OVERCOMING BARRIERS TO SOCIAL INTRAPRENEURSHIP i

Abstract

Title of Dissertation: HOW CORPORATIONS CAN DEVELOP

MANAGEMENT STRATEGIES TO

OVERCOME BARRIERS TO SOCIAL

INTRAPRENEURSHIP

Michael F. Corbett

Doctor of Business Administration, 2024

Social intrapreneurship (SI) is an employee-centric, entrepreneurial approach to corporate social

responsibility (CSR). SI occurs when employees drive the development of innovative products,

services, or management practices that advance the organization’s business objectives while

addressing their own environmental and social passions. The business problem addressed by this

study is that some corporations lack effective management strategies to overcome common

barriers to SI. Ineffective support of SI can lead to missed business opportunities, diminished

stakeholder engagement, and a loss of competitive advantage in the marketplace. In contrast,

effectively enabling SI can positively contribute to the overall impact and authenticity of an

organization's CSR programs. The review question answered by this study is: What management

strategies can corporations develop to overcome barriers to SI adoption? Utilizing an evidence-

based management (EBM) approach and a qualitative systematic review (SR) methodology, this

study synthesizes findings from 36 relevant, high-quality research papers on SI. Through the
OVERCOMING BARRIERS TO SOCIAL INTRAPRENEURSHIP ii

application of a novel conceptual model combining entrepreneurial orientation (EO), social

entrepreneurial orientation (SEO), and SI theory, three management strategies emerged:

investing, pursuing, and signaling. These strategies promote: (a) investments in supportive

organizational structures and management practices; (b) alignment of organizational and

individual goals, including providing employees the freedom to pursue relevant projects; and (c)

proactive leadership that recognizes, communicates, and demonstrates how this approach

benefits both the business and society. The study also presents a strategic change management

process for implementing these results.

Keywords: corporate social responsibility, social intrapreneurship, corporate social

entrepreneurship, CSR, SI, CSE

OVERCOMING BARRIERS TO SOCIAL INTRAPRENEURSHIP iii

HOW CORPORATIONS CAN DEVELOP MANAGEMENT STRATEGIES TO

OVERCOME BARRIERS TO SOCIAL INTRAPRENEURSHIP

By

Michael F. Corbett

Dr. Raymond Marbury, Chair

Dr. Rimi Zakaria, Committee

Dr. Ray Muhammad, Committee

Oral Defense: November 13, 2024

Dissertation submitted to the School of Business,

University of Maryland Global Campus, in partial fulfillment

of the requirements for the degree of

Doctor of Business Administration

2024
OVERCOMING BARRIERS TO SOCIAL INTRAPRENEURSHIP iv

© Copyright by

Michael F. Corbett

2024
OVERCOMING BARRIERS TO SOCIAL INTRAPRENEURSHIP v

Dedication

I want to dedicate this dissertation to my wife, Debi Hamill Corbett, who is also the CEO

of the International Association of Outsourcing Professionals (IAOP) and a leader in her own

right in the field of social impact. You inspired and supported me throughout this journey,

debated ideas, and encouraged me to keep pushing until I had it right.

I would also like to dedicate this dissertation to our three daughters, Amanda Corbett

Safdar, Dana Corbett Marsella, and Chelsea Corbett; you are uniquely skilled at keeping me

humble, grounded, and motivated to make you proud of your old man. Finally, I would like to

thank my extended family for supporting me and for supporting those who were supporting me.

One person alone cannot complete an effort of this magnitude.

OVERCOMING BARRIERS TO SOCIAL INTRAPRENEURSHIP vi

Acknowledgments

I want to acknowledge the UMGC School of Business faculty and staff. Their dedication

and support throughout this journey were essential. Everyone with whom I interacted from

across the school was professional, courteous, focused on my success, and dedicated to the

program.

I also want to acknowledge my dissertation committee, led by Dr. Raymond Marbury and

supported by my second and third readers, Dr. Rimi Zakaria and Dr. Ray Muhammad. This team

of professionals was supported by Dr. Ravi Mittal, Chair, UMGC Department of Business

Administration, Dr. Jan Tucker, UMGC DBA Program Director, and Dr. Monica Sava, UMGC

Dissertation Course Manager. Each of these individuals contributed to this final work product. I

trust that you are proud of our collective effort and that this dissertation advances our

understanding of the inextricable and ever-changing relationship between business and society.

Two individuals at the forefront of social intrapreneurship sparked my interest and helped

shape my thinking. Nancy McGaw is Senior Advisor and Founder of the Aspen Institute’s First

Movers Fellowship Program, which has trained more than 300 aspiring social intrapreneurs.

Nancy’s 2024 book Making Work Matter: How to Create Positive Change in Your Company and

Meaning in Your Career chronicles many of their stories and their impact. The second is Dr.

Christine Hemingway, an accomplished practitioner, researcher, lecturer, and author of

Corporate Social Entrepreneurship: Integrity Within. Her observation that social

intrapreneurship makes corporate social responsibility everyone’s business led me to want to

understand how her vision might be realized.

Finally, I would like to acknowledge the support of my fellow cohort members,

especially the five of us who shared the entire three-year journey. Thank you.
OVERCOMING BARRIERS TO SOCIAL INTRAPRENEURSHIP vii

Table of Contents

Dedication ....................................................................................................................................... v

Acknowledgments.......................................................................................................................... vi

Table of Contents .......................................................................................................................... vii

List of Tables ................................................................................................................................. xi

List of Figures ............................................................................................................................... xii

List of Abbreviations ................................................................................................................... xiii

Chapter 1: Introduction and Overview of the Management Problem ............................................. 1

Background and Overview .......................................................................................................... 2

Social Intrapreneurship (SI) ........................................................................................................ 6

Problem Statement and Significance of the Problem .................................................................. 7

Purpose of the Study and the Review Question .......................................................................... 9

Rationale for the Study .............................................................................................................. 10

Discussion of Concepts and Themes ......................................................................................... 12

Definitions and Terminology .................................................................................................... 14

Chapter Summary ...................................................................................................................... 15

Organization of the Dissertation................................................................................................ 15

Chapter 2: Scoping Literature Review and Theoretical Frame .................................................... 17

Theoretical Framework ............................................................................................................. 17

Organizational Theory ........................................................................................................... 18

Individual Theory .................................................................................................................. 23

Theoretical Framework Summary ......................................................................................... 25

The Literature Landscape .......................................................................................................... 25

OVERCOMING BARRIERS TO SOCIAL INTRAPRENEURSHIP viii

The Evolution of Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) .................................................... 26

The Social Intrapreneur (SI) .................................................................................................. 32

Literature Landscape Summary ............................................................................................. 39

Conceptual Model ..................................................................................................................... 39

Chapter Summary ...................................................................................................................... 41

Chapter 3: Method ........................................................................................................................ 42

Evidence-Based Research Framework ...................................................................................... 42

Mapping the Research Activity ............................................................................................. 43

Review Initiation ................................................................................................................... 45

Subject Matter Experts .............................................................................................................. 47

Chapter Summary ...................................................................................................................... 48

Chapter 4: Analysis and Results ................................................................................................... 49

Reconnecting to the Review Question ...................................................................................... 49

Problem Space ....................................................................................................................... 49

Purpose and Review Question ............................................................................................... 50

Collection and Description of the Data Corpus ........................................................................ 50

Data Collection ...................................................................................................................... 50

Data Description .................................................................................................................... 52

Data Extraction ...................................................................................................................... 53

Quality Assessment ................................................................................................................... 53

Coding, Findings, and Themes .................................................................................................. 54

OVERCOMING BARRIERS TO SOCIAL INTRAPRENEURSHIP ix

First-Cycle Coding ................................................................................................................ 54

Second-Cycle Coding ............................................................................................................ 54

Synthesizing the Evidence..................................................................................................... 58

Results and Discussion .............................................................................................................. 59

Result 1: Make Strategic Investments in Support of SI ........................................................ 60

Result 2: Align Business and SI Goals, Actions, and Motivations ....................................... 67

Result 3: Signal Executive and Organizational Support for SI ............................................. 70

Confidence in Results ............................................................................................................ 74

Summary of Results .................................................................................................................. 75

Revised Conceptual Model ....................................................................................................... 77

Chapter Summary ...................................................................................................................... 78

Chapter 5: Conclusions and Implications ..................................................................................... 79

Review of the Research ............................................................................................................. 79

Theoretical Framework ......................................................................................................... 80

Review of Research Methodology ........................................................................................ 81

Review of the Business Problem ........................................................................................... 82

Answer to the Review Question ............................................................................................ 83

Management Recommendations ............................................................................................... 84

Step 1: Build SI Awareness and Urgency ............................................................................. 85

Step 2: Form a Coalition to Build Momentum ...................................................................... 88

Step 3: Create a New Vision ................................................................................................. 90

Step 4: Communicate the New Vision .................................................................................. 92

Step 5: Systematically Remove SI Barriers........................................................................... 93

OVERCOMING BARRIERS TO SOCIAL INTRAPRENEURSHIP x

Step 6: Use Early Wins to Show the Business Value of SI ................................................... 96

Step 7: Consolidate Improvements and Produce Further Change ......................................... 98

Step 8: Institutionalize SI ...................................................................................................... 98

Risks and Barriers to Implementation ................................................................................... 99

Subject Matter Experts ........................................................................................................ 100

Summary of Management Recommendations..................................................................... 101

Limitations of the Study and Areas for Future Research ........................................................ 101

Limitations of the Study ...................................................................................................... 102

Areas for Future Research ................................................................................................... 102

Final Summary and Conclusions............................................................................................. 103

References ................................................................................................................................... 106

Appendix A ................................................................................................................................. 128

Appendix B ................................................................................................................................. 129

Appendix C ................................................................................................................................. 130

Appendix D ................................................................................................................................. 148

Appendix E ................................................................................................................................. 153

Appendix F.................................................................................................................................. 168

Appendix G ................................................................................................................................. 176

Appendix H ................................................................................................................................. 179

Appendix I .................................................................................................................................. 180

OVERCOMING BARRIERS TO SOCIAL INTRAPRENEURSHIP xi

List of Tables

Table 1 CIMO Framework............................................................................................................ 10

Table 2 Key Terminology ............................................................................................................. 14

Table 3 Data Extraction Table Overview ..................................................................................... 46

Table 4 Source Reference List ...................................................................................................... 51

Table 5 Relationship Between Descriptive Codes, Codes, and Categories .................................. 55

Table 6 Relationship Between Contributing Articles, Codes, and Categories ............................. 56

Table 7 Results Distribution ......................................................................................................... 59

OVERCOMING BARRIERS TO SOCIAL INTRAPRENEURSHIP xii

List of Figures

Figure 1 Employee Perceptions ...................................................................................................... 5

Figure 2 Mapping the Problem Space ............................................................................................. 9

Figure 3 Conceptual Model for Overcoming Barriers to Social Intrapreneurship (SI) ................ 41

Figure 4 Coding, Category, and Theme Development ................................................................. 58

Figure 5 Revised Conceptual Model for Overcoming Barriers to Social Intrapreneurship (SI) .. 78
OVERCOMING BARRIERS TO SOCIAL INTRAPRENEURSHIP xiii

List of Abbreviations

Base/Bottom of the pyramid (BoP)

Corporate entrepreneurship (CE)

Corporate power distribution/index (CPD/I)

Corporate social responsibility (CSR)

Corporate sustainability reporting directive (CSRD)

Diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI)

Employee social intrapreneurial behavior (ESIB)

Entrepreneurial characteristics (EC)

Entrepreneurial orientation (EO)

Environmental, social, and governance (ESG)

Evidence-based management (EBM)

Global reporting initiative (GRI)

Human resources (HR)

Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analysis (PRISMA)

Return on investment (ROI)

Spiritual leadership (SL)

Social capital (SC)

Social entrepreneurial orientation (SEO)

Social intrapreneur/intrapreneurship (SI)

Structural contingency theory (SCT)

Sustainable development goal (SDG)

Systematic review (SR)

OVERCOMING BARRIERS TO SOCIAL INTRAPRENEURSHIP xiv

Transformational leadership (TL)

Triple bottom line (TBL)

Workplace spirituality (WS)

OVERCOMING BARRIERS TO SOCIAL INTRAPRENEURSHIP 1

Chapter 1: Introduction and Overview of the Management Problem

Failure to address the interests of a growing and increasingly influential network of

stakeholders can negatively impact a company’s short- and long-term success and viability

(Aparicio et al., 2020; Elkington, 2008; Hemingway, 2013; Porter & Kramer, 2011). These

stakeholders are not just the company’s shareholders. They include all the individuals and groups

that can affect or be affected by its actions, including its customers, employees, suppliers,

lenders, local communities, governments, agencies, trade and political organizations, and many

others (Freeman & Reed, 1983).

Companies commonly rely on corporate social responsibility (CSR) and related

environmental and social programs to address stakeholder expectations (Davidson et al., 2018).

The intent of these programs is for the company to go beyond its financial and legal obligations

and positively impact society at an ethical, moral, and philanthropic level (Carroll, 1979, 1991;

Davidson et al., 2018). As well-established and successful as these programs can be, they can

also be viewed as disconnected from the organization’s core business, lacking innovation, and

not genuinely reporting on the company’s overall environmental and social impact (García-

Sánchez et al., 2022; Paine, 2003; Westerman et al., 2022). Additional approaches are needed

(IBM, 2024a).

One of these approaches is social intrapreneurship (SI): a complementary, innovative,

and entrepreneurial approach to meeting stakeholders’ expectations (Elkington, 2008;

Hemingway, 2013; Hemingway & Maclagan, 2004). SI occurs when employees drive the

development of innovative products, services, or management practices that advance the

organization’s business objectives while addressing their own environmental and social passions.

In this way, SI can help bridge the gap between current CSR programs and the ever-expanding
OVERCOMING BARRIERS TO SOCIAL INTRAPRENEURSHIP 2

stakeholder expectations for solutions to both business and societal needs (Elkington, 2008;

Hemingway, 2013; Hemingway & Maclagan, 2004).

Research on SI has, however, primarily focused on the individuals, their motivations, and

how they have overcome organizational barriers to achieve their vision (Davis & White, 2015;

McGaw, 2024). What has not been researched is how organizations can strategically identify,

assess, and reduce these barriers, positioning SI as a key contributor to business success. The aim

of this dissertation is to systematically review the existing research on SI barriers and to develop

actionable management strategies for overcoming these barriers and leveraging the societal

passions of employees.

The remainder of this chapter provides a background and overview of CSR and SI. It then

introduces the specific business problem being addressed, the review question, key concepts,

themes, and terms used throughout. Chapter 1 concludes with a summary of this chapter and an

overview of the subsequent sections of this study.

Background and Overview

The view of the relationship between business and society has continuously evolved. In

the late 1800s, business magnates, such as Andrew Carnegie and John D. Rockefeller, began

challenging their peers to redistribute their wealth in support of social causes (ACCP, n.d.). More

than half a century later, Bowen (1953) was among the first to state that businesses themselves

have a social responsibility. Friedman took the alternative view, famously arguing in 1970 that

promoting the social responsibility of businesses was “preaching pure and unadulterated

socialism” (Friedman, 1970, para. 1). This view was countered by Freeman, who argued that

corporations sit at the center of a network of stakeholders that directly impact their operations,

including “shareowners, employees, customers, suppliers, lenders and society” (Freeman &
OVERCOMING BARRIERS TO SOCIAL INTRAPRENEURSHIP 3

Reed, 1983, p. 89). Over the following decades, Freeman’s view prevailed, and the importance

of businesses meeting the needs of all their stakeholders continued to mature and expand.

As a result, the importance of stakeholders to an organization’s success has become

increasingly recognized. Perhaps most notably, in 2019, the Business Roundtable—an

association of more than 200 chief executive officers of America’s leading companies—formally

declared that the corporation’s purpose was to serve all its stakeholders, not just its shareholders

(Business Roundtable, 2019). Upshaw (2021) reported that 71% of US consumers wanted to buy

from socially responsible companies (para. 1). Social media has come to play an increasingly

significant role here: as consumers seek to know more about the social impact of the companies

with which they engage (Cantele et al., 2020, p. 6). Companies that do not keep up with these

evolving stakeholder expectations risk losing market share and future investments (Upshaw,

2021, para. 2).

Aligning business goals with societal expectations is particularly challenging for larger

national and multinational corporations. Due to their economic and marketplace influence,

national companies receive greater public and governmental scrutiny. This complexity is

compounded for multinational corporations, which must navigate cultural, governmental, and

geopolitical disparities across their global operations. Most national and multinational

corporations demonstrate their commitment through annual CSR reports, which are often

supported by dedicated departments and lead executives (Davidson et al., 2018, p. 79). Indeed,

some European member states mandate CSR reporting for companies under their jurisdiction

(Panwar et al., 2018, p. 135). CSR can be seen as a microcosm of the company’s social values,

mirroring the societies in which it operates (Buendía-Martínez & Monteagudo, 2020, p. 4). The
OVERCOMING BARRIERS TO SOCIAL INTRAPRENEURSHIP 4

result is an ever-changing landscape of expectations that larger national and multinational

corporations must navigate.

As important as CSR programs are, they do not always have the intended impact. One

reason for this is that, to some stakeholders, CSR is a public relations effort primarily designed to

enhance the organization’s legitimacy. Even worse, inaccurate or inflated reporting can do more

harm than good to a company’s reputation (Westerman et al., 2022). Other programs, such as

environmental, social, and governance (ESG) programs, while intended to better align the

business with its investors’ near- and long-term interests, can become political hot buttons, a

trend that is causing some companies to reexamine their commitment to this approach (Cutter &

Glazer, 2024). Similarly, strategic development goals (SDGs) can draw companies into turbulent

political dynamics at the country level (Cordell & Li, 2021); while these efforts may genuinely

represent a company’s values, stakeholder perceptions can undermine their impact.

Significant negative impacts can occur when companies fail to synchronize with evolving

public opinion and political climates. A recent example is the U.S. State of Florida revoking the

Walt Disney Company’s Reedy Creek Improvement District rights. This action followed

Disney’s vocal objection to state laws criticized for undermining diversity, equity, and inclusion

(DEI) principles, which the company strongly supported (Barnes, 2022). Additionally,

organizations that promote diversity without addressing systemic racism and inequities can be

accused of woke-washing (Roberson et al., 2024, p. 197). Brands such as Audi, Burger King, and

Nike have faced such accusations due to campaigns advocating social causes while failing to

reflect those values internally (Jones, 2019). Companies that tether their messaging to volatile

public and political views risk reputational and operational repercussions.

OVERCOMING BARRIERS TO SOCIAL INTRAPRENEURSHIP 5

Although such efforts are intended to focus the corporation’s resources and attention on

all of its stakeholders, they often do not achieve this goal. As Paine (2003) observed, the problem

is that organizations often lack the ability “to bring moral discipline to bear on their activities to

the same extent they bring financial interests” (p. 219). As shown in Figure 1, a 2020 McKinsey

survey of 1,000 US company managers and front-line employees (Gast et al., 2020) found that

while 82% of these employees stated that purpose was important to them personally, only 42%

said that their organizations’ purpose statements had an impact (para. 8). Similarly, a study by

García-Sánchez et al. (2022) reported that while the production of CSR reports is rising, so too is

stakeholder skepticism (p. 118). The researchers note that, even with CSR assurance audits, CSR

reporting was often seen as more symbolic than substantive. Organizations can be seen as under-

disclosing, only disclosing positive impacts, and over-reporting the size of these impacts (García-

Sánchez et al., 2022, p. 133).

Figure 1

Employee Perceptions

Source: Gast et al. (2020)

OVERCOMING BARRIERS TO SOCIAL INTRAPRENEURSHIP 6

Social Intrapreneurship (SI)

Finding innovative solutions to environmental and social challenges can help close the

gap between what a company’s employees, customers, and other stakeholders expect and the

actual impact of the company’s efforts. One approach that has shown potential is social

intrapreneurship (SI; Elkington, 2008; Hemingway, 2013; Hemingway & Maclagan, 2004). SI

refers to individuals working in for-profit enterprises who launch new products, services, or

management practices that benefit both the company and society (Geradts & Alt, 2022; Hidden

& Marks, 2020; Malaj et al., 2023; McGaw & Malinsky, 2020). SI thus directly links the

company’s business and societal goals with its employees’ passions and innovative capacities.

Two frequently cited examples of SI are a manager at IBM with a Peace Corps

background who launched a global services program to support the development of high-

potential company employees, and a MetLife executive who pioneered a program addressing the

specialized insurance needs of women with high-risk pregnancies (McGaw & Malinsky, 2020,

pp. 16-17). A third example is a fashion designer who left the industry to teach the next

generation but returned to Levi Strauss and led the company’s WellThread line based on ethical

sourcing and sustainable production standards (McGaw, 2024, pp. 28–30). These are just a few

examples of how SIs can help align an organization’s business, environmental, and social goals.

Even more importantly, SI’s innovative and entrepreneurial nature addresses a

fundamental problem reported with traditional CSR, ESG, SDG, and DEI programs. An IBM

(2024a) study on corporate sustainability programs surveyed 5,000 C-suite executives and found

that company spending on sustainability reporting exceeded spending on sustainability

innovation by 43%. The solution was for companies to embed innovative approaches to

sustainability across the organization—that is, to go beyond simply checking the box.
OVERCOMING BARRIERS TO SOCIAL INTRAPRENEURSHIP 7

Organizations that did so saw a 16% higher revenue growth rate; 56% of these companies were

likelier than their peers to attract needed talent, and 52% were likelier to outperform their peers

on profitability (IBM, 2024a, p. 2). By its very nature, then, SI brings an innovative and

entrepreneurial approach to the company’s environmental and social initiatives and directly links

them to the business’s core operations.

