Impact Tech Startups: A Conceptual Framework, Machine-Learning-Based Methodology and Future Research Directions

The Impact Tech Startup (ITS) is a new, rapidly developing type of organizational category. Based on an entrepreneurial approach and technological foundations, ITSs adopt innovative strategies to tackle a variety of social and environmental challenges within a for-profit framework and are usually backed by private investment. This new organizational category is thus far not discussed in the academic literature. The paper first provides a conceptual framework for studying this organizational category, as a combination of aspects of social enterprises and startup businesses. It then proposes a machine learning (ML)-based algorithm to identify ITSs within startup databases. The UN’s Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) are used as a referential framework for characterizing ITSs, with indicators relating to those 17 goals that qualify a startup for inclusion in the impact category. The paper concludes by discussing future research directions in studying ITSs as a distinct organizational category through the usage of the ML methodology.

[1]  F. Perrini,et al.  Measuring impact and creating change: a comparison of the main methods for social enterprises , 2020 .

[2]  Max Tegmark,et al.  The role of artificial intelligence in achieving the Sustainable Development Goals , 2019, Nature Communications.

[3]  J. Clarkin,et al.  Impact Investing: A Primer and Review of the Literature , 2015 .

[4]  R. Marshall,et al.  Conceptualizing the International For-Profit Social Entrepreneur , 2011 .

[5]  P. Mikołajczak Social Enterprises’ Hybridity in the Concept of Institutional Logics: Evidence from Polish NGOs , 2020, VOLUNTAS: International Journal of Voluntary and Nonprofit Organizations.

[6]  D. Holt,et al.  Hybrid social entrepreneurship in emerging economies – a research agenda , 2019, A Research Agenda for Social Entrepreneurship.

[7]  C. Child Whence Paradox? Framing Away the Potential Challenges of Doing Well by Doing Good in Social Enterprise Organizations , 2020, Organization Studies.

[8]  Paul Tracey,et al.  Adding Complexity to Theories of Paradox, Tensions, and Dualities of Innovation and Change: Introduction to Organization Studies Special Issue on Paradox, Tensions, and Dualities of Innovation and Change , 2017 .

[9]  Bob Doherty,et al.  Social Enterprises as Hybrid Organizations: A Review and Research Agenda , 2014 .

[10]  Willem Schramade Investing in the UN Sustainable Development Goals: Opportunities for Companies and Investors , 2017 .

[11]  Wendy K. Smith,et al.  Managing Social-Business Tensions: A Review and Research Agenda for Social Enterprise , 2013, Business Ethics Quarterly.

[12]  G. McLean,et al.  Successful IT Start-Ups' HRD Practices: Four Cases in South Korea. , 2009 .

[13]  Bruno S. Silvestre,et al.  A Novel NGO Approach to Facilitate the Adoption of Sustainable Innovations in Low-Income Countries: Lessons from Small-scale Farms in Nicaragua , 2019 .

[14]  Frances S. Berry,et al.  Policy Design and Achieving Social Outcomes: A Comparative Analysis of Social Enterprise Policy , 2020 .

[15]  C. Mason,et al.  Looking inside the spiky bits: a critical review and conceptualisation of entrepreneurial ecosystems , 2017, Small Business Economics.

[16]  G. Castrogiovanni Pre-Startup Planning and the Survival of New Small Businesses: Theoretical Linkages , 1996 .

[17]  J. Defourny,et al.  Testing Social Enterprise Models Across the World: Evidence From the “International Comparative Social Enterprise Models (ICSEM) Project” , 2020, Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly.

[18]  Coupling between financing and innovation in a startup: embedded in networks with investors and researchers , 2020, International Entrepreneurship and Management Journal.

[19]  Michael J. Price,et al.  Total Quality Management in a Small, High-Technology Company , 1993 .

[20]  Tony Gorschek,et al.  What Do We Know about Software Development in Startups? , 2014, IEEE Software.

[21]  Satyajit Majumdar,et al.  Social entrepreneurship as an essentially contested concept: Opening a new avenue for systematic future research , 2014 .

[22]  Joseph Ibrahim The Occupy Movement , 2015 .

