out by DeVellis (2012). Before doing it, we conducted a systematic literature review according to the stages proposed by Petticrew and Roberts (2006) . The sample universe was composed by 1195 social organizations and final sample consists of 264 social entrepreneurships. In order to validate the scale, after analyzing the lost values, extreme values, relative frequency, mean, standard deviation and coefficient of variation, we used multivariate analysis techniques: Exploratory factor analysis and Confirmatory factor analysis.

After all the rounds of factor analysis, the factorial model presented variables that approach or pass of the minimum values of commonality and factorial load required. Thus, the final factorial model consists of 23 variables. The model has been validated showing its consistency and repeatability. The Table 2 presents the 23 variables that compound the final scale.

After developing and validating the scale, we conducted some analysis to identify the types and depths of social innovations found among the respondents as well as some other demographic characteristics. It is important to highlight that the main purpose of this study was to not take an “x-ray” of social innovations generated by social entrepreneurships, but to develop a validated scale. Nevertheless, we made these analyses to understand the social innovations generated by these entrepreneurs who made part of the validating procedures.

Austin, J., Stevenson, H., & Wei-Skillern, J. (2006). Social and commercial entrepreneurship: same, different, or both? Entrepreneurship theory and practice,30, 1-22. Bruin, A.; Stangl, L. (2013) "The 'Social Innovation Continuum’ in Auckland Council", Social Innovation in Auckland, pp. 10-13. Online at: http://emes.net/content/uploads/publications/de_Bruin___Stangl_ECSP-LG13-68.pdf. Fávero, L. P.; Belfiore, P.; Silva, F. L.; Chan, B. L. (2009). Análise de dados: modelagem multivariada para tomada de decisões. Rio de Janeiro: Elsevier.