Problem Statement and Significance of the Problem

The specific business problem addressed by this study is that some organizations lack

management strategies to overcome barriers to implementing SI, negatively impacting the

corporation’s ability to meet stakeholder expectations and achieve sustainable success.

Ineffective SI implementation can lead to missed innovation opportunities, decreased stakeholder

engagement, and a loss of competitive edge in the marketplace (Aparicio et al., 2020; Elkington,

2008; Hemingway, 2013; Porter & Kramer, 2011). Identifying organizational barriers to SI and

developing management strategies to overcome these barriers are essential for enhancing CSR

and fostering a sustainable relationship between business and society.

Several barriers to SI adoption have been reported. These include low awareness of SI as

a complementary approach to meeting a company’s CSR goals (le Roux & De Pree, 2018). This

forces SIs to operate under the radar within their organizations (Darcis et al., 2023, p. 8). Low

employee salience can lead to a limited understanding of the societal issues that are important to

employees (Goldsby et al., 2018, p. 3). Malaj et al. (2023) also note that social intrapreneurial

behavior requires a strong relationship between managers and their employees (p. 1). This lack

of awareness and support of SIs inhibits widespread adoption and can negatively impact an

employee’s career opportunities (Bonnici & Bruysten, 2020). Access to capital to support these

initiatives can also be challenging (Elkington, 2008, p. 55). SI projects often have a longer return
OVERCOMING BARRIERS TO SOCIAL INTRAPRENEURSHIP 8

on investment (ROI) horizon than the business is used to (Halme et al., 2012, p. 755). SIs also

face resistance from managers who see their efforts as philanthropic and unrelated to business

objectives (Alt & Geradts, 2019, p. 2).

Other barriers are perceived conflicts between these intrapreneurial endeavors and the

corporation’s existing business goals and operations, since colleagues can be slow to shift from

today’s realities to tomorrow’s opportunities (Elkington, 2008, pp. 50, 54). SIs often need to

overcome what Jenkins (2018) refers to as the “corporate immune system” (p. 1). Conflicts

between SI and more formal CSR and sustainability programs can also develop (Kistruck &

Beamish, 2010, p. 750). Overcoming these barriers would enable organizations to utilize this

complementary employee-centric approach to meet societal expectations, resulting in greater

stakeholder engagement and improved long-term business performance.

As shown in Figure 2, the modern business environment has created ever-increasing

expectations for CSR (Upshaw, 2021). Social media has helped fuel a broader awareness of a

business’s positive or negative social impact (García-Sánchez et al., 2022). At the same time,

existing social responsibility programs are often seen as philanthropic and can be dominated by

top-down, bureaucratic, report-driven mindsets (Westerman et al., 2022). These efforts can also

be seen as attempts by the company to offset negative social impacts in one area of its business

by focusing on positive impacts in others. Companies that fail to keep up face long-term

performance problems (Aparicio et al., 2020; Elkington, 2008; Hemingway, 2013; Porter &

Kramer, 2011). Overcoming barriers to SI adoption can help close this gap.
OVERCOMING BARRIERS TO SOCIAL INTRAPRENEURSHIP 9

Figure 2

Mapping the Problem Space

Although seeking the same goal of creating a positive societal impact, SI has several

fundamentally different characteristics. First, the projects that SIs pursue combine business and

social goals (Hemingway, 2013; McGaw & Malinsky, 2020). Second, they are typically

innovative and entrepreneurial (Geradts & Alt, 2022; Malaj et al., 2023); SIs often work in core

business areas, giving them a first-hand understanding of how the business can address a societal

issue through commercially viable solutions (Darcis et al., 2023). For these reasons, researchers

are also beginning to focus on SI not just as an individual initiative, but as a way to reinvigorate

and reshape existing CSR programs (Chenavaz et al., 2023; Hidden & Marks, 2020; Schyvinck

et al., 2021). SI thus provides a potentially valuable path for companies seeking to improve their

societal impact.

Purpose of the Study and the Review Question

This systematic review aims to identify management strategies for overcoming barriers to

SI implementation, thereby enhancing stakeholder engagement and business performance. The

goal is to develop a comprehensive management framework that can expand the use of SI,
OVERCOMING BARRIERS TO SOCIAL INTRAPRENEURSHIP 10

enhance stakeholder engagement, drive innovation, and improve long-term business

performance. This research will also contribute valuable insights to the academic discourse on

CSR and SI.

The review question for this study was developed using the context, intervention,

mechanism, and outcome (CIMO) method (Briner et al., 2009, p. 25; see Table 1). The review

question is: What management strategies can corporations develop to overcome barriers to SI

adoption?

Table 1

CIMO Framework

CIMO
Definition Application
Element

Which individuals, relationships,

For-profit commercial
Context institutional settings, or wider systems
organizations
are being studied?

The effects of what event, action, or Overcoming barriers to social

Intervention
activity are being studied? intrapreneurship (SI)

What are the mechanisms that explain

the relationship between interventions
Mechanism and outcomes? Under what Management strategies
circumstances are these mechanisms
activated or not activated?

What are the effects of the intervention?

How will the outcomes be measured?
Outcome SI adoption
What are the intended and unintended
effects?

Rationale for the Study

Any organization, including a commercial corporation, requires the coordination of

individuals and groups with different interests, information, and knowledge to achieve “the
OVERCOMING BARRIERS TO SOCIAL INTRAPRENEURSHIP 11

delicate conversion of conflict into cooperation, the mobilization of resources, and the

coordination of effort” (March & Simon, 1993, p. 299). Management strategies define the

approaches that organizations use to achieve their specific goals (Collins & Clark, 2003;

Iranmanesh et al., 2021). As such, this study focuses on management strategies—and the

resulting organizational structures and management practices—that can be used to overcome

barriers to SI adoption.

Organizational structure defines power distribution and responsibility across the

organization and how work procedures are implemented (Iranmanesh et al., 2021, p. 1887). Four

dimensions of organizational structure—specialization, decentralization, integration, and

formalization—are commonly used in the academic literature (Donaldson, 2013; Germain,

1996). Structural contingency theory (SCT), first developed in the 1960s (Aldrich, 1972), has

been used to examine the relative effectiveness of organizational structures. SCT is based on the

notion that there is not one optimal structure; rather, the structure of an organization is contingent

on its strategy, size, technology, and environment (Donaldson, 2013; Sayilar, 2016). In this way,

organizational structures are critical in defining how an organization works and meets its goals.

Management practices represent the systematic procedures and methodologies that

managers use to direct and control an organization’s operations; they are the essential drivers of

an organization’s productivity (Bloom et al., 2016; Collins & Clark, 2003). Management

practices exist across the organization and are reflected in its operations, as exemplified by

human resources (HR) practices such as employee communications, job security, flexibility, and

training (Ichniowski et al., 1995). Management practices define: how data is collected, analyzed,

and used; how business targets are established and reported; how decisions are made; how

resources are allocated; and how incentives are determined for managers and non-managers in
OVERCOMING BARRIERS TO SOCIAL INTRAPRENEURSHIP 12

terms of compensation, promotion, and other forms of recognition (Bloom et al., 2016).

Management practices thus define how the organization operates, and they can be as diverse as

the organizations themselves.

The organizational-level theoretical frameworks of this study are stakeholder theory

(Charan & Freeman, 1980; Freeman & Reed, 1983), CSR theory (Carroll, 1991; Frederick,

2018), entrepreneurial orientation (EO) theory (Miller, 1983), and social entrepreneurial (SEO)

theory (Alarifi et al., 2019; Sulphey & Salim, 2020). The individual-level context is examined

using the theory of the entrepreneur (Schumpeter, 1934/2021), the social entrepreneur (SE; Dees,

1998), and the social intrapreneur (Elkington, 2008; Hemingway, 2013; Hemingway &

Maclagan, 2004). These theories have informed the development of a new conceptual model for

examining the review question.

Addressing society’s ever-growing expectations of corporations is central to this study.

Although CSR and related programs help organizations shape their response to these

expectations, they do not guarantee that the organization will be recognized and rewarded for its

investments. New approaches need to be constantly developed and tested. This dissertation

provides a roadmap for improving the successful implementation of one such approach: social

intrapreneurship. Based on my research, this is the first systematic review (SR) focused on SI

barrier identification and organizational-level responses to overcome them. The SR methodology

was chosen for this study as it focuses on analyzing real-life experiences and the development of

actionable recommendations based on those experiences (Venkatesh et al., 2013).

Discussion of Concepts and Themes

The first key concept that frames this study is the connection between the societal impact

of corporations and their ability to achieve lasting business success. This is the common driver
OVERCOMING BARRIERS TO SOCIAL INTRAPRENEURSHIP 13

behind all well-recognized corporate programs for social responsibility, such as CSR, ESG,

SDG, DEI, and others. Simply having these programs in place is no guarantee of success. Issues

such as CSR being seen as primarily focused on public relations or, even worse, as an attempt by

the business to offset negative social impacts by pointing to its positive efforts can have

damaging consequences. Programs such as ESG, SDG, and DEI are all subject to political

dynamics, which can create a complex mosaic that is extremely difficult to navigate, especially

for multinational corporations. Successfully addressing these challenges is essential to an

organization’s success.

The second key concept is the power of entrepreneurship and innovation to enable

corporations to reinvent themselves. Miller (1983) was the first to separate the notion of

entrepreneurism from the traditional perspective of a single-minded business founder with

innovative abilities. Miller repositioned entrepreneurship as an ongoing process of organizational

renewal through innovativeness, proactiveness, and risk-taking (Miller, 1983, p. 770). As a

result, continuous reinvention through innovation and entrepreneurship are central to a business’s

ability to meet its customers’ expectations.

Social intrapreneurship (SI) brings these two concepts together. SI focuses on individuals

with an entrepreneurial mindset who are motivated and capable of pursuing new products,

services, and management practices that address both business and societal needs. With effective

organizational structures and management practices, social intrapreneurs (SIs) can positively

affect a corporation’s business and social outcomes (Agrawal & Sahasranamam, 2016; Hadad,

2015; Kistruck & Beamish, 2010; Kuratko et al., 2017; Mirvis & Googins, 2018; Schyvinck et

al., 2021). This dissertation aims to identify ways in which organizations can enable these
OVERCOMING BARRIERS TO SOCIAL INTRAPRENEURSHIP 14

environmentally, socially, and entrepreneurially focused individuals to better contribute to

achieving an organization’s goals.

Definitions and Terminology

Table 2 lists the key terms used throughout this study. Chapter 2 will further define and

position these terms within the historical stream of academic research and business usage.

Table 2

Key Terminology

Term Definition
Corporation For-profit organizations of any size operating locally, nationally, or
internationally. The terms company, business, corporation, firm, and
organization are generally used interchangeably in this study. Where
the reference is specifically to a subset of corporations, such as national
or multinational corporations, a more specific term is used for
distinction.
Corporate social When businesses decide to have a positive effect on the lives of those
responsibility (CSR) they impact (Weber & Wasieleski, 2018). The term refers to both the
concept of corporate social responsibility and CSR as a company
program.
Diversity, equity, Diversity, equity, and inclusion involves being supportive of different
inclusion (DEI) groups of individuals of different races, ethnicities, religions, abilities,
genders, and sexual orientations (McKinsey & Company, 2023).
Entrepreneurial A process of organizational renewal through innovation, proactiveness,
orientation (EO) and risk-taking (Miller, 1983).
Environmental, ESG is using environmental, social, and governance criteria when
social, and making investment decisions (Tucker & Jones, 2020).
governance (ESG)
investing
Management Management strategies are the approaches that organizations use to
strategies achieve specific goals and result in organizational structures and
management practices essential to the organization’s performance
(Collins & Clark, 2003; Iranmanesh et al., 2021).

Organizational The shared values, beliefs, norms, and behaviors that characterize how
culture individuals interact with others inside and outside the organization
(Cole & Kelly, 2011, p. 143).
OVERCOMING BARRIERS TO SOCIAL INTRAPRENEURSHIP 15

Term Definition
Social intrapreneur Individuals working in for-profit enterprises who launch new products,
(SI) services, and management practices that benefit both their
organizations and society at large (McGaw & Malinsky, 2020). The
abbreviation SI refers to the concept of social intrapreneurship and the
individual social intrapreneur. Alternative terms, such as corporate
social entrepreneur (CSE), social corporate entrepreneur (SCE), and
corporate social intrapreneur (CSI), also appear in the literature. These
terms are generally synonymous; as a result, SI is used throughout this
dissertation.

Stakeholder All individuals and groups who can affect or be affected by the
operations of a corporation, including but not limited to shareholders,
employees, customers, suppliers, lenders, and society overall (Freeman
& Reed, 1983).

Sustainable The SDGs comprise 17 sustainable development goals codified by the

development goals United Nations (U.N. General Assembly, 2015).
(SDGs)

Chapter Summary

This chapter introduced and mapped the problems that organizations face in meeting

ever-expanding expectations for positive societal impact. It then introduced social

intrapreneurship (SI) as a complementary approach that, although currently underutilized, has

proven effective. Low awareness of this approach and barriers to its implementation inhibit the

wider adoption of SI. The resulting review question seeks to identify steps that organizations can

take to overcome these barriers.

Organization of the Dissertation

Chapter 2 reviews the current literature on the topic and the theoretical basis for the

subsequent research and analysis. Chapter 3 describes the systematic review (SR) process used to

collect and analyze relevant, high-quality academic research. Chapter 4 details the research

conducted and how each paper contributed to developing the study’s results. Chapter 5 then
OVERCOMING BARRIERS TO SOCIAL INTRAPRENEURSHIP 16

translates these results into specific recommendations for management action. Finally, extensive

background information on the research methodology, details and quality appraisals of the

papers used, and diagnostic tools to assist in implementing the study’s recommendations

are provided in the Appendix.

OVERCOMING BARRIERS TO SOCIAL INTRAPRENEURSHIP 17

Chapter 2: Scoping Literature Review and Theoretical Frame

Chapter 1 introduced the importance of addressing the business problem that corporations

face in overcoming organizational barriers to social intrapreneurship (SI). Chapter 2 begins with

a review of established management theories relevant to better understanding this business

problem. Next, a review of the literature covering the development of CSR as both a concept and

a practical and essential component of today’s businesses is presented. This establishes the

contextual environment within which SI exists. The chapter then presents literature on the

evolution of SI: from entrepreneurship to social entrepreneurship and, finally, to social

intrapreneurship. Essential and impactful academic writing and examples of SIs in action are

presented. Chapter 2 concludes by introducing a conceptual framework that will guide the

subsequent research, analysis, and recommendations.

Theoretical Framework

Establishing a theoretical framework is an essential step in conducting research. Theories

help explain the complex relationships between various aspects of an observable event. Theory

grounds the research in previous studies’ findings, and its use is no less critical in management

research than in other fields (Collins & Stockton, 2018; Grant & Osanloo, 2014). The theoretical

framework guides the research design, helps identify relevant management concepts, and

provides context for the analysis of the review question.

Researchers bring a particular perspective, or research lens, to their analysis (Collins &

Stockton, 2018, p. 2). Theories help executives understand the researcher’s perspective and

assess the applicability of a study’s findings to their company’s unique situation. The chosen

theory shapes the subsequent collection and analysis of the data. It informs the researcher in

terms of what factors to examine, which ones to ignore, and which are most likely to affect the
OVERCOMING BARRIERS TO SOCIAL INTRAPRENEURSHIP 18

outcome. Grant and Osanloo (2014) compare the selection of a management theory for a

research project to the blueprint for building a house; once selected, the theory used establishes

the concepts and principles that shape its ideas, and the approaches applied (p. 14).

In management research, theories generally fall into three categories: leadership,

organization, and individual (Cole & Kelly, 2011). Leadership theories commonly examine the

organizational impact of various leadership styles and actions. Organizational theories examine

structure, management practices, and culture. Individual theories examine the motivations and

behaviors of the individual. Each category offers a distinct way of viewing the business problem

under study and a framework for developing an effective approach to addressing it.

Based on the review question, organizational and individual-level theories were chosen.

Organizational theories examine the factors that can affect the adoption of SI within a company.

Individual theories inform the analysis of the motivations and behaviors of SIs. The

organizational-level theories examined for this dissertation were stakeholder theory, corporate

social responsibility (CSR), entrepreneurial orientation (EO), and social entrepreneurial

orientation (SEO). The individual-level theories examined were the theory of the entrepreneur,

the theory of the social entrepreneur (SE), and the theory of the social intrapreneur (SI). The

intersection and interaction of the organization and the individual establishes the framework for

identifying ways to overcome barriers to SI adoption.

Organizational Theory

The next section maps the history of relevant organizational theories, from stakeholder

theory to corporate social responsibility (CSR) to social entrepreneurial orientation (SEO).

Stakeholder and Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) Theory. Corporate social

responsibility (CSR) is a foundational theory used to examine the relationship between business
OVERCOMING BARRIERS TO SOCIAL INTRAPRENEURSHIP 19

and society. The genesis of CSR theory was the work on stakeholders versus shareholders

developed by Freeman and others in the 1960s and 1970s (Freeman & Reed, 1983). Although

previous works, such as Bowen (1953), had begun to argue that businesses had a responsibility

to both their shareholders and society at large, the debate about the role of business in society did

not reach a tipping point until Friedman’s (1970) New York Times op-ed. In its very title,

Friedman declared, “The Social Responsibility of Business is to Increase its Profits.” Friedman

argued that a company’s executives are agents of those with a direct financial interest in the firm:

its investors, customers, and employees. For executives to assume a level of responsibility

beyond maximizing the financial benefits to these groups would represent spending their money

to advance a general social interest. On the other side of the debate, Freeman argued that

businesses are responsible to all individuals and groups who could affect or be affected by

achieving the organization’s objectives (Freeman & Reed, 1983, p. 91). To Freeman, this was a

fundamental shift not only in the responsibility of businesses to society, but also in the power

that stakeholders hold over the decisions and actions of businesses (Freeman & Reed, 1983, p.

94).

As Freeman and others developed the concept of stakeholders, a critical element was the

recognition that approaching stakeholders as generic groups, such as society and customers,

resulted in an ineffective analysis. Instead, Freeman proposed more precise and inclusive

definitions. The first is a broader definition of stakeholders, including groups that could be

friendly or hostile to the organization’s goals, such as “public-interest groups, protest groups,

government agencies, trade associations, competitors,” and others (Freeman & Reed, 1983, p.

91). The second, more direct stakeholders were individuals and groups upon whom the business

depended for its operations, such as “employees, customer segments, certain suppliers, key
OVERCOMING BARRIERS TO SOCIAL INTRAPRENEURSHIP 20

government agencies, shareholders,” and others (Freeman & Reed, 1983, p. 91). As a result, the

concept of stakeholders needed to be seen as essential to understanding an organization’s impact

on society and to developing a business’s strategy, especially in increasingly turbulent

environments (Charan & Freeman, 1980).

In 1991, Carroll introduced the pyramid of corporate social responsibility. Essential to

Carroll’s work was the reorientation of social responsibility to social responsiveness (Carroll,

1991; Freeman & Reed, 1983). Whereas the former focused exclusively on the obligations of

business, the latter expanded the view to include a business’s proactive social role (Carroll, 1991,

p. 40). The resulting CSR pyramid established four levels of social responsibility for the

corporation: economic, legal, ethical, and philanthropic (Carroll, 1991, p. 42). The model

positioned ethics and philanthropy as the top two layers. Under ethics, the author argued “that

good corporate citizenship be defined as doing what is expected morally or ethically.” Under

philanthropy, businesses must “perform in a manner consistent with the philanthropic and

charitable expectations of society” (Carroll, 1991, p. 41).

Based on the two higher levels of CSR as defined by Carroll’s pyramid, Frederick (2018)

mapped six stages in the development of this theory. The last three stages span the period from

1980 to today, defined as corporate/business ethics, corporate global citizenship, and toward a

millennial future (Frederick, 2018, p. 7). In the corporate/business ethics stage, a business was

described by “the quality of its corporate culture, the type of ethical climate it displays, and the

normative principles that guide the company’s decisions, strategies, and policies” (Frederick,

2018, p. 16). The drivers of this stage were the social clashes of the period, technology-driven

social value changes, and human rights advocacy (Frederick, 2018, pp. 18–19). Corporate global

citizenship (stage 4), in the late 1990s and early 2000s, was shaped by globalization,
OVERCOMING BARRIERS TO SOCIAL INTRAPRENEURSHIP 21

sustainability, and spirituality (Frederick, 2018, pp. 22–23) and driven by ubiquitous

international trade, sophisticated technologies, and geopolitical competition (p. 24). Frederick

(2018) saw the future stage as unpredictable, but likely shaped by sustainability and generational

demographic changes (pp. 28–29).

Entrepreneurial Orientation (EO) Theory. In 1983, Miller separated the traditional

notion of entrepreneurship as being reflected in the dominant personality of an independent actor

by studying the role of the organization in fostering or impeding entrepreneurship (p. 770).

Miller (1983) discovered that three behaviors—innovativeness, proactiveness, and risk-taking—

that together defined an organization’s entrepreneurial orientation (EO; p. 771). Miller (1983)

used these three behaviors as a multidimensional concept of entrepreneurial organizations by

indicating that the behaviors can exist independently while not defining an entrepreneurial firm

(p. 780). For example, innovation is not simply imitating a competitor in the absence of

proactiveness and risk-taking. Likewise, highly leveraged financials do not define risk-taking

without product, market, or technological innovation and proactiveness (Miller, 1983, p. 780).