[23]  W. Strielkowski,et al.  Factors That Influence the Success of Small and Medium Enterprises in ICT: A Case Study from the Czech Republic , 2015 .

[24]  R. Savaya,et al.  Management in social enterprises—Management style, challenges, and strategies , 2020 .

[25]  A. Sagar,et al.  Strengthening Science, Technology, and Innovation-Based Incubators to Help Achieve Sustainable Development Goals: Lessons From India , 2019, 2005.13138.

[26]  Wendy K. Smith,et al.  Microfoundations of Organizational Paradox: The Problem Is How We Think about the Problem , 2017 .

[27]  Ming-Wei Chang,et al.  BERT: Pre-training of Deep Bidirectional Transformers for Language Understanding , 2019, NAACL.

[28]  Johan Bruneel,et al.  The Social and Economic Mission of Social Enterprises: Dimensions, Measurement, Validation, and Relation , 2015 .

[29]  J. Pinkse,et al.  Accountability for social impact: A bricolage perspective on impact measurement in social enterprises , 2017 .

[30]  Alnoor Ebrahim,et al.  The governance of social enterprises: Mission drift and accountability challenges in hybrid organizations , 2014 .

[31]  Allen Abramson,et al.  Challenges Facing Social Enterprises in the United States , 2019, Nonprofit Policy Forum.

[32]  B. Spigel The Relational Organization of Entrepreneurial Ecosystems , 2017 .

[33]  Sophie Manigart,et al.  Financing High Technology Startups in Belgium: An Explorative Study , 1997 .

[34]  Benny Tjahjono,et al.  The New Social Economy in Indonesia: Features, Recent Development and Challenges , 2021 .

[35]  Gabriel Berger,et al.  The Evolution of the Social and Impact Economy in Argentina , 2021 .

[36]  R. Lueg,et al.  Managing Multiple Logics: The Role of Performance Measurement Systems in Social Enterprises , 2019, Sustainability.

[37]  H. Stevenson,et al.  Social and Commercial Entrepreneurship: Same, Different, or Both? , 2006 .

[38]  Kai Hockerts,et al.  Impact investing: review and research agenda , 2019, Journal of Small Business & Entrepreneurship.

[39]  L. Salamon,et al.  Social Origins of Civil Society: Explaining the Nonprofit Sector Cross-Nationally , 1998 .

[40]  Iain A. Davies,et al.  Barriers to Social Enterprise Growth , 2019 .

[41]  Christopher M. Barnes,et al.  Ghost in the Machine: On Organizational Theory in the Age of Machine Learning , 2020, Academy of Management Review.

[42]  Claus Stig Pedersen,et al.  The un Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) are a Great Gift to Business , 2018 .

[43]  F. Rullani,et al.  The Bright Side of Hybridity: Exploring How Social Enterprises Manage and Leverage Their Hybrid Nature , 2019, Journal of Business Ethics.

[44]  A. Lockett,et al.  Hybrid Context, Management Practices and Organizational Performance: A Configurational Approach , 2020, Journal of Management Studies.

[45]  Jaroslava Kubátová,et al.  The Potential of Impact and Integral Investing for Sustainable Social Development and the Role of Academia in Their Dissemination , 2020 .

[46]  Rakhyun E. Kim,et al.  Global governance by goal-setting: the novel approach of the UN Sustainable Development Goals , 2017 .

[47]  30. Comparative Nonprofit Sector Research: A Critical Assessment , 2020, The Nonprofit Sector.

[48]  J. Battilana Cracking the organizational challenge of pursuing joint social and financial goals: Social enterprise as a laboratory to understand hybrid organizing , 2018 .

[49]  J. Phillimore,et al.  Exploring gender and social entrepreneurship: women's leadership, employment and participation in the third sector and social enterprises , 2011 .

[50]  Didier Chabanet,et al.  The Social and Solidarity Economy in France Faced with the Challenges of Social Entrepreneurship , 2021 .

[51]  A. Sahay,et al.  Social enterprises in the Indian context: conceptualizing through qualitative lens , 2018 .

[52]  V. Ambrosini,et al.  Responding to Value Pluralism in Hybrid Organizations , 2019 .