As such, Miller’s findings established the foundational understanding needed to examine the

organizational behaviors of entrepreneurship.

Covin and Slevin (1989) confirmed Miller’s findings. They also developed a nine-item

scale to measure an organization’s EO and then compared EO to business outcomes in various

competitive environments. They found that in highly competitive environments, which they

referred to as hostile environments, the attributes that contributed to better performance were an

organic (as opposed to rigid) organizational structure and an entrepreneurial strategic posture

(Covin & Slevin, 1989, p. 83).

OVERCOMING BARRIERS TO SOCIAL INTRAPRENEURSHIP 22

One debate in the academic literature has been whether all three behaviors identified by

Miller needed to be measured together, as Miller proposed. Alternative approaches sought to

measure these behaviors independently. Miller (2011) settled this debate by acknowledging that

“in some research contexts, the best of both worlds may entail analyses that present results for

the EO construct and each of its components” (p. 880).

Anderson et al. (2015) reexamined EO and proposed that innovativeness and

proactiveness represented entrepreneurial behaviors and are separate from risk-taking, which

these researchers found to be a managerial attitude toward risk (pp. 1582–1583). This

reconceptualization addressed various ontological and measurement considerations in Miller’s

original theory. The researchers also found that EO theory “remains largely consistent with its

original formulations” (Anderson et al., 2015, p. 1591).

Social Entrepreneurial Orientation (SEO) Theory. EO was subsequently used to

develop social entrepreneurial orientation (SEO) theory by building upon the same three

behaviors of innovativeness, proactiveness, and risk-taking. Kraus et al. (2017) developed an

initial SEO scale by examining each of Miller’s three behaviors from a social perspective and

adding a fourth behavior defined as socialness. Socialness is reflected in establishing ambitious

goals with a social purpose, supported by a strong partnership focus (Kraus et al., 2017, p. 989).

Subsequently, Alarifi et al. (2019) further refined Miller’s original EO by finding that the first

two behaviors applied to SEO, but risk-taking did not. Since economic goals are not the primary

focus of new organizations explicitly launched to address a societal need, the researchers

concluded that these organizations naturally adopt a more cautious attitude toward financial risk-

taking while still demonstrating an entrepreneurial orientation (Alarifi et al., 2019, p. 320).
OVERCOMING BARRIERS TO SOCIAL INTRAPRENEURSHIP 23

Individual Theory

The Entrepreneur. Schumpeter (1934/2021) established the theory of the entrepreneur

by recognizing that economic progress was created through a process of continuous change

driven not by the consumer of goods but by the innovations of the producer (pp. 54–55);

Schumpeter further identified that the producer was not necessarily the incumbent but, more

frequently, an entrepreneur who identified an emerging opportunity and created a new firm to

take advantage of it (p. 56).

Subsequent research explored the roles that attitude and intention play in shaping

individual entrepreneurial behavior. Allport and Schanck (1936) found that while one’s

surrounding culture shaped the expression of attitude, the individual’s attitudes were based on

personal characteristics (p. 205). The theory of planned behavior further developed this concept

by suggesting that the “most immediately relevant predictor of a specific action is the person's

behavioral intention” (Ajzen & Fishbein, 1973, p. 56). As a result, an individual’s

entrepreneurial behavior is fundamentally shaped by their attitude and, more importantly, by

their intentions.

The Social Entrepreneur. Building on the theoretical understanding of entrepreneurs,

theories of the social entrepreneur (SE), such as Dees (1998), sought to explain individuals who

pursue opportunities specifically intended to address perceived social needs in their environment.

Dees’ framework for defining SEs included: (a) a mission for social value creation, (b) relentless

pursuit of that mission, (c) continuous innovation, (d) acting boldly, and (e) being accountable to

the constituents served (Dees, 1998, p. 4). Wang and Yee (2023) described the development of

SEs in terms of three phases: antecedents, process, and performance. Scholars have also used

scales based on SE theory, with the introduction of additional individual considerations, such as
OVERCOMING BARRIERS TO SOCIAL INTRAPRENEURSHIP 24

the recognition of social opportunities and judgment, to establish an individual’s SEO (Sulphey

& Salim, 2020).

One theory often used to explain the critical antecedent of SE is the theory of the

entrepreneurial event. Krueger (1993) introduced this theory based on research that found that

the desirability of pursuing an entrepreneurial opportunity was shaped by the passion and

enthusiasm that the individual has for the task, balanced against the perceived stress of pursuing

it. In other words, social entrepreneurs are driven by their passion for addressing the perceived

need and restricted by the level of perceived and actual stress involved.

The Social Intrapreneur. Academic research into SI theory builds on the earlier

organizational-level EO theories, SEO theory, and individual-level SE theories. In this way, SI

theory combines the individual’s attitudes, intentions, and social passions with the social and

entrepreneurial orientations of their organization. In Hemingway’s (2013) model, individual

commitment is seen as a four-quadrant relationship between the organization’s social behaviors

and the individual’s social predispositions. This relationship results in individual behaviors

toward SI that can range from apathetic to active. Where the socially oriented behaviors and

predispositions of the organization and the employee are both high, SIs are actively engaged in

developing and advancing initiatives with both business and social benefits. Where the

employee’s predisposition is high but the organization’s behavior is low, the SI will still attempt

to bring social considerations into their work, but they will do so without making their intention

visible. On the other hand, if the employee’s predisposition is low and the organization’s is high,

the employee will attempt to conform to the business’s social expectations. Where both are low,

the employee will be apathetic toward social considerations (Hemingway, 2013, pp. 91–94).
OVERCOMING BARRIERS TO SOCIAL INTRAPRENEURSHIP 25

Theoretical Framework Summary

The theoretical framework for this study draws on Schumpeter’s theory of

entrepreneurship, Allport’s theory of attitudes, Freeman’s stakeholder theory, Carroll’s CSR

pyramid, Miller’s entrepreneurial orientation, and Ajzen’s theory of planned behavior. These

foundational works have been expanded upon through research at the organizational level on

social entrepreneurial orientation (SEO) and at the individual level on social entrepreneurship

(SE). Hemingway has since advanced and combined these theoretical threads through social

intrapreneurial (SI) theory, which explains the actions of social entrepreneurs operating within a

corporate setting.

These theoretical frameworks will guide the study’s research design and methodology. A

conceptual model will be developed that integrates the key elements of these theories. Concepts

and terms based on these theoretical constructs will inform the identification and evaluation of

the research to be included in the systematic review (SR). The conceptual model will then be

revisited, refined, and used to structure the study’s results and management recommendations.

The Literature Landscape

The literature review covers two major topics. The first is the evolution of corporate

social responsibility (CSR) from a nascent concept in the 1950s to today, where it has become a

fundamental component in how national and multinational companies operate and relate to the

societies of which they are a part. The second is the evolution of social intrapreneurship (SI)

from its initial identification by Elkington (2008) and Hemingway and Maclagan (2004) through

to current examples of its application within national and multinational corporations.

OVERCOMING BARRIERS TO SOCIAL INTRAPRENEURSHIP 26

The Evolution of Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR)

The term CSR is used to describe both the concept of businesses having a positive effect

on the lives of those they impact (Weber & Wasieleski, 2018, p. 4) and as a corporate program

for allocating and reporting on the use of the company’s resources to advance positive

environmental and social outcomes (pp. 7–8). Corporate social responsibility is essential to

understanding how organizations engage their stakeholders, as well as the potential impact that

SI could add to those efforts.

CSR as a Concept. The distinction between individuals and groups who could affect or

be affected by the achievement of the organization’s goals is a fundamental consideration of the

concept of CSR. The former suggests that CSR is in the enlightened self-interest of the

corporation. In this vein, CSR can be seen as primarily focused on establishing legitimacy with

important groups. For example, Brown and Dacin (1997) have found that consumer perception

of the company’s CSR can directly affect their view of the company, which can in turn influence

their perception of its products or services. Similarly, McWilliams and Siegel (2001) found a

natural relationship between a firm’s financial performance and consumer CSR perceptions.

Both support a conceptual framework of CSR as being in the organization’s enlightened self-

interests.

Focusing on CSR as addressing the interests of those affected by the company’s actions

assigns a higher ethical and moral responsibility to a corporation. Three competing views of the

relationship at this level were introduced in the 1970s: Carroll’s (1979, 1991) model of corporate

performance, Preston and Post’s (1975) public responsibility concept, and Sethi’s (1979) model

of business responses to social issues (Wood, 1991, p. 695). Using Carroll’s model (1991), CSR

is seen as an ethical and moral obligation of the firm and its executives. Preston and Post (1975)
OVERCOMING BARRIERS TO SOCIAL INTRAPRENEURSHIP 27

used the concept of interpenetrated to frame the relationship between business and society,

arguing that they operate in a shared environment with each affected by and affecting the other

(p. 12). Meanwhile, Sethi (1979) argued that social responsibility only exists within the context

of one culture at one point in time and proposed a more general, less prescriptive framework for

classifying corporate behavior. Tilt (2016) echoed Sethi’s view and proposed a framework for

evaluating CSR across different sociocultural environments, political systems, and stages of

development (pp. 2–3). Each approach offers a different perspective on CSR when positioning it

within a higher ethical and moral framework.

While the classical view of the role of business in society is based on the principle that

society is best served by “the efficient use of society’s resources and that the free enterprise

system is the best means of achieving that efficiency” (Baron, 2003, p. 645, as cited in

Hemingway, 2013, p. 4), more recent scholarly work seeks to transform our fundamental

understanding of capitalism. Elkington (2006, 2018) took the concept of ethics and morality in

CSR further by proposing a new triple bottom line (TBL) for corporations of people, planet, and

profits. Elkington’s goal was to push for a fundamental transformation of capitalism (p. 4).

Jourdan et al. (2022) suggest that the business and its stakeholders should be viewed as value co-

creators (p. 5). Furthermore, that value is intertemporal, and different stakeholders view value

differently at different points in time. In this construct, the firm is viewed as a value orchestrator

and allocator. This suggests that a firm’s strategy should be to allocate value “to the most value-

sensitive stakeholders, with the aim of unlocking the highest possible value creation potential”

(Jourdan et al., 2022, p. 7).

Similarly, Rendtorff (2020) concludes that the close relationship between corporate

citizenship, stakeholder management, and CSR is essential for good corporate governance (p.
OVERCOMING BARRIERS TO SOCIAL INTRAPRENEURSHIP 28

56). Rendtorff (2023) goes on to state that societal issues such as sustainability are, in fact, the

drivers of socially responsible innovation (section 6.1, para. 4) and that “new visions of the

economy as circular, ecological, and integrated with the ecosystems of the world” are essential

(section 6.1., para. 6). While there is ample room for debate on the role of business in society and

how that role is best manifested, it is clear from the literature that the complexity of the issues

surrounding this relationship requires corporations to continually generate new practices and

strategic approaches (Freeman & Reed, 1983, p. 85).

CSR as a Reflection of Values. CSR also reflects the organizational values and those of

the company’s founders and leaders. Foundational research on human values is attributed to

Schwartz. Schwartz found that value systems are a set of personal priorities used when

comparing compatible or incompatible goals; these priorities are motivated by personality and

balanced against pragmatic considerations (Schwartz & Bilsky, 1987, p. 561). As Wood’s (1991)

seminal article on the topic of executive values and CSR notes, “a company’s social

responsibilities are not met by some abstract organizational actor; they are met by individual

human actors” (p. 699).

In turn, Hemingway and Maclagan’s (2004) view was that “individual managers’

organizational decisions are driven by a variety of personal values and interests, in addition to

the official corporate objectives” (p. 36); they concluded that individual discretion could impact

CSR policies, and that discretion can result from policy ambiguity and the unilateral exercise of

initiative by individuals (p. 41). For example, spiritual leadership (SL) sets an organizational

value that encourages individuals to discover significance in their work through their

relationships within the company and self-transcendence (Hudson, 2014). Organizational values,
OVERCOMING BARRIERS TO SOCIAL INTRAPRENEURSHIP 29

especially those of the organization’s leaders, can thus shape the formal and informal elements of

a company’s approach to CSR.

CSR as a Program. Moving from CSR as a concept and as a reflection of the

organization and its values, CSR is also a program. Central to CSR as a program is regular,

typically annual, company reporting of relevant actions and accomplishments. Large national

and multinational companies around the globe provide these reports, and many have departments

and executives dedicated to the effort (Davidson et al., 2018, p. 79). Some European member

states even require CSR reporting by companies with operations within their jurisdictions

(Panwar et al., 2018, p. 135).

Under the broader concept of corporate social responsibility, three closely related and

more recent approaches are ESG investing, SDG, and DEI: ESG investing uses environmental,

social, and governance criteria when making investment decisions (Tucker & Jones, 2020, p.

57); SDG comprises 17 sustainable development goals codified by the United Nations (U.N.

General Assembly, 2015); and DEI is an organizational framework to promote fair treatment and

full participation of all people (McKinsey & Company, 2023). Additionally, as sustainability has

moved to the forefront of an organization’s response to environmental issues, the Global

Reporting Initiative (GRI) guidelines have increasingly been used to develop and report an

organization’s performance (Global Reporting Initiative, 2016). GRI is currently used by 14,000

organizations in 100 countries.

Regardless of which approach an organization adopts, failures to perform in what is

perceived as a socially responsible way can have significant negative impacts. Numerous

examples of national and multinational companies with well-defined CSR programs that still fell

short of society’s expectations exist. A few are listed below:

OVERCOMING BARRIERS TO SOCIAL INTRAPRENEURSHIP 30

 Volkswagen’s diesel dupe scandal cost the company enormous reputational value and

€6.7 billion (Hotten, 2015).

 Wells Fargo’s fake account scandal (Prentice et al., 2020) resulted in a $3 billion

settlement.

 Walmart and Kohl’s received the largest-ever fines of $3 million and $2.5 million,

respectively, for falsely claiming that their products were made from environmentally

friendly bamboo (Federal Trade Commission, 2022).

 In 2019, 3M was accused of pinkwashing for its breast cancer awareness campaign

while using PFAS, a class of toxic chemicals suspected of contributing to breast

cancer risks (Breast Cancer Action, n.d.). By 2024, the New York Times reported that

3M and other chemical manufacturers were being warned to prepare for massive

lawsuits related to PFAS that could easily dwarf the asbestos cases of the past

(Tabuchi, 2024).

CSR programs can also become political and societal hot buttons. In the US, some

companies are beginning to downplay ESG (Cutter & Glazer, 2024). SDG is also subject to

political dynamics at the country level (Cordell & Li, 2021), while a company’s DEI efforts can

also have significant, unintended negative consequences (Barnes, 2022), as discussed in Chapter

1. Such examples also contribute to a view of CSR as more of a public relations effort to protect

the organization’s legitimacy. Even worse, inaccurate or inflated reporting can do as much harm

as good (Westerman et al., 2022). Conversely, Fortune reports that corporate boards are better

prepared than ever to support sustainability efforts, with 89 of the Fortune 100 companies having

sustainability committees and 43% having one or more members with experience in
OVERCOMING BARRIERS TO SOCIAL INTRAPRENEURSHIP 31

sustainability (Whelan, 2024). Techniques for balancing the competing interests faced by the

corporation are therefore essential.

The work of Elkington (2006, 2008) and others has spawned alternate approaches to CSR

intended to fundamentally change our view of the relationship between business and society.

New corporate forms, most notably the B corporations, where the B stands for benefit for all,

have been introduced (Kim et al., 2016). As of June 2024, more than 8,000 companies in 101

countries were Certified B Corporations, verified by the non-profit B Lab. Certification is based

on creating value for non-shareholders and includes making amendments to the company’s

charter to demonstrate its long-term commitment (Kim et al., 2016, para. 2). Not only have new

and established firms pursued B Corp certification, but competitive pressures have also led other

corporations to expand their current CSR programs (Kim & Schifeling, 2022, p. 678).

Recent research has also focused on how a company’s CSR programs impact individual

employees. Generally referred to as micro-CSR (Girschik et al., 2022), this concerns “how

individuals in companies work with and experience corporate social responsibility (CSR)” (p. 1).

This research area includes the organization’s employees, but it can also focus more specifically

on individuals working in the company’s CSR programs. Given that an organization’s employees

are key stakeholders and how their perceptions of the company’s CSR approach can easily shape

their behavior and interactions with those outside the organization, this has the potential to

develop into an important area for future research (Girschik et al., 2022, p. 4).

CSR in Summary. There is a wide range of ways to conceptualize and implement

corporate social responsibility and to examine its impacts. The challenges are even more

complex for national and multinational firms operating in areas with diverse perspectives,

cultures, religious, and philosophical foundations. What does appear to be clear is that
OVERCOMING BARRIERS TO SOCIAL INTRAPRENEURSHIP 32

corporations (a) cannot ignore the range of expectations across their organization’s stakeholder

network, (b) need to have their own internal compass that shapes their approach to social

responsibility and helps ensure its authenticity, (c) should recognize that simply having a formal

program or programs does not guarantee that the company will be perceived or rewarded for

being socially responsible, and (d) should continually examine new ways to engage all of the

individuals, resources, and tools available to them to meet the expectations for social

responsibility—today and tomorrow.

The Social Intrapreneur (SI)

Hemingway (2013) has described an SI as an individual with an entrepreneurial mindset

“who identifies and progresses opportunity within the corporation for socially responsible

activity” (p. 85). Other researchers have described SI as: (a) “the efforts of individuals within

for-profit companies to align business and societal value creation” (McGaw & Malinsky, 2020,

p. 1); (b) “individuals or groups of individuals [that] seek to identify and exploit entrepreneurial

opportunities that address social problems from within established organizations” (Geradts &

Alt, 2022, p. 198); (c) as employees that “come up with new ways of doing the work and

procedures and new product/service ideas that will benefit the organization and society while not

harming it” (Malaj et al., 2023, p. 3); and (d) as individuals who “create accelerated and

disruptive change in pursuit of new social and economic opportunities” (Hidden & Marks, 2020,

p. 363). These definitions are consistent in their focus on an individual or group of employees,

but they differ in terms of SI’s scope, role, and ultimate goal. SI also sits within a larger body of

research on internal social change agency (Heucher et al., 2024).

SI Motivations, Characteristics, and Skills. While CSR can be seen as a structural

influence, it is the individual who is the moral agent (Hemingway, 2013, p. 23). As a result, the
OVERCOMING BARRIERS TO SOCIAL INTRAPRENEURSHIP 33

SI’s motivations and personal characteristics play an essential role in their ability to align

business and social actions (p. 72). Regarding motivation, an awareness of social problems is

often a key driver of SI action (Agrawal & Sahasranamam, 2016, pp. 12–13). This awareness

often comes from the extent to which they are embedded in their local environment (Malaj et al.,

2023). Similarly, Darcis et al. (2023) describe how SIs are often motivated by first-person

experiences in their personal and professional backgrounds; these experiences can lead them to

seek an alternative approach to solving a business problem, draw upon a previous experience as a

volunteer, or seek a sense of fulfillment that had been missing from their daily job (pp. 7–8).

Using studies on the relationship between an individual’s intentions and their behaviors (Ajzen

& Fishbein, 1973), Forster and Grichnik (2013) found that these intentions often result from

higher levels of empathy and self-efficacy, especially when the individual views their

environment as consistent with their personal social norms (p. 170). In sum, these studies suggest

that many factors in the individual’s background and experiences establish their motivation for

social intrapreneurship.

Research on the personal characteristics that contribute to an SI’s success has focused on

their entrepreneurial traits, ability to lead change, and ability to leverage and influence others.

Gallardo-Vázquez et al. (2024), for example, identified an entrepreneurial personality, the ability

to affect organizational change, and the ability to translate this change into the pursuit of a

specific social benefit as essential characteristics for SI success (p. 1410). Similarly, Ding and

Hu (2022) found that organizational power, based on characteristics such as the individual’s

entrepreneurial, professional, and educational background, contributed to their ability to achieve

the desired social outcomes (p. 12).

OVERCOMING BARRIERS TO SOCIAL INTRAPRENEURSHIP 34

Alt and Craig (2016) have explored how SIs use issue selling to gain legitimacy and

support for their initiatives within the confines of a for-profit organization. Issue selling refers to

affecting others’ attention and perception of specific issues (p. 794). The authors explore issue

selling from three perspectives: (a) selling issues with and without specific solutions, (b)

understanding the organizational context and framing the issue accordingly, and (c) relational

knowledge of the individual to be engaged. In summary, the individual’s motivations, personal

characteristics, and skills are all important to their success as an SI.

SI Roles. SIs have also been studied from the perspective of where in the business they

operate, their role in identifying and developing new products, services, and management

practices, and their separation from the company’s more traditional lines of business. Sometimes,

SIs are tasked with leading new corporate initiatives (Venn & Berg, 2013). Darcis et al. (2023, p.

1) have identified four types of SIs based on whether they were initiators or developers of the

ideas and whether they were operating within the core areas of the business or the company’s

CSR programs. Hadad (2015) found that SIs can operate within the role of a local, market, or

transformational tool (p. 185), while Kistruck and Beamish (2010) found that creating structural

separation for SIs through subsidiaries and partnerships with outside nonprofit organizations

positively contributed to their success (p. 750).

Studies have also examined the relationship between the SI’s success and the

organizational leaders. Goldsby et al. (2018) found that when organizations’ leaders focus on

their employees, the organization is more “proactive with regards to internal and external social

issues” (p. 9). As discussed further in the theory section, substantial research suggests that social

proactiveness in a business’s leadership is an important driver of SI (Alarifi et al., 2019; Sulphey

OVERCOMING BARRIERS TO SOCIAL INTRAPRENEURSHIP 35

& Salim, 2020). Spiritual leadership has also been positively correlated with SI success (Luu,

2022, p. 1363).

SI Skills Development. Several organizations have introduced programs to train and

develop these individuals. In 2020, the Aspen Institute published a paper to promote scholarly

research and teaching on the topic (McGaw & Malinsky, 2020). It also launched the Aspen First

Mover Fellows program, which has trained 317 individuals operating in 186 companies in 26

countries (Aspen Institute, n.d.). Two other organizations, Business Fights Poverty and The

League of Intrapreneurs, collaborated in 2018 to produce a guide to SI development (Business

Fights Poverty, 2018).

SI Results. SIs champion individual projects and act as the catalysts for opening new

markets for their companies while addressing societal needs. The following examples of SIs also

demonstrate the importance of motivation, skills, and role in identifying and pursuing such

opportunities:

 Marika McCauley Sine lived in Hawaii, Indonesia, and Sri Lanka as a child, exposing

her to the level of poverty in so many communities. Her early work experiences were

in AmeriCorps and Oxfam, both dedicated to addressing poverty and injustice. While

studying at Harvard, she launched a club that Coca-Cola sponsored, later joined the

company, and launched a program to support five million women entrepreneurs

across the company’s supply chain (McGaw, 2024, pp. 37–39).

 Westpak, one of Australia’s largest banks, encourages employees to identify and

propose specific social impact programs. One employee, Daniel Heycox, launched a

financial literacy program for refugees (Haski-Leventhal & Glavas, 2021).

OVERCOMING BARRIERS TO SOCIAL INTRAPRENEURSHIP 36

 John Thompson, a technology specialist working as chief information officer at a unit

of H&R Block, was charged with developing financial products for the company’s

tax preparation clients. He realized that most of these customers did not even have

standard checking and savings accounts at commercial banks. He moved into another

position in the company to examine potential solutions, then left to join a non-profit

focused on consumer financial well-being. Going full circle, he rejoined H&R Block

to launch a successful new suite of low-cost, low-minimum balance, and low-fee

services to enable the company’s customers to save, manage their credit, and build

financial security (McGaw, 2024, pp. 42–44).

 Telecommunications, industrial equipment, retail, and financial services firms have

all used skilled SIs to enter new markets. Nokia and ABB have entered base of the

pyramid (BoP) markets in India and globally (Ghauri et al., 2014; Halme et al., 2012).

Both companies developed and launched small-footprint versions of their products to

bring cellular and water purification capabilities to remote, impoverished

communities.

 An executive at eBay launched the World of Good fair-trade marketplace in 2018,

which sold 100,000 handmade products from 31 countries in its first year

(Ethosolutions, n.d.).

 A researcher at Blackrock distilled ESG data into a single risk profile that investors

could use to allocate their capital (Davis & White, 2015; McGaw & Malinsky, 2020).

Together, the examples above provide a template for understanding social intrapreneurs’

motivations, skills, and roles.

OVERCOMING BARRIERS TO SOCIAL INTRAPRENEURSHIP 37

SI Challenges. Hemingway (2013) concludes that for SIs to flourish, “socially

responsible leadership and organizational culture” are essential. However, the specifics required

to reflect these through the organization’s management strategies, structures, and practices

remain largely undefined (Hemingway, 2013, p. 207). Few studies have explored the

organizational conditions for supporting SI.

One exception is Kuratko et al. (2017), who modified a previously developed corporate

entrepreneurship assessment instrument (CEAI; Kuratko et al., 2014) and expanded it to include

additional factors derived from the available academic literature on SI. The resulting social

corporate entrepreneurship scale (SCES) was then tested by surveying 152 company managers

(Kuratko et al., 2017, p. 277). Five factors—firm transparency, social proactiveness, rewards,

work discretion, and time availability—were most frequently cited as positively impacting SI.

Only one, social proactiveness, had a statistically significant positive correlation with the number

of initiatives launched within the firms studied (Kuratko et al., 2017, p. 280). The statistical

significance of social proactiveness with the number of initiatives launched aligns with SEO

theory. Overall, these results are also consistent with Hemingway’s analysis.

Haski-Leventhal and Glavas (2021) propose four strategies for companies pursuing SI:

support and development of SIs, celebrating both the individual and the entire team, providing

access to resources, and helping them navigate through the network of internal and external

stakeholders (para. 14–16). Similarly, Jenkins (2018) lists funding, building capability, and

networking as systems that companies have used to enable SI (para. 6–10). Based on field

research conducted over five years, Mirvis and Googins (2018) developed four platforms for

social innovation engagement, ranging from social intrapreneurship to enterprise-wide social

innovation (p. 28). Although these insights provide a potential framework, systematic research
OVERCOMING BARRIERS TO SOCIAL INTRAPRENEURSHIP 38

has not been conducted into the strategies, structures, and practices that enable SI. This gap in

the research is the fundamental driver of this study.

SI and Strategic CSR. Although the above discussion suggests a clear demarcation

between CSR and SI, research has begun to connect the two approaches. Indeed, some

researchers (Agrawal & Sahasranamam, 2016; Hemingway, 2013; Hidden & Marks, 2020)

suggest that SI can also be seen “as a more robust, accelerated and valuable version of CSR”

(Hidden & Marks, 2020, p. 366). Research has begun to connect the innovative nature of SI to

forms of a more strategic CSR, observing that “the themes of entrepreneurship and people,

entrepreneurship and planet, and entrepreneurship and profit are interconnected and have

significant implications for CSR” (Chenavaz et al., 2023, p. 22). In their study of four

multinational companies, Marti et al. (2024) found that experimentation and the engagement of

multiple employees from across and at all levels of the organization enabled CSR programs to

have a real impact. Others suggest that the underlying characteristics of SI represent an

opportunity for CSR to better align with today’s needs for innovative societal change (Agrawal

& Sahasranamam, 2016; Hidden & Marks, 2020); SI thus represents “qualities that have been

somewhat lost in current CSR practices” (Hidden & Marks, 2020, p. 366). Schyvinck et al.

(2021) go on to suggest that CSR managers should themselves be change agents with an

entrepreneurial approach to addressing societal needs, and that this is the essence of strategic

CSR (p. 454). In these contexts, SI links both business objectives and positive social impacts,

thus representing a potentially significant approach to fundamentally redefining the focus and

purpose of an organization’s CSR efforts.

OVERCOMING BARRIERS TO SOCIAL INTRAPRENEURSHIP 39

Literature Landscape Summary

This review of the literature establishes that both insights and gaps exist. The importance

of CSR and related programs is well established, as is the relationship between evolving societal

views and business operations. Corporations are and will continue to be challenged to meet an

ever-expanding and diversifying set of stakeholder expectations for a positive impact on those

who can affect and be affected by their operations, and the literature suggests that management

strategies must evolve to meet these changing stakeholder expectations.

While studies on the role of SI within CSR have evolved, few have explored the

organizational barriers and how to overcome them. This study aims to develop a framework for

addressing the unique barriers to SI, thereby ensuring effective implementation and enhanced

stakeholder engagement. Capturing and empowering employees’ entrepreneurial spirit with a

social passion is a tool currently underrecognized and underutilized by some corporations, and a

significant element of this problem is inhibitors within the organization itself. This research aims

to identify management strategies that can be employed to overcome these barriers and

recommend ways in which corporations can develop the necessary organizational structures and

management practices to overcome them. In the next section, the study introduces a conceptual

framework for identifying these barriers and developing an action plan to address them.

Conceptual Model

The conceptual model used for this study was developed based on the EO, SEO, and SI

theories. To summarize the earlier discussion, Miller (1983) posited that the organization’s

entrepreneurial orientation is demonstrated through three specific behaviors: innovativeness,

proactiveness, and risk-taking. More recent research by Anderson et al. (2015), Kraus et al.

(2017), and Alarifi et al. (2019) have expanded and refined Miller’s original theory, and their
OVERCOMING BARRIERS TO SOCIAL INTRAPRENEURSHIP 40

results are largely consistent with Miller’s original work. As a result, Miller’s conceptualization

is used in this study for its straightforwardness and foundational relationship to both EO and

SEO theory.

At the individual level, Hemingway proposes that the organization’s behaviors create an

environment that is either conducive or restrictive to SI success. The interaction between the

individual employee’s societal predispositions and the behaviors of the corporation determines

SI outcomes. What is lacking is an answer to the question of how these organizational behaviors

are operationalized to overcome barriers to SI adoption.

Figure 3 shows the proposed conceptual model for answering this question. It suggests

that management strategies, organizational structures, and management practices resulting from

EO and SEO behaviors enable an organization to overcome barriers to SI. These strategies,

structures, and practices are how corporations operationalize the behaviors that Hemingway

deems requisite for SIs to be active and successful. In summary, the conceptual model combines

the constructs of EO, SEO, and SI theory to explain how SI success is enabled within the context

of a for-profit corporation.
OVERCOMING BARRIERS TO SOCIAL INTRAPRENEURSHIP 41

Figure 3

Conceptual Model for Overcoming Barriers to Social Intrapreneurship (SI)

The research methodology is introduced in the next chapter. This conceptual model is

then used to develop the results presented in Chapter 4. The recommendations presented in

Chapter 5 operationalize those results.

Chapter Summary

This chapter has provided an overview of the literature on corporate social responsibility

(CSR) and social intrapreneurship (SI). Additionally, the genesis and evolution of theoretical

models potentially useful in answering the review question have been presented. From these, a

conceptual model was developed that will inform a systematic review (SR) of available high-

quality research studies, resulting in specific recommendations for companies seeking to

leverage social intrapreneurs more effectively to meet their business and societal goals.
OVERCOMING BARRIERS TO SOCIAL INTRAPRENEURSHIP 42

Chapter 3: Method

Chapter 3 provides a detailed description of the research methodology for this study. A

systematic review was chosen to synthesize existing research on overcoming barriers to SI while

minimizing bias. This method enabled the identification of patterns and relationships across

multiple studies, providing a robust foundation for developing practical recommendations.

Below, an introduction to this methodology is followed by a discussion of how it was

implemented to answer the review question.

Evidence-Based Research Framework

The approach for this research was evidence-based management (EBM) implemented

through a systematic review (SR; Briner et al., 2009, p. 20). For this SR, both quantitative and

qualitative primary research was used. The SR process involved five key steps: (1) defining

inclusion and exclusion criteria for the studies to be used; (2) conducting a comprehensive

literature search of academic research in published journals; (3) screening the identified research

studies for relevance and quality; (4) extracting the findings of this research using standardized

techniques; and (5) synthesizing the findings to identify common themes and gaps.

An SR was chosen to ensure a comprehensive synthesis of the existing research on

management strategies for overcoming barriers to SI. This method allowed patterns and

relationships to be identified across multiple studies and provided a robust foundation for the

development of practical recommendations. As defined by Gough (2007), an SR uses an explicit

research methodology based on recognized primary research (p. 216). The process was rigorous,

comprehensive, thorough, and explicit in its definition and execution. The SR aimed to locate,

appraise, synthesize, and report on the best available evidence (Briner et al., 2009, p. 24). The

goal was to develop knowledge based on practical consequences and real effects (Venkatesh et
OVERCOMING BARRIERS TO SOCIAL INTRAPRENEURSHIP 43

al., 2013, p. 37). The SR process was separated into two phases: (a) a systematic map of research

activity, and (b) a systematic synthesis of research evidence (Gough, 2007, p. 218). It is through

this rigor that EBM differs from “most conventional literature reviews which are prone to bias

and are therefore largely considered untrustworthy” (Barends et al., 2017, p. 38).

Mapping the Research Activity

Review Question. The process began by determining the question to be studied: What

management strategies can corporations develop to overcome barriers to SI adoption? This

question shaped all the subsequent research. It implicitly established assumptions about what

was known and what was not known about the problem (Gough, 2007, p. 218). In forming the

question, several conceptual assumptions were made about the definition of social

intrapreneurship (SI), its purpose, meaning, and relationship to an organization’s overall

corporate social responsibility. This shaped the review of management theories for analyzing and

answering the review question, as discussed in Chapter 2. The resulting conceptual framework

proposes a relationship between the organization’s EO and SEO behaviors and its management

strategies, organizational structures, and management practices in support of positive SI

outcomes.

Evidence to be Considered. Next, the sources of information to be used to answer the

question were established. For this study, only (a) primary research, (b) examining for-profit

enterprises, and (c) covering elements of the relationship between socially oriented behaviors,

management strategies, organizational structures, management practices, and SI outcomes were

examined. Additionally, the research selected needed to have been published in peer-reviewed

academic journals. Primary research means that all of the papers used for this study have

reported findings based on collecting and analyzing information from published sources or
OVERCOMING BARRIERS TO SOCIAL INTRAPRENEURSHIP 44

surveys and interviews of executives, managers, and employees conducted by the study authors.

Studies based on the collection and analysis of multiple previous studies, referred to as meta-

analysis (Gough, 2007, p. 217), were not used. The studies used featured both quantitative

numerical data statistically analyzed and qualitative textual data synthesized by the researchers.

Evidence Collection. To locate the evidence to be considered (that is, relevant, published

primary research in peer-reviewed academic journals), a literature search of multiple databases

was used. This was performed using the University of Maryland Global Campus (UMGC) online

library’s OneSearch, ABI/INFORM, and Scopus search engines (see Appendix A for list of

databases searched). These databases provided a rich source of high-quality academic and

professional literature across a wide range of business, economic, social science, and psychology

sources from more than 25,000 journals and 7,000 publishers.

The term social intrapreneur (SI) captures the essential elements of (a) an individual with

an entrepreneurial mindset working within an established for-profit enterprise and (b) pursuing a

business opportunity that both benefits their company and has a positive environmental or social

impact. Since researchers have used several terms to describe these individuals, including

corporate social entrepreneur (CSE), social corporate entrepreneur (SCE), and others, a search

string was developed that would capture relevant references to these terms regardless of their

order or the potential for them to be separated by other linking terms or phrases. As a result, the

following search phrase was used: (corporat* n/10 social* n/10 entrepreneur*) OR (social* n/10

intrapreneur*). The use of an asterisk, or wildcard, ensured that any word variation was included

(e.g., corporate, corporation, or corporations). The term n/10, referred to as a proximity factor,

allowed for the inclusion of any article where the terms were found within 10 words of each

other. Only the titles and abstracts of articles were searched. The search string was modified as
OVERCOMING BARRIERS TO SOCIAL INTRAPRENEURSHIP 45

needed to match the different syntax used in different aggregating databases. No date limits were

used.

PRISMA Protocol. The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-

Analysis (PRISMA) protocol was used to filter the research papers through a four-step process of

identification, screening, eligibility, and inclusion (Moher et al., 2009; Rojon et al., 2021). In the

first step, identification, the databases were searched as described above, and the results were

captured in an Excel spreadsheet. The second step, screening, was used to remove duplicate

papers resulting from searching multiple database aggregators with overlapping sources. Next,

papers not available in English and results that were not actual journal papers, such as journal

editorials or book and article reviews, were excluded. The third step, eligibility, was conducted

by reviewing article titles and abstracts to remove those irrelevant to the review question or

unavailable. The final step, inclusion, required a detailed review of each paper to ensure that

those included in this study were primary research relevant to SI in a corporate setting.

Review Initiation

Data Extraction. Data extraction refers to the process of identifying common

information about each source to assess its relevance to the study (Barends et al., 2017, p. 15).

The information extracted from the sources for this dissertation is shown in Table 3 (see

Appendix C for complete table). Since primary research was used for this study, the pertinent

data to be considered was the segment or group studied, along with the study’s purpose, design,

sample size, the main findings, and significance. Finally, limitations in applying each of the

study’s findings to the review question were extracted.

OVERCOMING BARRIERS TO SOCIAL INTRAPRENEURSHIP 46

Table 3

Data Extraction Table Overview

Purpose,
Sector & Main
Article Source Design & Effect Size Limitations
Population Findings
Sample Size
Author(s) Database Industry Study Key Size of effect What
and date study segment or purpose, findings (i.e., level of limitations
of study retrieved group, data of study significance need to be
from population collection of findings) considered in
(if design, and the use of the
applicable) sample size findings?

Quality Appraisal. Key data from these papers was also extracted to assess the quality

of each paper. This assessment was in terms of both the paper’s methodological appropriateness,

using Shadish et al. (2002), and its methodological quality, using the Mixed Methods Appraisal

Tool (MMAT; Pluye et al., 2011). The trustworthiness of each paper was established by

considering both methodological appropriateness (MA) and methodological quality (MQ).

Barends et al. (2017) recommend assessing MA based on the reliability of a study’s

causal inferences using a scale from the highest AA for systematic or meta-analysis of

randomized controlled studies to the lowest E for small-scale qualitative case studies. Here,

MMAT (Pluye et al., 2011) was used for MQ since it provided a common framework for

assessing both the qualitative and quantitative studies included in this study. Using MMAT, MQ

was scored from 1 (low) to 4 (high).

Analysis and Synthesis Methodology. Coding using ATLAS.ti was conducted to

identify insights from across the research studies selected. As suggested by Saldaña (2021, p.

96), an iterative coding approach was used that combined several standard techniques. First, as a

pre-coding technique, each article’s findings and results sections were identified—what Saldaña

calls circling in “pencil, not pen” (p. 100). Next, descriptive coding was used as a first-cycle
OVERCOMING BARRIERS TO SOCIAL INTRAPRENEURSHIP 47

coding technique based on keywords and concepts developed from the review question and

conceptual framework. In this way, the results were both deductive, in that they identified

findings based on the theoretical lens used for this study, and inductive, in that the descriptive

codes reflected the individual research paper’s underlying text (Saldaña, 2021, p. 41). Next, the

descriptive codes from the first-cycle coding were aggregated into codes, categories, and themes,

a process referred to as second-cycle coding (Saldaña, 2021). The themes were then used to

develop the study’s results. Finally, the confidence level attributed to each result was established

using GRADE-CERQual (Lewin et al., 2018).

Subject Matter Experts

Management research sits at the intersection of knowledge and relevance. Knowledge in

this context can be thought of as “the basic ideas that shape the discourse about management”

(Starkey & Madan, 2001, p. 4). In contrast, relevance can be thought of as “improving the

opportunity space for [the] enterprise” (p. 4). Similarly, Hodgkinson et al. (2001) describe this as

a balance between theoretical and methodological rigor and practical relevance (p. 42).

As a result, engaging practitioners and subject matter experts (SMEs) in the research was

appropriate and essential to developing the study’s business recommendations. Eden et al. (2011)

have discussed the key considerations when engaging SMEs. A range of approaches can be

employed, from isolation to moderate to unified involvement. Isolation suggests involving

practitioners only in the initial development of the review question. Moderate involvement

positions practitioners as key advisors throughout the process, excluding them from critical

analysis and direct involvement in initial recommendation development; this avoids potential

biases or conflicts of interest that may be introduced. A unified approach, conversely, creates no

separation between the researchers and the SMEs (p. 62). Eden et al. (2011) recommend a
OVERCOMING BARRIERS TO SOCIAL INTRAPRENEURSHIP 48

moderate approach since each has advantages and disadvantages, and none have been thoroughly

evaluated (p. 61). This study therefore adopts a moderate approach, where SME input is

incorporated into the development of Chapters 1, 2, and 5.

All the SMEs used in this study are listed and identified by number in Appendix H. More

specifically, the insights provided by SMEs for Chapters 1 and 2 were: (a) confirmation of the

need for a research study on the barriers to SI adoption (Appendix H, Items 2–3), and (b) a

recommended expansion of the definition of SI projects to include management practices as well

as products and services (Appendix H, Item 2). In Chapter 5, SME input helped ensure that the

recommendations were relevant for practitioners. Nonetheless, all recommendations were

grounded in the results of the data corpus analysis.

Chapter Summary

A systematic review (SR) methodology was selected for this research because it strongly

aligns with the intended outcome of practical, real-world recommendations. The study followed

a step-by-step, fully documented process, beginning with the definition of the review question

through to the collection and quality assessment of the relevant data, analysis of the selected data

to generate a comprehensive set of results, and the development of specific management

recommendations based on those results. This process was designed to ensure rigor,

repeatability, and quality, and to minimize potential bias on the researcher’s part. Finally, subject

matter experts (SMEs) were engaged to ensure the research’s real-world relevance and as an

additional guard against researcher bias. In Chapter 4, the results of the SR are presented. In

Chapter 5, management recommendations are made, followed by a discussion of the study’s

limitations and recommendations for future areas for additional research.

OVERCOMING BARRIERS TO SOCIAL INTRAPRENEURSHIP 49

Chapter 4: Analysis and Results

Chapter 4 presents the results of executing the research methodology described in

Chapter 3. First, the review question from Chapter 1 is reintroduced to help ground these results

in the study’s overall goal. Second, the chapter describes the data corpus, that is, the academic

research papers collected through a structured search of relevant sources. This includes the

extraction of key elements of each paper and an assessment of each paper’s methodological

appropriateness and quality. Third, the salient points are aggregated to identify common themes

across these research papers. Next, results based on these themes are developed, and the

confidence that can be placed in each result is assessed. The chapter concludes by incorporating

these results into a revised conceptual framework that builds upon the framework introduced in

Chapter 2. The next chapter, Chapter 5, will use these results to make specific, actionable

recommendations for both practitioners and academic researchers interested in building upon this

study.

Reconnecting to the Review Question

Chapter 1 introduced this study’s problem space, purpose, and review question. It also

introduced academic and industry research on the topic and terms used throughout the study.

These foundational elements are briefly reintroduced below.

Problem Space

The evolution of corporate social responsibility has been one of the ever greater

institutionalization of ethics and values into the fabric of companies (Rendtorff, 2011). This

integration of economic, legal, and ethical responsibilities has resulted in fundamental “changes

in the regulative, normative, and cognitive elements of organizations” (Rendtorff, 2011, p. 262).

At the same time, these efforts often fall short of stakeholder expectations, and their authenticity
OVERCOMING BARRIERS TO SOCIAL INTRAPRENEURSHIP 50

and impact can be challenged (García-Sánchez et al., 2022; Upshaw, 2021; Westerman et al.,

2022).

Social intrapreneurship (SI) is a potentially complementary approach adopted by some

organizations to help address these shortfalls (Elkington, 2008; Hemingway, 2013; Hemingway

& Maclagan, 2004). SI focuses on identifying, enabling, and supporting individuals who seek to

launch—from within their companies—new products, services, or management practices that

benefit both the company and society at large (Geradts & Alt, 2022; Hidden & Marks, 2020;

Malaj et al., 2023; McGaw & Malinsky, 2020).

Purpose and Review Question

This SR aims to identify organizational barriers to SI implementation and present specific

management recommendations for overcoming them. The goal is a comprehensive management

framework that can expand the use of SI to enhance stakeholder engagement and improve long-

term business performance and viability. The resulting review question is: What management

strategies can corporations develop to overcome barriers to SI adoption?

Collection and Description of the Data Corpus

The data corpus used for this study consists of qualitative and quantitative academic

research on SI published in peer-reviewed journals. Chapter 3 describes the process of

identifying and selecting the studies. Appendix A shows the databases searched for these studies.

Appendix B shows the search string utilized, and the number of articles considered at each stage

of the inclusion-exclusion process.

Data Collection

The initial search resulted in 1,658 articles, 768 of which remained after duplicates, non-

academic papers, such as editorials, book reviews, teaching case studies, and non-English papers,
OVERCOMING BARRIERS TO SOCIAL INTRAPRENEURSHIP 51

were removed. In total, 707 of these articles were excluded: (a) 11 articles were not available, (b)

329 were not relevant to the overall topic of corporate social responsibility, and (c) 367 were not

relevant to SI. Of the 61 articles that remained, 16 were excluded because they were not primary

quantitative or qualitative research, and nine were removed from consideration because the

definition of the term social intrapreneurship was not consistent with the definition being used

for this study. Appendix B is a PRISMA diagram illustrating this process. As a result, 36 articles

were included in the data corpus for this systematic review (see Table 4).

Table 4

Source Reference List

Reference Reference
Article Article
Number Number

1 Agrawal & 19 Luu (2022)

Sahasranamam (2016)
2 Arogyaswamy & Elmer 20 Malaj et al. (2023)
(2010)
3 Chang et al. (2019) 21 Mirvis et al. (2016)
4 Darcis et al. (2023) 22 Mirvis & Googins (2018)
5 Ding & Hu (2022) 23 Nandan et al. (2015)
6 Forster & Grichnik (2013) 24 Salim Saji & Ellingstad
(2016)
7 Franco-Leal & Diaz- 25 Schwittay (2011)
Carrion (2022)
8 Gallardo-Vázquez et al. 26 Schyvinck et al. (2021)
(2024)
9 Galván-Vela et al. (2023) 27 Sharifi-Tehrani (2023)

10 Ghauri et al. (2014) 28 Silvestri & Veltri (2020)

11 Giang & Dung (2022) 29 Spitzeck et al. (2013)

12 Goldsby et al. (2018) 30 Tasavori et al. (2016)

13 Hadad (2015) 31 Tavakoli & De Sisto

(2021)
OVERCOMING BARRIERS TO SOCIAL INTRAPRENEURSHIP 52

Reference Reference
Article Article
Number Number
14 Halme et al. (2012) 32 Urmanaviciene &
Arachchi (2020)
15 Hidden & Marks (2020) 33 Veeran & Srinivasan
(2019)
16 Kistruck & Beamish 34 Vinicius de Oliveira Brasil
(2010) et al. (2013)
17 Kuratko et al. (2017) 35 Xie et al. (2022)

18 Layman et al. (2023) 36 Zhuang et al. (2020)

Data Description

Overall, the 36 selected studies represent research across a wide range of industries,

geographic settings, and company sizes:

 50% (18) of the research papers were quantitative and based on either a survey

conducted by the authors or through analysis of previously collected third-party data.

The other 50% were qualitative studies based on the authors’ field research,

interviews, and background research.

 Eight studies were of US firms, seven were European, three were Chinese, two were

Indian, four were from other Asian countries, four were from South and Latin

America, and one each was from Australia and the Middle East. Six were unspecified.

 Twenty of the studies reported findings across multiple industries. Six were specific

to the services industry, three to manufacturing, three to technology companies, and

one each to entertainment, food processing, and pharmaceuticals. One was

unspecified.

 Regarding company size, 29 of the studies considered large national or multinational

companies. The remaining seven were a mix of small to large companies.

OVERCOMING BARRIERS TO SOCIAL INTRAPRENEURSHIP 53

Data Extraction

Data extraction is the process of identifying common information about each source that

can be used to assess its relevance to the study (Barends et al., 2017, p. 15). The information

extracted from the sources for this paper is shown in Appendix C. As primary research was used

for this study, the pertinent data to be considered was the segment or group studied, how the data

was collected, what was found, and how significant those findings were. Finally, limitations in

applying each of the study’s findings to the review question were extracted.

Quality Assessment

Each study was then appraised for its quality. Quality is based on trustworthiness, that is,

a study’s validity and reliability (Barends et al., 2017, p. 17). Trustworthiness was established by

considering both methodological appropriateness (MA) and methodological quality (MQ).

Barends et al. (2017) recommend assessing MA based on the reliability of a study’s causal

inferences, using a scale from the highest AA for systematic or meta-analysis of randomized

controlled studies to the lowest E for small-scale qualitative case studies. The Mixed Methods

Appraisal Tool (MMAT; Pluye et al., 2011) was used for MQ since it provides a common

framework for assessing both the qualitative and quantitative studies found in the literature

search. Using MMAT, MQ was scored from 1 (low) to 4 (high).

The MA of the studies was at the lower end of the scale, from E to C, whereas the MQ

ranged from 2 to 4. Given that more controlled experimentation is uncommon in management

practice research, and all of the studies passed the initial screening tests of having clear

objectives supported by relevant data, these ranges of MA and MQ were considered useful and

appropriate for consideration (Barends et al., 2017, pp. 17–18). As a result, all 36 studies were
OVERCOMING BARRIERS TO SOCIAL INTRAPRENEURSHIP 54

determined to be of sufficient quality for inclusion in the SR. The results of the quality

assessment for each article are shown in Appendix D.

Coding, Findings, and Themes

Coding via ATLAS.ti was conducted to synthesize the insights from the 36 research

papers and develop the study’s findings. As suggested by Saldaña (2021), an iterative, two-step

coding approach was used; the ensuing codes were synthesized into major categories and themes.

This approach helped ensure that the analysis followed a well-documented, repeatable process.

First-Cycle Coding

First-cycle coding began with identifying the sections of each paper that presented the

primary research data collected by the respective authors. This data, be it qualitative or

quantitative, was typically found in each paper’s findings and results sections. For qualitative

studies, particular attention was paid to statements made directly by the study’s participants and

to the authors’ aggregation of these statements on an individual-case or cross-case basis. For

quantitative studies, particular attention was paid to each paper’s hypotheses and findings.

Descriptive codes based on this study’s review question and conceptual model were

applied to each article’s relevant text sections. The descriptive codes identified management

strategies, organizational structures, and management practices that contributed to overcoming

barriers to SI and reflected behaviors of innovativeness, proactiveness, and risk-taking. This

approach ensured that the first-cycle codes were grounded in the study’s key constructs. Through

this process, 337 descriptive codes were developed.

Second-Cycle Coding

The purpose of second-cycle coding was “to develop a sense of categorical, thematic,

conceptual, and/or theoretical organization” from the first-cycle codes (Saldaña, 2021, p. 297).
OVERCOMING BARRIERS TO SOCIAL INTRAPRENEURSHIP 55

For this study, pattern coding was selected for the second-cycle coding (Saldaña, 2021, p. 321).

This method was chosen because it is an effective technique for examining relationships, such as

the patterns in the relationship between management strategies, organizational structures, and

management practices. As a result, 28 codes and seven categories were developed from the 337

descriptive codes.

Table 5 summarizes the relationship between the descriptive codes and the resulting

codes and categories, while Table 6 shows the number of articles contributing descriptive codes

to each code and category. All the descriptive codes, codes, and categories developed through

the first- and second-cycle coding are shown in Appendix E. Additionally, for the quantitative

studies in the data corpus, Appendix F shows the hypotheses examined, whether they were

accepted or rejected by the research, and how they contributed to this study’s descriptive codes,

codes, and categories.

Table 5

Relationship Between Descriptive Codes, Codes, and Categories

No. of
Descriptive Codes Categories
Codes
19 Management practices – general Organizational
investments
16 Management practices – funding practices
6 Management practices – funding sources
2 Management practices – market development
42 Management practices – partner development
13 Management practices – resources
17 Organizational Structures – general
12 Organizational Structures – SI positioning
5 Recruiting practices – background SI investments
6 Recruiting practices – externally
OVERCOMING BARRIERS TO SOCIAL INTRAPRENEURSHIP 56

No. of
Descriptive Codes Categories
Codes
3 Recruiting practices – internally
11 Skills development – characteristics
18 Skills development – hard
15 Skills development – soft
8 Project goals Organizational goals
11 Project types
20 Freedom of action SI enablers
5 Freedom of thought
11 Organizational concerns SI motivations
3 Personal rewards
14 Personal values
27 Action Executive support
9 Culture
4 Idea generation
13 Messaging
13 New approaches Organizational benefits
6 New markets
8 New opportunities
337 28 7

Table 6

Relationship Between Contributing Articles, Codes, and Categories

No. of
Contributing Codes Categories
Articles
12 Management practices – general Organizational
investments
9 Management practices – funding practices
6 Management practices – funding sources
1 Management practices – market development
18 Management practices – partner development
OVERCOMING BARRIERS TO SOCIAL INTRAPRENEURSHIP 57

No. of
Contributing Codes Categories
Articles
6 Management practices – resources
14 Structures – general
3 Structures – SI positioning
1 Recruiting practices – background SI investments
1 Recruiting practices – externally
4 Recruiting practices – internally
4 Skills development – characteristics
8 Skills development – hard
8 Skills development – soft
4 Project goals Organizational goals
4 Project types
8 Freedom of action SI enablers
5 Freedom of thought
5 Organizational concerns SI motivations
2 Personal rewards
9 Personal values
10 Action Executive support
7 Culture
3 Idea generation
8 Messaging
6 New approaches Organizational benefits
4 New markets
3 New opportunities

The seven categories identified during the second-cycle coding were as follows: (a)

organizational investments, (b) SI investments, (c) organizational goals, (d) SI enablers, (e) SI

motivations, (f) executive support, and (g) organizational benefits. The organizational

investments category comprised codes for investments in organizational structures and

OVERCOMING BARRIERS TO SOCIAL INTRAPRENEURSHIP 58

management practices; these represented organizational actions intended to create an

environment where SIs could successfully operate. The SI investments category comprised codes

on how organizations identified SIs, their characteristics, and the skills developed in these

individuals. The categories of organizational goals, SI enablers, and SI motivations reflected the

underlying factors that help align organizational and individual behaviors. The categories of

executive support and organizational benefits identified steps that organizations and their leaders

took to demonstrate and communicate their support for SI, as well as the resulting organizational

successes achieved.

Synthesizing the Evidence

Finally, the 28 codes and seven categories were synthesized into themes. The framework

for this synthesis was the conceptual model introduced in Chapter 2. The result was the

identification of three themes for translating an organization’s social orientation behaviors into

successful SI outcomes: investing, pursuing, and signaling. Figure 4 illustrates the result of this

iterative development process from descriptive codes to codes, categories, and themes.

Figure 4

Coding, Category, and Theme Development

OVERCOMING BARRIERS TO SOCIAL INTRAPRENEURSHIP 59

Results and Discussion

The three identified themes reveal several key factors that shape the study’s results: (a)

the necessity of investments in supportive organizational structures and management practices to

facilitate SI, (b) the importance of training and development of SIs, (c) the importance of

aligning business and SI goals, and (d) the critical role of the organization and its leaders in

demonstrating support for and recognition of the contributions that SIs make to the

organization’s success. These results address the review question and identify the management

strategies, organizational structures, and management practices essential for overcoming barriers

to SI. They also highlight the need for innovativeness, proactiveness, and risk-taking required for

the organization to realize the potential positive impacts of harnessing the social predispositions

of its employees. Table 7 shows which studies contributed to each of this study’s results.

Table 7

Results Distribution

Article Reference Number

1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 3 3 3 3 3 3 3
Result 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 Total

1 x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x 29
1a x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x 29
1b x x x x x x x x x x x x 12
2 x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x 20
2a x x x x x x x x 8
2b x x x x x x x x x x 10
2c x x x x x x x x x x 10
3 x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x 18
3a x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x 18
3b x x x x x x x x 8

Note. Red x signifies one or more contrary, null, or negatively correlated findings.
OVERCOMING BARRIERS TO SOCIAL INTRAPRENEURSHIP 60

Result 1: Make Strategic Investments in Support of SI

To succeed, corporations need to make strategic investments in support of SI. Two

critical areas for investment are (a) the development of supportive organizational structures and

management practices, and (b) the identification, training, and development of SIs. Such

investments are central to overcoming barriers to SI adoption.

Sub-Result 1a: Investment in Organizational Structures and Management Practices.

An organization’s structures define how power and responsibility are distributed across its

operations. Investments in organizational structures in support of SI commonly involved the

formation of specialized, decentralized, and cross-boundary structures.

In terms of specialized structures to overcome barriers to SI adoption, new business

entities such as foundations and subsidiaries were formed and at least partially funded by the

company (Agrawal & Sahasranamam, 2016; Kistruck & Beamish, 2010; Schyvinck et al., 2021).

ICICI Bank, one of India’s leading financial institutions, formed the ICICI Foundation to provide

various financial services, such as micro-credit and insurance products, to rural communities

(Agrawal & Sahasranamam, 2016, p. 10). Schyvinck et al. (2021) detailed an SI’s role in

launching a Belgian soccer team’s foundation to forge links with the local community. In another

case, a new subsidiary was established to partner with non-profit organizations to launch a

micro-finance program to address the needs of the rural poor (Kistruck & Beamish, 2010, p.

737). Investments in these new entities provided SIs access to resources, funding, and focus that

may otherwise not have been available or, even if available initially, deemed unsustainable over

the effort’s developmental lifespan.

Specialized organizational structures were also created within the companies studied.

Companies identified and allocated specific financial and organizational resources to support this
OVERCOMING BARRIERS TO SOCIAL INTRAPRENEURSHIP 61

new model (Hidden & Marks, 2020, p. 371). Kistruck and Beamish (2010) point to organizations

creating new departments designed to decouple SI efforts from more traditional operations,

including CSR programs (p. 750). In another case, different SI initiatives were integrated into

one independent social business unit (Darcis et al., 2023, p. 8). Halme et al. (2012) found that

creating reporting structures that enabled the SI to work underground better addressed the longer

return on investment (ROI) horizon and greater tolerance required by non-traditional projects.

Mirvis and Googins (2018) reported that Barclays created a social innovator lab to act as an

“internal accelerator for the development of commercial solutions to social and environmental

challenges” (p. 30). Other companies organized special teams of individuals from across the

organization to incubate and advance new ideas (pp. 33–34). Specialized internal structures were

found to be needed during both the early stage and ongoing project development.

Decentralization was also found to be an important organizational structure in support of

SI. Ding and Hu (2022) found a statistically significant relationship between decentralized

corporate power structures and social outcomes (p. 8). Darcis et al. (2023) reported that one

organization established joint management teams across the company’s CSR department and

responsible operational units (p. 8). Spitzeck et al. (2013) reported on social intrapreneurs

forming decentralized cross-functional project teams to help advance their projects. In some

cases, these teams included individuals within and outside the organization (Halme et al., 2012,

p. 755). Decentralized and fluid organizational structures were important to SI project

development.

Structural investments extended to where SIs operated within the company: Some SIs

operated from within core business units, others within the organization’s CSR or sustainability

departments. In some cases, SIs wanted their projects to be seen as independent from the CSR
OVERCOMING BARRIERS TO SOCIAL INTRAPRENEURSHIP 62

and sustainability groups because they were shielded from the core business (Darcis et al., 2023,

p. 8). Organizational choices were designed to balance the necessary levels of resources and

independence.

The reviewed studies identified several management practices for creating a supportive

environment for SIs. Three studies (Goldsby et al., 2018; Malaj et al., 2023; Xie et al., 2022)

found that human resources (HR) practices contributed to SI success. Malaj et al. (2023) found

that employees with good relationships with supervisors receive more resources, decision

latitude, and freedom, resulting in higher levels of social entrepreneurial behaviors (p. 15).

Goldsby et al. (2018) found that “companies that focus on employees tend to be more proactive

with regards to internal and external social issues” (p. 9). The authors also found that proactive

HR practices led to a greater focus on externally directed innovation and entrepreneurship (p.

11). Xie et al. (2022) reported that “organizational support was found to have a strong mediating

effect” on entrepreneurial performance (p. 4139). Kuratko et al. (2017) found that social

proactiveness, including specific employee job elements and performance ratings (p. 279),

correlated positively with SI success. Moreover, the impact of this employee salience works both

ways. On the one hand, employees feel that their organization is more receptive to them as

individuals and to their ideas. At the same time, the organization becomes more aware of its

employees and the environmental and social areas about which they are most passionate.

Proactive financial practices were also found to directly contribute to SI success. A wide

range of internal and external financial sources were tapped in support of SI projects. Internal

funding sources were sometimes philanthropic, coming from existing or new corporate

foundations (Darcis et al., 2023, p. 9). In another case, the project was half funded by the

company, with the other half coming from external developmental funding sources (Halme et al.,
OVERCOMING BARRIERS TO SOCIAL INTRAPRENEURSHIP 63

2012, p. 754). Ensuring the availability of funds not just initially but over time proved crucial.

Tasavori et al. (2016) reported that “the availability of patient financial resources has allowed the

company to […] consider the overall long-term profitability” (p. 564). In another example cited

by Tasavori et al. (2016), the company worked with a micro-finance NGO to facilitate the

purchase of its lower-cost, simplified product (p. 565). Spitzeck et al. (2013) found that

“partnering with international and local development organizations and banks helped to leverage

funds” (p. 620). Franco-Leal and Diaz-Carrion (2022) found that national public funding was

tapped and positively related to successful SI initiatives (p. 333). In this way, organizational

practices that leverage internal and external funding sources were found to be essential in

enabling SI projects to succeed.

Another management practice reported was the establishment of relationships with

outside organizations for non-financial support. Tavakoli and De Sisto (2021) found that

collaborating with external partners was an important antecedent to SI success: One respondent

to their study summarized this by stating that “we strongly value the skill set that the community

partners bring around; they understand how to roll the program out and deliver that service in an

appropriate way to the right people” (p. 242). Spitzeck et al. (2013) highlighted the importance

of citizen groups, associations, and NGOs in delivering SI value to target communities (p. 617).

Ghauri et al. (2014) similarly reported the importance of collaborating with NGOs (p. 589).

Partners also included training organizations that could educate local participants, such as

employees, suppliers, or additional entrepreneurs (p. 620). Schwittay (2011) discussed how HP

partnered with development agencies to advance its initiatives (p. S76). In other cases, the

company “acts as central actor in the network,” uniting multiple stakeholders under its brand

(Schyvinck et al., 2021, p. 456). These relationships can develop into long-term sustainable
OVERCOMING BARRIERS TO SOCIAL INTRAPRENEURSHIP 64

partnerships, leading to future opportunities (Hidden & Marks, 2020, p. 372). Outside

organizations can also provide research critical to an SI project’s success (Franco-Leal & Diaz-

Carrion, 2022, p. 333). These relationships may take the form of joint ventures with

environmentally and socially focused business partners (Darcis et al., 2023, p. 8). Management

practices for establishing these relationships with outside organizations were foundational to SI

project success.

Two relevant null findings were identified. Goldsby et al. (2018) found that while

employee salience led to more proactive behavior, stockholder salience “did not lead to socially

proactive behavior with regard to the community and external environment” (p. 9). Layman et al.

(2023) did not find that organizational architecture had a significant positive effect on social

performance (p. 99). Contrary to other findings, Darcis et al. (2023) reported that some SIs

operating within the core structure of the business had no personal experience with the social

topics they pursued (p. 9).

Sub-Result 1b: Investment in SI Identification and Development. Proactive

management practices for identifying and developing high-potential SIs were found to be

important to their success.

Current and potential SIs can often be identified by their background and previous work

experiences. These experiences give them insights and knowledge, enabling them to translate an

environmental or social passion into a successful corporate project (Darcis et al., 2023, p. 7).

Examples were: (a) an individual who formerly worked as a manager in a developing country

was selected to take responsibility for an SI project, (b) an SI was identified based on their

previous U.N. volunteer experience, (c) someone who had previously worked at a partner

foundation, (d) someone who had worked in the sustainability department in a previous
OVERCOMING BARRIERS TO SOCIAL INTRAPRENEURSHIP 65

company, and (e) someone who had climbed the ladder within their organization’s CSR program

(p. 9). Understanding an employee’s background and previous work experience, therefore, is an

important management practice for identifying SIs.

Development efforts focused on both the individual’s soft and hard skills. Soft skills

reflect an individual’s personal characteristics: Integrity, courtesy, professionalism, teamwork,

and work ethic are common soft skills (Robles, 2012, p. 453). Using a comprehensive

measurement scale, Gallardo-Vázquez et al. (2024) identified soft skills specifically associated

with SI; their goal was to create a tool to inform and guide the effective identification and

development of these characteristics (p. 1377). The authors found that six entrepreneurial factors

and three CSR dimensions were involved. The six entrepreneurial factors were: (a) personal

traits, such as valuing effort, self-esteem, and enthusiasm; (b) an entrepreneurial attitude toward

addressing business problems; (c) effective decision-making processes; (d) the ability to create

novel approaches to products, services, and procedures; (e) a willingness to take risks; and (f) a

leadership approach reflecting balanced socioeconomic values (pp. 1407–1408). The three CSR

dimensions were (a) employee care and inclusiveness traits, (b) an orientation toward quality and

business relationships, and (c) positive attitudes toward environmental care (p. 1408). Their field

testing of this tool demonstrated its effectiveness in identifying, assessing, planning, and

developing soft skill development programs for SIs.

Similarly, Chang et al. (2019) found social interaction, cooperation, and networking to be

important soft skills for developing social capital within work units (p. 14). Communication

skills are essential to explaining an initiative and its value, as well as building partnerships

(Tavakoli & De Sisto, 2021, p. 241). SIs know how to engage people through great storytelling

(Halme et al., 2012, pp. 760-761). Another soft skill is bricolage, which refers to creating new
OVERCOMING BARRIERS TO SOCIAL INTRAPRENEURSHIP 66

capabilities using resources readily available and on hand (Halme et al., 2012, p. 744). This soft

skill can be developed over time or learned through experience (Halme et al., 2012; Mirvis &

Googins, 2018). Finally, at their core, SIs need to have entrepreneurial skills. Darcis et al. (2023)

found that they need to be entrepreneurs with the ability to “assess, legitimate, implement, and

scale initiatives” (p. 8). They also need the ability to “navigate complex internal organizational

structures and deal with internal opposition and inertia to novel ideas” (p. 9). Soft skills were

found to have been developed over time and through the individual’s background, experiences,

and training.

Hard skills are the technical skills and knowledge needed for the job at hand. The hard

skills that were found to be necessary to SIs were financial planning (Nandan et al., 2015;

Schwittay, 2011), marketing (Mirvis & Googins, 2018; Schwittay, 2011), grant writing (Mirvis

& Googins, 2018; Nandan et al., 2015), information technology (Goldsby et al., 2018; Layman et

al., 2023; Mirvis & Googins, 2018; Nandan et al., 2015; Schwittay, 2011), and data analytics

(Nandan et al., 2015; Schwittay, 2011). Another hard skill uniquely relevant to SIs was their

understanding and deep knowledge of environmental or social issues and the communities they

sought to serve. Mirvis et al. (2016) found that the immersion of the innovation team in the

community to be served and in the problem to be solved was an essential factor in developing an

SI understanding of the problem (p. 5017). This initial list of hard skills maps to the skills

expected in entrepreneurial endeavors.

Result 1 establishes the importance of investing in SI in the same way as an organization

would invest in any other activity important to its success. Here, SI investments were made in the

organization’s structure, management practices, and people. Collectively, these investments

OVERCOMING BARRIERS TO SOCIAL INTRAPRENEURSHIP 67

created a supportive environment for SIs and ensured that high-potential individuals were

identified and effectively developed.

Result 2: Align Business and SI Goals, Actions, and Motivations

Overcoming barriers to SI adoption requires aligning the company’s business goals with

the passions and motivations of its SIs. In some cases, the organization’s social orientation can

foster this alignment. In other cases, the personal interests of the company’s executives can be

the catalyst.

Sub-Result 2a: Align Business and SI Goals. Several studies established the

relationship between an organization’s social orientation behaviors and SI success.

This alignment occurs in many ways. Xie et al. (2022) found that an organization’s social

and green entrepreneurial orientation was positively correlated with SI (p. 4139). They also

found that organizational ambidexterity—that is, the organization’s ability to simultaneously

manage both current business demands while also adapting to future needs—was important to

aligning business and SI goals (p. 4139). Hadad (2015) found that aligning business and SI goals

around local development opportunities was most effective (p. 202). Giang and Dung (2022)

found that employees take cues from the organization’s existing CSR programs when forming

new business-venturing behaviors (p. 1049).

This alignment can also be more direct. In some cases, the idea for addressing a societal

need through the company’s products, services, or management practices came from senior

leadership. Business and SI goals were aligned by assigning an SI to assess, legitimate, and scale

the initiative (Darcis et al., 2023, p. 8). Other ways that this direct relationship was established

were: (a) when the SI was motivated by the way the corporation responded to a natural or human

disaster, (b) when the SI saw an opportunity for social intrapreneurship in a particular part of the
OVERCOMING BARRIERS TO SOCIAL INTRAPRENEURSHIP 68

business, (c) when SIs recognized that the organization was supportive of a personal vision of

theirs, or (d) when they were exposed to new ideas through an internal or external educational

opportunity (pp. 7–8). The desired alignment between the business and SIs occurs within the

framework of perceived feasibility and perceived desirability of the potential societal mission

(Forster & Grichnik, 2013, p. 170). Alignment of organizational orientations and behaviors thus

directly contributes to SI success.

Sustainability is also an important area where businesses can align their goals with SI

passions. Schwittay (2011) reported on an HP employee who “out of his own interest in

environmental issues” attended a workshop and subsequently became involved in a more

significant effort at the company (p. S74). These projects can form a shared-value strategy

between the organization and SIs (Spitzeck et al., 2013, p. 621). When “individual social purpose

and commitment are aligned with the organizational ones,” SIs can have an impact (Tavakoli &

De Sisto, 2021, p. 421).

Sub-Result 2b: Enable SI Freedom of Thought and Action. Supportive management

practices also provide SIs with the freedom to identify and pursue potential opportunities.

Kuratko et al. (2017) found that management practices in support of “firm transparency,

social proactiveness, rewards, work discretion, and time availability” were enablers of SI (p.

280). Firm transparency ensures that the organization is open both internally and externally to its

environmental and social impacts. Social proactiveness can be reflected in job descriptions,

performance measurements, compensation, and reward practices at both the employee and

management levels. Work discretion and time availability allow employees freedom of

judgment, decision-making, and action. Similarly, Tavakoli and De Sisto (2021) found that

management practices supportive of employee social proactiveness, such as encouraging

OVERCOMING BARRIERS TO SOCIAL INTRAPRENEURSHIP 69

employees to pursue these opportunities (even if not specifically directed), were important (p.

241). Schyvinck et al. (2021) found that providing intrapreneurs with the freedom to define the

parameters of their work and set objectives was important (p. 457). Central to this was fostering

an environment where SIs felt encouraged to operate innovatively and entrepreneurially.

Executives also have the power to demonstrate their support for SI by giving employees

the freedom to work on these projects. As one researcher found, employees have multiple

demands on their time and attention, and they were only able to put the “project on their agendas

and give it priority […] because of top management support” (Tasavori et al., 2016, p. 564). At

the supervisor level, Malaj et al. (2023) reported that the individual’s overall relationship with

their managers created a sense of freedom, thought, and action (p. 15).

Sub-Result 2c: Leverage SI Motivations. Understanding and leveraging an SI’s

motivations is essential in aligning business goals with SIs and their projects.

At the personal level, it was found that “allowing employees to suggest, to participate in

implementation of new ideas” was among the most important motivating factors for SIs (Malaj et

al., 2023, p. 15). Darcis et al. (2023) found that SIs were commonly motivated by their personal

experiences, the recognition of an opportunity, and a desire to build new approaches to solving

the problem (p. 7). Galván-Vela et al. (2023) found a statistically significant relationship

between self-transcendent values, social mission, and SIs (p. 151). Luu (2022) found that these

values were often rooted in spirituality (p. 1363). Sharifi-Tehrani (2023) found that personal

hardships often drove SIs (p. 2899), and that for employees, “involvement in corporate SE

activities is highly motivated by their religious philosophy” (p. 2901). Tavakoli and De Sisto

(2021) found that family, education, and a socially oriented mindset were common factors (pp.

241–242). Forster and Grichnik (2013) found that “knowledge about an individual’s attitudes
OVERCOMING BARRIERS TO SOCIAL INTRAPRENEURSHIP 70

(empathy and self-efficacy) as well as his/her respective environment (perceived social norms

and perceived collective efficacy), can add to the understanding of social entrepreneurial

intention formation” (p. 170). Clearly, then, understanding employee motivations is important to

aligning business goals and SI intentions.

Result 2 addresses a number of ways in which an organization can ensure that business

goals and SI passions can be aligned to advance the organization’s overall societal impact. These

include: (a) identifying opportunities to align the business and its employees around

opportunities in their local communities, (b) engaging SIs in projects about which the

organization’s leaders are personally passionate, (c) giving employees the freedom to examine

and explore potential projects, and (d) developing a deeper understanding of the attitudes, social

norms, and social, philosophical, and spiritual beliefs of its employees.

Two relevant null findings were reported. Halme et al. (2012, p. 759) found that money

was not a motivator for SIs; they are motivated by the societal need. Galván-Vela et al. (2023, p.

151) found no relationship between an individual’s ethical values and their social

intrapreneurship but a significant relationship between their social mission and their SI

behaviors. The researchers concluded that this null finding represented a new gap in the business

research (Galván-Vela et al., 2023, p. 151).

Result 3: Signal Executive and Organizational Support for SI

Executive leadership and proactive organizational communication practices foster an SI-

friendly and empowered environment. Executives must both communicate and demonstrate their

support. The organization needs to recognize and reward the contributions made by its SIs.
OVERCOMING BARRIERS TO SOCIAL INTRAPRENEURSHIP 71

Sub-Result 3a: Communicate and Demonstrate Executive Support. Building

awareness, championing and supporting SIs and their projects, and creating supportive

environments are among executives' most important roles in overcoming barriers to SI adoption.

Top management commitment to SI is the first step in developing awareness and support

(Agrawal & Sahasranamam, 2016, p. 14). Executives demonstrate this commitment through both

what they say and what they do, as well as the specific projects that they identify and champion.

Mirvis and Googins (2018) highlighted how Danone, a world-leading food company, was

activated by “the CEO’s 2010 public commitment to reduce 30% of the company’s carbon

footprint” (p. 34). Schyvinck et al. (2021) found that top management bringing new managers on

board based on their entrepreneurial skills and progressive ideas can send a strong signal of

support for SI (p. 457); additionally, the researchers found that “executives provided an enabling

environment—with the necessary structures, guidance systems, and resources” (p. 458). In one

case, the CEO was personally involved in initiating the relationship with a supporting NGO

(Darcis et al., 2023, p. 8). In another example, top managers “appointed successors to social

intrapreneurs, where initiatives were ongoing for many years” (Darcis et al., 2023, p. 8). These

actions demonstrate top management’s ongoing commitment and support (Agrawal &

Sahasranamam, 2016, p. 14). In many cases, these leaders demonstrated the same personal

behaviors of innovativeness, proactiveness, and risk-taking, which are the hallmarks of a socially

entrepreneurial organization (Arogyaswamy & Elmer, 2010; Luu, 2022; Schyvinck et al., 2021;

Silvestri & Veltri, 2020; Spitzeck et al., 2013; Tasavori et al., 2016).

Top executives signal the organization’s culture, values, policies, and strategies, which

can have an enormous impact on SI activity (Tavakoli & De Sisto, 2021, p. 241). When top

executives signal a value-based organizational culture, this can ensure that social responsibility is
OVERCOMING BARRIERS TO SOCIAL INTRAPRENEURSHIP 72

seen as an integral part of the company (Agrawal & Sahasranamam, 2016, p. 14). As one

interviewee put it, “Our management looks at how we can incorporate social issues [into our

business]. They endorse the allocation of some time to doing R&D on apps that can solve social

issues in the world” (Tasavori et al., 2016, p. 565). Such leaders can help create a fair, holistic

vision for the organization (Silvestri & Veltri, 2020, p. 590). Spiritual leadership and workplace

spirituality can also have a significant positive effect on SEO (Luu, 2022, p. 1363).

Executives shape their organization’s focus and priorities through a wide range of

signals. Top managers can be the initiators of ideas as well as being personally involved in

assigning individuals and “giving them the mandate to explore social business opportunities” and

“transform traditional sustainability initiatives” (Darcis et al., 2023, p. 8). In one case, Darcis et

al. (2023) found that “the seed idea came from [the] former chairman” (p. 8). Getting personally

involved in specific SI projects also sends a strong message to the organization (Arogyaswamy

& Elmer, 2010, p. 37). At Odebrecht, a diversified Brazilian business holding company,

executives demonstrated an inclusive, sustainable vision and action plan (Spitzeck et al., 2013, p.

620). Executives who are personally involved and even recommend and promote selected

projects help create an environment that supports SI.

Sub-Result 3b: Communicate Organizational Support and Recognition of SI’s

Contributions. SI can simultaneously achieve both business success and positive societal

impacts.

Positive SI outcomes motivate an organization to increase its SI investments (Agrawal &

Sahasranamam, 2016, p. 18). These need to be communicated not just as a way the company

responds to a social need but as a balanced approach to meeting both business and societal

opportunities. This includes promoting the idea of social and financial goals as mutually
OVERCOMING BARRIERS TO SOCIAL INTRAPRENEURSHIP 73

supportive and congruent (Kistruck & Beamish, 2010, p. 743). SI initiatives can also create new

markets, result in new customers, and contribute to the business’s overall financial success

(Agrawal & Sahasranamam, 2016, p. 17), while the goodwill created through these efforts can

translate into future government projects (p. 18). Likewise, Franco-Leal and Diaz-Carrion (2022)

found that new opportunities were sometimes generated from established cross-sector

partnerships (p. 333).

Three studies, by Agrawal and Sahasranamam (2016), Kuratko et al. (2017), and

Tavakoli and De Sisto (2021), found that success—both its achievement and its

communications—was an essential link in overcoming barriers to SI. Agrawal and

Sahasranamam identified a positive recursive loop between SI outcomes and future SI actions (p.

18). In one case, the social outcome simultaneously created a new market for the company. In

another, the company gained significant legitimacy and could repeat its success in other markets

(pp. 17–18).

Intel uses its Environmental Excellence Awards to recognize employees and groups that

create eco-innovations (Mirvis & Googins, 2018, p. 30). The company also awards

Sustainability-in-Action Grants in support of new ideas. This includes allowing employees to

invest time developing their initiative (Mirvis & Googins, 2018, p. 30). Kuratko et al. (2017)

found that transparency and reward programs created a positive feedback loop (p. 280), while

Tavakoli and De Sisto (2021) found that management support for SI resulted from shaping the

“organisational culture, values, policies, and strategies” (p. 241). This helps the business pursue

societal impacts alongside business opportunities (Darcis et al., 2023, p. 8). In turn, Giang and

Dung (2022) found that “employee strategic renewal behaviour and employee new business

venturing behaviour positively influence firm performance” (p. 1049). Mirvis et al. (2016) found
OVERCOMING BARRIERS TO SOCIAL INTRAPRENEURSHIP 74

that “some purpose-driven firms treat social innovation as part of their overall mission” (p.

5018); they also reported that “case studies highlight how knowledge exchange increases as

companies invest more, leverage social ties and seek increased social impact” through SI (p.

5017). Ultimately, recognizing and reinforcing SIs’ positive impacts through both

communications and actions was found to be crucial to SI’s sustained support and development.

Result 3 synthesizes learnings around the importance of demonstrating—both inside and

outside the organization—top management’s support and commitment to engaging employees

directly in achieving positive societal and business impacts. It also found specific actions that

can be taken at the organizational level: (a) sharing the positive impacts of SI on both the

business and society, (b) creating recognition programs for what has been accomplished, (c)

encouraging knowledge exchange about these projects, and (d) building a societal mission into

the organization’s culture, policies, and strategies.

One negatively correlated finding was that transformational leadership can weaken

entrepreneurial orientation, corporate entrepreneurship, and social capital at the unit level (Chang

et al., 2019). While this is consistent with Ding and Hu’s (2022) finding that decentralized

corporate power structures support SI, it may also suggest that care should be taken to ensure

that efforts to support SI through transformational leadership do not unintentionally undermine

unit cohesion in departments responsible for existing environmental and social programs.

Confidence in Results

The GRADE-CERQual (Confidence in the Evidence from Reviews of Qualitative

Research) tool is recommended for establishing confidence in a qualitative research study

(Lewin et al., 2018). It requires examining the methodological approach, limitations, coherence,

adequacy of data, and relevance of the research used to develop each result (p. 5). The
OVERCOMING BARRIERS TO SOCIAL INTRAPRENEURSHIP 75

confidence level for all three results here is moderate confidence. For all three, minor concerns

resulted from a lower MA than what may be seen in other research areas. The details of the

GRADE-CERQual assessment for each result are shown in Appendix G.

Summary of Results

Thomas and Harden (2008) describe synthesis as going beyond the content of the original

studies by inferring barriers and facilitators that can address the original review question (p. 7).

This study’s results can be synthesized both within and across each of the results, thus providing

deeper insight into what has been learned through the research and setting the foundation for

developing the recommendations presented in Chapter 5.

Returning to the review question, this study aimed to identify management strategies for

overcoming barriers to SI. These barriers have been summarized as follows: (a) low awareness

of SI as an approach to meeting a company’s CSR goals (Darcis et al., 2023; Jenkins, 2018); (b)

a lack of understanding by organizations of the societal issues about which their employees are

passionate (Goldsby et al., 2018; Malaj et al., 2023; Xie et al., 2022); (c) SI projects often have

longer ROI horizons than the business is used to (Halme et al., 2012); and (d) conflicts between

these intrapreneurial endeavors and the organization’s more formal CSR and sustainability

programs (Kistruck & Beamish, 2010). Three results and seven sub-results have been developed

through the SR process.

Result 1 focused on investments to overcome barriers to SI. This study identified the

importance of investments at the organizational and individual employee levels. At the

organizational level, these investments included creating foundations, subsidiaries, and

incubators to support these projects throughout their lifecycle. Decentralized and fluid

organizational structures enabled SIs to work across existing organizational boundaries.

OVERCOMING BARRIERS TO SOCIAL INTRAPRENEURSHIP 76

Employee-salient HR practices encouraged SIs by creating a stronger relationship with

employees and a deeper awareness of their environmental and social passions. Collaborative

approaches to financing, knowledge sharing, resources, and operational investments—both

inside and outside the organization—help overcome structural barriers. Investments in SI soft

and hard skills enable SIs to navigate their environment and address the challenges they face.

Result 2 emphasized aligning organizational and SI goals. It was found to be important to

engage SIs through the organization’s overall goals while, at the same time, giving SIs the

freedom, discretion, and time to pursue projects that fit their personal motivations. The

organization can forge this necessary alignment by encouraging SIs through executive-sponsored

projects and various ongoing sustainability, disaster relief, and local development initiatives.

These types of initiatives often attract SIs and can motivate them to act. In addition,

demonstrating SEO through existing CSR programs—that is, demonstrating the importance of

innovation and entrepreneurship in the pursuit of CSR goals—can encourage active SI

involvement. Demonstrating organizational ambidexterity, which is the organization’s ability to

manage both near-term and long-term goals simultaneously, helps overcome barriers resulting

from the inherent tyranny of the immediate. As a result, providing SIs with freedom of thought

and action through firm transparency, trusted management relationships, and encouragement was

deemed crucial here.

Result 3 addressed how the organization and its leaders signal support for SI. Leaders can

signal their support by demonstrating a value-based culture and endorsing and supporting the

investment of time and resources into SI projects. Leaders can also champion specific projects,

become personally involved, and bring successful entrepreneurs and innovators into the

organization’s executive ranks. At the organizational level, recognition is important. This can
OVERCOMING BARRIERS TO SOCIAL INTRAPRENEURSHIP 77

include recognition and reward programs, internal grants to fund specific projects, and

recognizing SIs through salary and advancement. The organization can also consistently

demonstrate the congruence of business and societal goals throughout its operations and

showcase the benefits of specific projects in onboarding new customers and partners, opening

new markets, and building stronger relationships with government.

Synthesizing these results, the critical elements involve recognizing that (a) employees

bring not just their job skills but their personal beliefs and passions to the organization, (b) the

organization should support SI as it would any other potential business opportunity, and (c)

executive recognition and organizational support reinforce employee engagement. Care should

be taken, however, to ensure that as the organization implements its new vision, it does so in a

way that clearly positions it as a complementary, non-competitive approach to existing programs.

Revised Conceptual Model

Figure 5 is a revised conceptual model based on these results. It was developed from the

original conceptual model based on EO, SEO, and Hemingway’s SI theory (Figure 3). The

model proposes that specific management strategies are needed to demonstrate the prerequisite

behaviors of innovativeness, proactiveness, and risk-taking. The organizational structures and

management practices resulting from these strategies can improve the ability of SIs to pursue

their projects, reinforce the organization’s social entrepreneurial orientation, encourage future

SIs, and positively impact overall firm performance. Finally, these three strategies and the

resulting organizational structures and management practices interact and reinforce each other.
OVERCOMING BARRIERS TO SOCIAL INTRAPRENEURSHIP 78

Figure 5

Revised Conceptual Model for Overcoming Barriers to Social Intrapreneurship (SI)

Chapter Summary

The results of this study show that management strategies that produce changes to the

organization’s structures and management practices can overcome barriers to SI adoption.

Achieving this requires an organization-wide approach to identifying and enabling SIs and

celebrating their successes to reinforce the organization’s understanding and resource

commitment to this approach. These investments can also instill greater innovation and

entrepreneurship into the organization’s overall approach to CSR. With this in mind, Chapter 5

presents specific steps an organization can take to assess its current ability to support SI,

determine its desired end-state, and develop and execute an effective implementation plan.
OVERCOMING BARRIERS TO SOCIAL INTRAPRENEURSHIP 79

Chapter 5: Conclusions and Implications

The study concludes with management recommendations for overcoming barriers to

social intrapreneurship (SI). These recommendations are based on the systematic review of high-

quality academic research presented in Chapter 4. Three management strategies emerged from

the review: investing, pursuing, and signaling.

Chapter 5 presents recommendations for implementing organizational structures and

management practices based on these strategies. Kotter’s eight-step approach to organizational

transformation (Kotter, 2011) is used to structure these recommendations into a cohesive

program for change. The recommendations are designed to remove barriers to SI, improve SI

outcomes, and enable SI to become a more integrated part of the organization’s overall approach

to its environmental and social responsibilities. The study concludes with a discussion of

limitations and areas for future research.

Review of the Research

From the late 1800s on, our understanding of the role of business in society has evolved.

From Carnegie to Bowen, Freeman, Carrol, and Elkington, our understanding of the

interdependence of businesses and the societies within which they operate has deepened. While it

is fair to argue that free markets serve society by efficiently using scarce resources, few would

agree that a business’s responsibilities end there. Today, every individual and group affected by a

business’s operations has a stake in the choices made. Businesses demonstrate their awareness of

this interdependence through an ever-growing series of programs designed to integrate outside

interests into the company’s internal operations. Corporate social responsibility (CSR),

environmental, social, and governance (ESG), strategic development goals (SDG), and diversity,

equity, and inclusion (DEI) are the most common of these corporate programs. Just as
OVERCOMING BARRIERS TO SOCIAL INTRAPRENEURSHIP 80

importantly, decisions directly impacting the business’s success are made by each and every

individual it touches: current and potential customers, employees, investors, government

officials, concerned and engaged citizens, and many others. As a result, a company’s long-term

viability and success are directly linked to how well it matches its operations to the aggregate

concerns and interests of all its stakeholders.

Despite this awareness and investment by businesses, these efforts do not always have the

intended impact. In some cases, they are seen as focused primarily on maintaining legitimacy

with these various groups and avoiding social-media-driven negative perceptions. A recent

survey of US corporate executives found that, on average, companies spend 43% more on

sustainability reporting than on sustainability innovation (IBM, 2024a). In response, the

challenge that businesses face lies in driving greater innovation into these programs. One

approach that has been studied is capturing the passion and innovation of the company’s own

employees to identify and develop new products, services, and management practices that

address both business and societal challenges. These individuals, commonly called social

intrapreneurs (SIs), represent an important and complementary approach to the ever-expanding

corporate challenge of business and societal alignment. However, a comprehensive

understanding and integration of research into the most effective ways to overcome barriers

preventing wider adoption of SI as a strategic imperative has been lacking. This study represents

an important first step in that direction.

Theoretical Framework

Entrepreneurial orientation (EO; Miller, 1983), as expanded and refined by Anderson et

al. (2015), and social entrepreneurial orientation (SEO; Alarifi et al., 2019; Sulphey & Salim,

2020) establish innovativeness, proactiveness, and risk-taking as the behaviors demonstrated by

OVERCOMING BARRIERS TO SOCIAL INTRAPRENEURSHIP 81

entrepreneurial and socially entrepreneurial organizations. Hemingway’s (2013) theory of the SI

proposed that successful social intrapreneurship requires the alignment of the organization’s

social orientation behaviors with the individual’s social predispositions. Chapter 2 traced the

history of these theories and provided a detailed review of relevant academic and industry

research that helped shape them. Finally, Chapter 2 presented an original conceptual model that

introduced management strategies and the resulting organizational structures and management

practices as the way in which the organization’s social orientation behaviors are translated into

actions that positively impact SI outcomes (Figure 3).

Review of Research Methodology

This study’s methodology was a systematic review (SR), an applied research approach

that considers practical consequences and their effects in assessing facts and developing insights

(Venkatesh et al., 2013). As a result, SRs are generally recognized as transparent, robust, and

repeatable while minimizing bias.

The six steps of an SR are as follows:

1. Development of the review question, which shapes the research and defines what is

known and not known about the problem (Gough, 2007). For this study, the review

question was: What management strategies can corporations develop to overcome

barriers to SI adoption?

2. The evidence examined for this study was quantitative and qualitative research on SI

published in peer-reviewed academic journals, covering all dates, and available in

English.

3. This evidence was collected using the University of Maryland Global Campus

(UMGC) online library. The databases searched are shown in Appendix A, and the
OVERCOMING BARRIERS TO SOCIAL INTRAPRENEURSHIP 82

search results and the process for selecting research for inclusion in the study are

shown in Appendix B.

4. Key elements of each article selected were extracted and assessed for methodological

appropriateness and quality (Barends et al., 2017; Pluye et al., 2011). The results of

this are shown in Appendices C, D, and F.

5. Each article’s findings and results sections were coded based on concepts derived

from the research question and this study’s conceptual model. These codes were then

synthesized and categorized to develop the study’s themes and results (Saldaña,

2021). The details of this coding are shown in Appendix E.

6. Subject matter experts (SMEs) were engaged to ensure the relevance of the research

question, results, and recommendations to practitioners (Eden et al., 2011). A list of

SMEs, together with their roles, experiences, and contributions to this study, is

presented in Appendix H.

Review of the Business Problem

As introduced in Chapter 1, SIs face a number of organizational barriers that place their

efforts at a disadvantage. This undermines the organization’s ability to leverage SI as an integral

part of its programs designed to meet ever-expanding environmental and social impact

expectations. To recap, the most common barriers identified through this study were as follows:

Low Awareness. SI is not commonly seen as an approach to meeting a company’s CSR

goals (le Roux & De Pree, 2018). This forces SIs to operate under the radar within their

organizations (Darcis et al., 2023, p. 8).

Low Employee Salience. Understanding is limited around the societal issues important

to employees (Goldsby et al., 2018, p. 3). Given that SI requires a strong relationship between
OVERCOMING BARRIERS TO SOCIAL INTRAPRENEURSHIP 83

managers and employees (Malaj et al., 2023, p. 1), this lack of awareness and support of SIs

inhibits widespread adoption and can negatively impact an employee’s career opportunities

(Bonnici & Bruysten, 2020).

Longer Return on Investment (ROI). Access to capital to support SI initiatives is

challenging (Elkington, 2008, p. 55). SI projects often have a longer ROI horizon than the

business is used to (Halme et al., 2012, p. 755).

Perceived Conflicts. Conflicts between these intrapreneurial endeavors and the

corporation’s existing business and organization can arise (Elkington, 2008, p. 50). SIs may face

resistance from managers who see their efforts as philanthropic and unrelated to business

objectives (Alt & Geradts, 2019, p. 2). Conflicts can also exist between SIs and more formal

CSR and sustainability programs (Kistruck & Beamish, 2010, p. 750).

Corporate Immune System. SIs often need to overcome what Jenkins (2018) refers to

as the “corporate immune system” (p. 1). For example, colleagues can be slow to shift from

today’s realities to tomorrow’s opportunities (Elkington, 2008, p. 54).

Answer to the Review Question

Overcoming these barriers to SI adoption can enable organizations to utilize this

complementary employee-centric approach to meeting societal expectations. This can result in

greater stakeholder engagement and improved long-term business performance. The strategies

identified through this study were investing, pursuing, and signaling. Executing each strategy

can result in specific organizational changes affecting how resources are structured, deployed,

and supported to improve SI adoption.

The first of these management strategies, investing, focuses on purposeful changes to the

organization’s structures and management practices to provide SIs with an environment

OVERCOMING BARRIERS TO SOCIAL INTRAPRENEURSHIP 84

conducive to their success. This includes creating new and expanded organizational structures to

provide the initial and ongoing support that these socially minded initiatives require, including

their more extended ROI horizon. This also spans investments in SIs to develop the hard and soft

skills they need to succeed.

The second management strategy focuses on aligning the organization’s goals with the

freedom that SIs require to explore their ideas and follow their personal passions. Such

alignment of goals includes involving SIs in executive-sponsored projects and demonstrating a

social entrepreneurial orientation in how these projects are selected and enabled. For SIs,

providing them with strong management relationships, encouragement, and a degree of

discretion is important. It also means allowing them to align their projects to the factors that

motivate them, which may result from their personal, family, or educational experiences, or their

spirituality.

The third management strategy identified was signaling, which refers to how the

organization and its leaders demonstrate their support for SI and recognize its benefits as an

approach. This includes demonstrating a values-based culture, championing projects, and

executives becoming personally involved. At the organizational level, signaling occurs through

recognition and reward programs, salary, and promotions, as well as highlighting the

organizational benefits, such as new customers, partners, and markets resulting from these

initiatives.

Management Recommendations

A strategic change management process is recommended to overcome barriers to SI

adoption. For this study, Kotter’s (2011) eight-step model was selected for its comprehensive

and step-by-step characteristics. However, based on a practitioner’s experience, judgment, and

OVERCOMING BARRIERS TO SOCIAL INTRAPRENEURSHIP 85

specific organizational considerations, approaches such as the McKinsey 7-S model (Peters &

Waterman, 1982), Kotter’s accelerated model (Kotter, 2014), and many others could be chosen.

Two of the SMEs consulted for this study recommended a change management approach for

implementing the study’s results (Appendix H, Items 1, 4). The following sections present the

study’s recommendations within the framework of Kotter’s eight-step approach.

Step 1: Build SI Awareness and Urgency

Change in support of SI begins by establishing a sense of urgency that the change is more

compelling than maintaining the status quo. Chapter 1 of this study provided the basis for

establishing the necessary sense of urgency to overcome barriers to SI adoption. This need for

change can be built using two distinct but interrelated ideas: (a) the potential for improved

stakeholder engagement by reducing the barriers to SI adoption, and (b) the market and

competitive risks of failing to embrace SI as an important vehicle for bringing a more

entrepreneurial and innovative approach to an organization’s current CSR, ESG, SDG, and DEI

efforts.

The first step is building a broader awareness of SI. Various books have been written

about SIs, their positive impact on their organizations, and the environmental and social issues

they addressed (Davis & White, 2015; Elkington, 2008; Hemingway, 2013; McGaw, 2024). The

examples on these pages can be inspirational at both the individual and organizational levels.

Outside experts from programs that develop and support SIs, such as the Aspen Institute’s First

Movers Fellowship Program (Aspen Institute, n.d.), can help build awareness. Providing

opportunities for managers and executives to gain first-hand exposure through discussions with

SIs from their own and other organizations can do the same. Sharing stories about the benefits of

SI to an organization’s business alongside the lives touched and the environmental issues
OVERCOMING BARRIERS TO SOCIAL INTRAPRENEURSHIP 86

addressed can send a powerful message. Sometimes, the champion can initiate a research study

to help demonstrate the urgency. In other cases, bringing in respected outside experts can be

helpful. Creating a sense of urgency is the process’s first and perhaps most critical step.

Engaging SIs in existing organizational programs is another early step that can build SI

awareness. Businesses today increasingly focus on sustainability to gain a competitive advantage

and reduce costs; these initiatives can be used to identify and organically engage future SIs

(Schwittay, 2011). A natural sense of shared value can be fostered when an SI’s passions directly

align with current organizational initiatives (Spitzeck et al., 2013; Tavakoli & De Sisto, 2021).

SIs can also be engaged by how the corporation responds to a natural disaster or exposed to new

ideas through internal or external training programs (Darcis et al., 2023, pp. 7–8). In other cases,

senior executives can tap SIs to help develop initiatives of personal interest to these executives

(p. 8). These early-stage approaches raise awareness of SIs across the organization and help

demonstrate their future potential.

These initial steps do not, on their own, create the urgency needed for organizational

change. A more direct connection between SI and the organization’s short- and long-term

business success is required. Chapter 1 provided several industry and academic studies that can

be used to demonstrate the urgency around how shortfalls in engagement with stakeholders

(including employees, customers, and investors) can negatively impact a corporation’s

competitiveness and long-term viability:

 A 2020 McKinsey survey of 1,000 US company managers and front-line employees

found that while 82% of these employees stated that purpose was important to them

personally, only 42% said that their organizations’ purpose statements had an impact

(Gast et al., 2020).

OVERCOMING BARRIERS TO SOCIAL INTRAPRENEURSHIP 87

 Ineffective SI implementation can lead to missed innovation opportunities, decreased

stakeholder engagement, and ultimately a loss of competitive edge in the marketplace

(Aparicio et al., 2020; Elkington, 2008; Hemingway, 2013; Porter & Kramer, 2011).

 A study by García-Sánchez et al. (2022) reported that while the standardization of

CSR reports is rising, so too is stakeholder skepticism (p. 118); the researchers found

that even with the use of CSR assurance audits, CSR reporting was failing to create

the intended market impact (p. 133).

 An IBM (2024a) study surveyed 5,000 C-suite executives and found that spending on

sustainability reporting exceeded spending on sustainability innovation by 43%. The

solution was to embed sustainability across the organization. Organizations that did

so saw a 16% higher revenue growth rate; 56% were likelier than their peers to attract

necessary talent, and 52% were likelier to outperform their peers on profitability

(IBM, 2024a, p. 2).

 Numerous studies have found that SI can help bridge the gap between CSR programs

and the desired stakeholder expectations and engagement (Elkington, 2008;

Hemingway, 2013; Hemingway & Maclagan, 2004).

Kotter (2011) believes that the most common error with change initiatives is not

establishing a high enough sense of urgency (p. 5). It is critical to build a sense of urgency

around SI as an innovative and entrepreneurial approach to meeting the business’s environmental

and social expectations. Potential inhibitors to building a sense of urgency for SI exist: The

cyclical nature of management ideas and the increasing concentration of economic power are

challenges to building urgency around SI (Appendix H, Item 5). Indeed, one SME observed that

interest in social entrepreneurship and social intrapreneurship peaked in around 2005 to 2015. As
OVERCOMING BARRIERS TO SOCIAL INTRAPRENEURSHIP 88

a result, it is essential to connect SI to stakeholder engagement and to the corporation’s ability to

maintain a competitive edge in its marketplace.

Step 2: Form a Coalition to Build Momentum

Change may start with one or two people, but organizational change requires a coalition.

Kotter (2011) believes that this coalition needs to achieve a minimal mass, which could be as

few as three to five people early on, then grow over time (p. 7). These are typically change

agents who often “tend to operate outside of the normal hierarchy” (p. 7). This approach is

familiar to experienced SIs, with many cases of under-the-radar SI activities cited in the

literature (Ding & Hu, 2022; Halme et al., 2012). Coalitions can also be built by forming new

departments that decouple SI efforts from traditional operations, or by combining separate efforts

under one independent social business unit (Darcis et al., 2023; Kistruck & Beamish, 2010).

Capturing and integrating these efforts can be a practical starting point for addressing barriers

resulting from low employee salience, perceived conflicts, and the corporate immune system.

Although this is a practical starting point, it is not sufficient to elevate SI to the level of

organizational change. Larger joint management teams operating across departments are needed

(Spitzeck et al., 2013). Darcis et al. (2023) reported that traditional CSR departments can also be

included in a cross-functional coalition (p. 8). The coalition can be further expanded to include

individuals outside the organization, such as NGOs, governmental agencies, and community

groups (Halme et al., 2012, p. 755). The most common mistake during this step is a failure to

create a sufficiently powerful coalition to lead the change effort (Kotter, 2011, p. 7).

Coalition members can also be recruited from areas of the business that will be needed as

the change management effort progresses, especially in Step 5. Proactive HR practices will be

needed to support SIs and to understand better the environmental and social issues about which
OVERCOMING BARRIERS TO SOCIAL INTRAPRENEURSHIP 89

employees are passionate (Goldsby et al., 2018; Kuratko et al., 2017; Xie et al., 2022). Finance is

another important member of the coalition: Proactive financing options are needed to overcome

the longer ROI of these projects. Internal and external sources, foundations, grants, and

government programs can be explored (Darcis et al., 2023; Halme et al., 2012; Tasavori et al.,

2016). However, Kotter (2011) cautions that line management—not supporting functions such as

HR, finance, quality, or strategic planning—should be tasked with leading the effort (p. 5).

The next action for the coalition is to assess the organization’s overall preparedness for a

more strategic approach to SI. One analysis technique that can be useful here is Lewin’s field

theory (Burnes & Cooke, 2013), commonly referred to as force-field analysis. Lewin developed

his theory over 25 years (p. 408); its roots are in Gestalt psychology, which looks at the entire

individual—or organization in this case—as the sum of its interdependent parts that interact

dynamically (p. 410). In the business setting, it is commonly used to identify the forces for and

against change and to weigh their relative influence (Walker, 2023).

Given the framework of EO and SEO, three organizational behaviors—innovativeness,

proactiveness, and risk-taking—form the basis for understanding the organization’s ability to

adopt management strategies to advance SI (Alarifi et al., 2019). One SME emphasized the

importance of examining the organizational cultural dimensions (Appendix H, Item 1) as part of

the change management process. This is critical to understanding the potential barriers resulting

from the corporate immune system. The CSES is a framework for performing this analysis and is

shown in Appendix I, Table I1. This instrument examines nine elements of SI and can be used to

gather insights on the organization’s readiness from individual coalition members and others.

These insights and perceptions, along with direct input from coalition members, can then be used

to help identify the forces within the organization working for and against SI.
OVERCOMING BARRIERS TO SOCIAL INTRAPRENEURSHIP 90

Step 3: Create a New Vision

The third step in the change management process is creating a new vision. In Step 2, the

current situation is assessed, and in Step 3, a vision for the future is articulated. A vision is not a

business plan; instead, “it says something that helps clarify the direction in which an

organization needs to move” (Kotter, 2011, p. 8). Mirvis and Googins (2018) describe four social

innovation engagement platforms and their characteristics, including examples of corporations

implementing each. Details are shown in Appendix I, Table I2. Their findings provide a cohesive

framework for defining a new vision for SI.

Although all four models are relevant to SI, the first model, social intrapreneurship

inside, and the fourth model, enterprise-wide social innovation, are the most relevant. The social

intrapreneur inside model represents an integrated approach to supporting SI: It builds on the

concept of an SI as an internal change agent through a series of programs designed to foster and

bolster their efforts as company-endorsed and supported initiatives. These new programs can

encompass events to promote innovation, contests, social innovation hubs, incubators, and

accelerators. The enterprise-wide social innovation model, meanwhile, presents a more

comprehensive vision. Its objective is to adopt an innovative and entrepreneurial approach to an

organization’s CSR investments, addressing both business and societal challenges. It

incorporates innovation labs, as seen in the social intrapreneur inside model, but it also expands

the business’s focus to an integrated approach—one that fully embeds SI into the business’s CSR

program and across its operations.

Mirvis and Googins (2018) identify two additional models: partnering with social

entrepreneurs and pro bono problem-solving. Each of these represents organizational strategies

that refocus elements of the business on addressing societal needs. Partnering with social
OVERCOMING BARRIERS TO SOCIAL INTRAPRENEURSHIP 91

entrepreneurs is a different vision than SI, as is pro bono problem-solving. However, these

approaches were both found to be supportive of SIs. Many examples were found of SIs

partnering with outside organizations (Ghauri et al., 2014; Schwittay, 2011; Spitzeck et al., 2013;

Tasavori et al., 2016; Tavakoli & De Sisto, 2021), while pro bono problem-solving captures

employees’ passions by focusing their efforts on specific initiatives to which the organization has

committed itself. In both cases, Mirvis and Googins (2018) indicate that funding for these efforts

typically comes from foundations set up by the corporation, or from within its CSR department.

These examples provide a framework for examining alternative visions for the

organization’s use of SI to drive environmental and social change on an organization-wide basis.

A company’s vision can and should combine any or all of the above elements into a unique

model that fits its business and goals. For some, an incremental approach may be most

appropriate, whereby the coalition articulates what they intend to be a first-stage vision, creating

the opportunity for a more expansive vision in the future. What is most important is not to lose

sight of the two primary goals: (a) to develop a cohesive approach for reducing existing and

potential barriers to SI, and (b) to leverage SIs to enable the organization to develop a more

innovative and entrepreneurial approach to CSR.

The vision must be clear, easily explained, and compelling. The goal is to engage the

corporation’s top leaders, including its board, in recognizing SI adoption as a critical success

factor for the firm. Kotter (2011) suggests that the coalition members must be able to explain

their vision in five minutes, resulting in understanding of, interest in, and support for the

direction they are proposing (p. 9). Until this can be done, this phase is not complete.
OVERCOMING BARRIERS TO SOCIAL INTRAPRENEURSHIP 92

Step 4: Communicate the New Vision

Every channel for communicating the new vision should be employed. Messaging needs

to be incorporated into not only presentations and memos, but also routine discussions, press

releases, social media, articles in company newsletters, employee surveys, emails, in-person and

digital townhalls, performance discussions and reviews, and training programs at the employee,

management, and executive levels. Failure to integrate the new vision into every facet of the

company’s communications and development programs will undermine the entire effort.

Coalition members and others should overcommunicate in every setting with a clear, consistent

message emphasizing the vision and why it is essential to the business going forward.

By Step 4, senior leadership must be engaged and ready to signal its commitment to the

new SI model. Senior leadership is crucial in promoting organization-wide awareness and

investment through policy updates and specific actions, such as allocating people and resources.

As Kotter (2011) observes, “communication comes in both words and deeds, and the latter are

often the most powerful form” (p. 11).

Senior leadership can demonstrate engagement through (a) executive-level championing

of employees currently pursuing projects of importance to them (Tavakoli & De Sisto, 2021), (b)

engaging employees in projects for which the executives have a personal passion (Darcis et al.,

2023, p. 8), (c) becoming personally involved in building outside relationships with foundations,

NGOs, government agencies, and other groups that can support SI efforts (Darcis et al., 2023, p.

8), and (d) becoming personally involved in specific SI projects (Arogyaswamy & Elmer, 2010,

p. 37).

Senior leadership can also demonstrate its commitment externally. Mirvis and Googins

(2018) highlighted the importance of Danone’s CEO’s public commitment to reducing the
OVERCOMING BARRIERS TO SOCIAL INTRAPRENEURSHIP 93

company’s carbon footprint by 30% (p. 34). Schyvinck et al. (2021) showed how important the

hiring and promotional decisions by the company’s leadership are to signaling support for the

new vision (p. 457). Senior leadership can demonstrate its personal commitment to the behaviors

of innovativeness, proactiveness, and risk-taking through the organization’s existing CSR

programs, by promoting a values-based organizational culture, and by taking an active role in

integrating social and business goals through the allocation of resources (Arogyaswamy &

Elmer, 2010; Luu, 2022; Schyvinck et al., 2021; Silvestri & Veltri, 2020; Spitzeck et al., 2013;

Tasavori et al., 2016). Engaging senior leadership support for the vision developed in Step 3 is

central to any organization-wide change effort.

Step 5: Systematically Remove SI Barriers

Step 5 focuses on further removing barriers to the new vision of SI’s role in the

organization. It is critical to ensure that organizational actions support the stated vision; this is

key to avoiding skepticism and even cynicism from managers, employees, and others (Kotter,

2011, p. 10). The research synthesized for this study provides a framework for understanding

where these barriers exist and how they can be addressed. Step 5 is where those results are

widely actualized at the operational level.

Organizational Structures. Changes to organizational structures are needed to

overcome barriers to SI. These projects have both commercial and societal components. The

commercial component may well be developable through existing structures, but the societal

pieces often cannot. In response, the options are to (a) form foundations, at least partially funded

by the organization, as well as targeted subsidiaries (Agrawal & Sahasranamam, 2016; Kistruck

& Beamish, 2010; Schyvinck et al., 2021); (b) establish new departments by combining multiple

SI projects into specialized groups (Darcis et al., 2023; Halme et al., 2012; Kistruck & Beamish,
OVERCOMING BARRIERS TO SOCIAL INTRAPRENEURSHIP 94

2010); (c) create cross-functional teams that blend multiple skills, capabilities, and resources

(Spitzeck et al., 2013), and (d) form social innovation labs to help identify and support these

projects (Mirvis & Googins, 2018).

Management Practices. Human resources (HR) practices are key. Proactive HR

practices can lead to innovation and entrepreneurship (Goldsby et al., 2018), so changes should

be made to job elements and performance ratings that recognize employee social proactiveness

(Kuratko et al., 2017). SIs must be confident that their efforts will be recognized and contribute

to their long-term career progression, as emphasized by one SME (Appendix H, Item 4).

Strengthening relationships between employees and supervisors leads to individuals having more

significant resources, decision latitude, and freedom, all of which are required for SI success

(Malaj et al., 2023).

Financial practices are equally important. Inadequate funding makes the pursuit of these

objectives difficult at best. To overcome this, internal funding sources can be combined with

external sources to provide sufficient ongoing financial support (Darcis et al., 2023; Halme et al.,

2012). Funding sources can be tapped from local development organizations, national and

international public funding sources, NGOs, and others (Franco-Leal & Diaz-Carrion, 2022;

Spitzeck et al., 2013; Tasavori et al., 2016). Ultimately, ensuring patient ongoing funding

enables a project to be seen through to its conclusion (Tasavori et al., 2016).

Partnering with outside organizations for non-financial support also helps overcome

barriers to these projects. The skills and relationships of community partners such as NGOs,

associations, and citizen groups are beneficial, and training groups can help educate the

communities targeted by a project. Critical insights can be developed through the research of

outside groups; these relationships can develop into longer-term partnerships and joint ventures
OVERCOMING BARRIERS TO SOCIAL INTRAPRENEURSHIP 95

(Darcis et al., 2023; Ghauri et al., 2014; Hidden & Marks, 2020; Schyvinck et al., 2021; Spitzeck

et al., 2013; Tavakoli & De Sisto, 2021).

Development and Training. Identifying an SI’s personal characteristics and motivations

is a vital step in determining their probability of success. Appendix I, Table I3 lists the factors

that can be used in this assessment (Gallardo-Vázquez et al., 2024). Factors 1–6 assess the

individual’s characteristics, while Factors 7–12 assess elements of the organization’s CSR

program. Tools based on these factors can be developed as discussion aids or as part of employee

self-assessments and surveys.

Understanding SI motivations is also essential. The desire to suggest and participate in

implementing something new is an important characteristic to assess (Galván-Vela et al., 2023;

Malaj et al., 2023). Values such as self-transcendence, spirituality, and personal experiences can

also be assessed when identifying potential SIs. Once identified, these individuals must be

supported with development and training programs, as both hard and soft skills are needed.

Companies can develop their own training programs for SI or combine internal and external

development programs by partnering with organizations such as the Aspen Institute (Aspen

Institute, n.d.), The League of Intrapreneurs (The League of Intrapreneurs, n.d.), and similar

groups.

The results section of Chapter 4 provided a comprehensive list of SI skills for the

organization to focus on. Key soft skills were identified as follows: communications, valuing

effort, self-esteem, and enthusiasm; an entrepreneurial mindset; effective decision-making;

innovativeness and risk-taking; social characteristics of interaction, cooperation, and networking;

and bricolage (Chang et al., 2019; Gallardo-Vázquez et al., 2024; Halme et al., 2012). One SME

(Appendix H, Item 4) added lateral leadership—the ability to work creatively across the
OVERCOMING BARRIERS TO SOCIAL INTRAPRENEURSHIP 96

organizational structure regardless of one’s formal role—to this list of soft skills. Hard skills

included financial planning (Nandan et al., 2015; Schwittay, 2011), marketing (Mirvis &

Googins, 2018; Schwittay, 2011), grant writing (Mirvis & Googins, 2018; Nandan et al., 2015),

information technology (Goldsby et al., 2018; Layman et al., 2023; Mirvis & Googins, 2018;

Nandan et al., 2015; Schwittay, 2011), data analytics (Nandan et al., 2015; Schwittay, 2011), and

deep knowledge of the environmental or social issues and communities to be served (Mirvis et

al., 2016). Organizational structures, management practices, and development and training

empower SIs and those supporting their efforts to act on the vision, so individuals from across

the organization should be engaged in these efforts.

Step 6: Use Early Wins to Show the Business Value of SI

Short-term wins are not what happens in the first month or two. The organization’s

current operations may have developed over decades, so the goal here is not to be able to declare

victory quickly, but to make lasting changes to how the organization thinks and operates. At the

same time, nothing builds success like success. Most importantly, “creating short-term wins is

different from hoping for short-term wins” (Kotter, 2011, p. 13). The selection of initial SI

projects should therefore carefully consider their ability to be successfully developed and

delivered, with measurable results within no more than 12 to 24 months. Key questions to ask

include: “Can the project be designed and launched relatively quickly?”, “Can a small, devoted

team handle it?”, and “Does it have longer-term upside potential?” (Kotter, 2011, p. 13).

Measuring and reporting these early wins against clearly established goals and expected

results is far more effective than general discussions about what has been done. As Schyvinck et

al. (2021) reported, organizations put both measurement and reward systems in place where “the

economic and social goals were defined in policy documents, agreements with partners were
OVERCOMING BARRIERS TO SOCIAL INTRAPRENEURSHIP 97

formalized in contracts, and results and achievements […] were communicated” (p. 457). The

Global Reporting Initiative (2016) is a well-known and frequently used corporate measurement

and reporting system for environmental, social, and economic impacts (Franco-Leal & Diaz-

Carrion, 2022; Salim Saji & Ellingstad, 2016). Likewise, the European Union has required the

Corporate Sustainability Reporting Directive (CSRD) since January 2023 as a standardized way

for stakeholders to evaluate a corporation’s sustainability performance and its business impacts

and risks (IBM, 2024b). These and many other broadly applicable and industry-specific systems

provide the framework for measuring and reporting the organization’s overall societal impact,

and they can be used to show how current SI initiatives have positively contributed. The tools

provided in Appendix I, Tables I1 and I3 can be modified to establish goals and to measure

organizational progress toward them.

Business goals are just as important. What differentiates an SI initiative from a more

traditional approach to CSR is that SI, by design, is intended to deliver both business and societal

benefits. Two SMEs suggested that these measurements be tied directly to the management

strategies of investing, pursuing, and signaling, and that this program and CSR more generally be

linked to overall business performance metrics (Appendix H, Items 1, 4). Whatever measurement

system the company uses in its business should be applied to these projects with the same rigor

and objectivity. The strategic change management initiative needs to measure each step’s

progress and impact, as well as the associated costs and benefits.

The primary goal of Step 6 is to achieve early, credible wins that demonstrate the long-

term potential of integrating SI into the business’s operations to deliver improved business and

societal results. Risk-taking in pursuit of this should be recognized and encouraged, with

progress communicated, individuals rewarded, and milestones celebrated.

OVERCOMING BARRIERS TO SOCIAL INTRAPRENEURSHIP 98

Step 7: Consolidate Improvements and Produce Further Change

At this stage, the focus shifts to using the early wins to promote more fundamental

changes in organizational structures and management practices. It is time to bring more

individuals into the organization who can build on the changes and further develop employees to

deliver on the vision. The most significant risk at this step is declaring victory too soon (Kotter,

2011, p. 6).

Some of the more permanent structural changes can now be implemented more fully.

New company-sponsored foundations, subsidiaries, and partnerships may now be possible.

Innovation labs can be expanded. Relationships across the organization’s more traditional CSR

programs and a network of line managers working with their teams to identify and partner on SI

projects should now be possible. New opportunities may now be investigated and brought into

the change initiative.

Care should be taken not to declare victory too soon. A continued focus on ensuring that

the projects are fully managed and justified based on both business and societal value must be

maintained. It would be too easy for the organization to backslide into viewing CSR as a

philanthropic endeavor separate from the business. SIs should be moving up the organizational

hierarchy, able to both shape current decisions and develop the next generation of social

intrapreneurs.

Step 8: Institutionalize SI

In the final step, it is essential to firmly establish the relationship between the new

approach and the organization’s success. Leadership development and succession plans are

required to ensure that these approaches continue through the natural process of executive
OVERCOMING BARRIERS TO SOCIAL INTRAPRENEURSHIP 99

turnover. The key is creating new social norms and shared values, and not promoting individuals

into leadership positions who do not share and personify the new approach (Kotter, 2011, p. 6).

Here, reinforcing and further advancing the corporate culture is important: Social

innovativeness, proactiveness, and risk-taking need to become part of how the business operates

and sees itself. The changes must be systemic and evolving, not tied to specific individuals or

leaders. Succession planning becomes crucial here. Every opportunity to connect the measured

results to the change initiative should be taken. By Step 8, the business should be revisiting all

seven previous steps to ensure that urgency is maintained, that coalitions are there to support

constant renewal, that the vision continues to evolve, and that the organizational structures and

management practices are constantly reexamined.

Risks and Barriers to Implementation

Several factors must be considered when implementing these recommendations. Some

are common to any significant change initiative, and others are unique to social intrapreneurship.

Both risks and barriers are considered below.

Risks. Risks are an inherent part of any business decision. They include (a) financial

risks associated with investments in projects that fail to deliver the intended business or societal

benefits, (b) turnover of key personnel at the project, management, or executive levels, (c) loss of

external support essential to a project’s success (i.e., unanticipated changes in governmental

regulations, NGO funding and support, public opinion, etc.), and (d) changes in underlying

business conditions and markets that result in projects no longer meeting the intended business

objectives.

The recommendations for overcoming barriers to SI also face the risks common to any

significant organizational change effort. These include: (a) not establishing a true sense of
OVERCOMING BARRIERS TO SOCIAL INTRAPRENEURSHIP 100

urgency, (b) failure to build a sufficiently powerful coalition, (c) not being able to explain the

new vision in simple, easily understood concepts and terms, (d) failure to communicate in both

words and deeds, (e) failure to create early wins, (f) declaring victory too soon, and (g) not

promoting individuals that share the vision. A final risk to be avoided is failing to position SI as

a complementary approach to the organization's current environmental and social initiatives.

Failure to manage this risk can undermine current efforts, resulting in potentially a net reduction

in the corporation’s overall performance at the business and social levels.

Barriers. Social proactiveness, innovation, and risk-taking are fundamental

organizational behaviors required for a more expansive approach to SI. Without a comprehensive

understanding and assessment of these foundational behaviors, the probability of success and

understanding of the barriers cannot be gauged. Even with this foundation properly assessed,

what is often described as the corporate immune system can lead to efforts to ignore, resist, or

undermine the effort. Organizational change is not easy, and a failure to follow a well-defined

change management process can lead to even greater organizational resistance.

Subject Matter Experts

Subject matter experts (SMEs) provided the following inputs that helped shape the

study’s recommendations:

 One SME confirmed that the themes of investing, pursuing, and signaling were an

appropriate base for establishing the study’s recommendations (Appendix H, Item 2).

 Two SMEs recommended an expanded emphasis on making SI an organization-wide

change management initiative, the tone for which is set at the top of the organization

by identifying it as a critical success factor for the firm (Appendix H, Items 1, 4).
OVERCOMING BARRIERS TO SOCIAL INTRAPRENEURSHIP 101

 One SME suggested that the measurement system be tied directly to the three

strategic themes (Appendix H, Item 1); a second SME indicated the importance of

linking CSR to overall business performance (Appendix H, Item 4).

 One SME emphasized the importance of examining the cultural dimension (Appendix

H, Item 1).

 One SME discussed the importance of addressing career considerations in attracting

top talent to SI roles and making SI assignments part of a fast-track career

development program. This expert also emphasized the importance of developing

lateral leadership skills (Appendix H, Item 4).

 One SME expressed concern that SI has received less attention recently; along with

increasing financial concentration in the economy, this can make building SI

awareness and momentum more difficult (Appendix H, Item 5).

Summary of Management Recommendations

Overcoming barriers to SI requires that the organization’s leadership embrace the urgent

need for change. This cannot be achieved through one meeting or report; it requires a cohesive

effort to build awareness, form a supporting coalition, define a new vision for the future,

communicate that vision, remove barriers to SI success, demonstrate early successes, build upon

those successes, and institutionalize the changes for the future.

Limitations of the Study and Areas for Future Research

This study represents a comprehensive effort to understand the barriers facing SIs and

how corporations can reduce these barriers. The goal is to improve the alignment of an

organization’s business operations and its societal impact. A firm’s long-term success and
OVERCOMING BARRIERS TO SOCIAL INTRAPRENEURSHIP 102

viability depend on successfully creating and maintaining this alignment. As with any study,

limitations must be considered, and future research must be done.

Limitations of the Study

Several limitations may impact the study’s results and generalization: (a) one researcher

conducted the research over a condensed time frame; (b) this study focused on one approach,

overcoming barriers to SI, and did not compare and contrast alternative approaches, such as

restating the corporation’s goals or repositioning its overall business strategy; (c) inclusion of

other closely related concepts—such as social entrepreneurship, corporate intrapreneurship, and

internal change agents—may have yielded additional or even different insights while bolstering

the generalizability of these results; (d) although three theoretical models, namely entrepreneurial

orientation (EO), social entrepreneurial orientation (SEO), and social intrapreneurship (SI), were

used here, other frameworks such as structural contingency theory (SCT; Aldrich, 1972) or

Quinn’s competing value framework (CVF; Cameron & Quinn, 2011) could have led to different

results and interpretations; (e) the study’s conceptual model is based on Miller’s original

formulation of EO, which may limit its generalizability, although later theoretical work is

considered broadly consistent with Miller’s original theory (Anderson et al., 2015, p. 1591); and

(f) the conceptual model used for this study is built on the notion that an organization

demonstrates socially oriented entrepreneurial behaviors, as found in EO and SEO theories,

meaning that the results and recommendations of this study are likely to be less effective in the

absence of these behaviors.

Areas for Future Research

Most of the available research focused on the characteristics of individual SIs and the

challenges they faced. Although this provided insights, this study did not address several
OVERCOMING BARRIERS TO SOCIAL INTRAPRENEURSHIP 103

foundational questions: (a) How extensively are businesses adopting SI today? (b) How has SI

positively impacted stakeholder corporate perceptions? (c) How might implementing this study’s

recommendations improve a business’s performance? (d) How might these results be affected by

leadership styles and business cultures? (e) Could further research identify critical differences

across industry, geography, company size, and other organizational characteristics? (f) Studies

examining the effectiveness of the above recommendations are also needed. McGaw and

Malinsky (2020) provide a list of additional research questions that could advance our

understanding of SI. Finally, the emerging role of artificial intelligence (AI) in SI, such as its use

for predictive analytics, collaborative platforms, personalized training, and monitoring and

reporting tools, is an important avenue for research given the rapid development of this

technology.

Final Summary and Conclusions

Most corporate leaders recognize the importance of addressing the environmental and

social concerns of all their stakeholders—customers, employees, investors, communities,

governments, and many others. These individuals and groups are affected by and can affect the

company’s current operations and long-term viability. As successful and impactful as socially

oriented programs such as CSR, ESG, SDG, and DEI can be, they can also be seen as more

symbolic than substantive: They can lack authenticity and appear to be primarily designed to

gain legitimacy with various groups and to avoid negative perceptions in the marketplace. A

complementary approach is social intrapreneurship (SI), where employees identify, develop, and

launch innovative products, services, and management practices that positively contribute to

their company’s success and simultaneously address critical societal needs. Authors such as
OVERCOMING BARRIERS TO SOCIAL INTRAPRENEURSHIP 104

Elkington (2008), Davis and White (2015), Hemingway (2013), and McGaw (2024) have

chronicled these individuals’ efforts and their impact inside and outside their organizations.

However, organizational barriers have thus far limited the wider adoption of SI. They

include: low awareness of SI as a complementary approach to meeting the company’s goals; low

employee salience, which limits understanding of the societal issues important to employees;

longer return on investment (ROI), which limits sustainable access to the capital needed to

support these initiatives; and perceived conflicts with existing business activities, also referred to

as the corporate immune system.

Through a systematic review (SR) of available, high-quality academic research, three

management strategies for overcoming these barriers were identified: investing, pursuing, and

signaling. Implementing these strategies can result in new organizational structures and more

conducive management practices. They can also result in improved training and development for

SIs and better alignment of the organization’s goals with the projects that these individuals are

motivated to pursue. These management strategies are essential to demonstrating executive

support and recognizing the potential positive impact of these projects on achieving both

business and societal goals.

The study’s recommendations were presented within the framework of a strategic change

management initiative. Kotter’s (2011) eight-step change management process was used to

illustrate this approach. However, practitioners should carefully align their chosen approach to

their organization’s unique considerations. The implementation presented in this study begins

with building a sense of urgency for supporting SI and starting to integrate it into the business’s

overall environmental and social responsibility approach. This is followed by building a

supportive coalition, defining and communicating a new vision (especially by engaging top
OVERCOMING BARRIERS TO SOCIAL INTRAPRENEURSHIP 105

leadership), systematically removing SI barriers, using early wins to demonstrate the potential

and further expand SI, and, finally, institutionalizing the change through succession planning and

continual reinforcement of the organizational behaviors of social proactiveness, innovation, and

risk-taking.

Social intrapreneurship (SI) can be essential to an organization’s efforts to meet both its

business goals and society’s expectations. SI can also contribute to a more innovative and

entrepreneurial approach to corporate social responsibility. Successfully developing management

strategies to overcome barriers to effective SI implementation can result in stronger business

performance, better stakeholder engagement, and improved competitive edge in the marketplace.
OVERCOMING BARRIERS TO SOCIAL INTRAPRENEURSHIP 106

References

(References marked with an asterisk indicate studies included in the systematic review.)

ACCP (n.d.). Corporate social responsibility: A brief history. Association of Corporate

Citizenship Professionals (ACCP). https://accp.org/resources/csr-resources/accp-insights-

blog/corporate-social-responsibility-brief-history/

* Agrawal, A., & Sahasranamam, S. (2016). Corporate social entrepreneurship in India. South

Asian Journal of Global Business Research, 5(2), 214–233.

https://doi.org/10.1108/SAJGBR-12-2014-0098

Ajzen, I., & Fishbein, M. (1973). Attitudinal and normative variables as predictors of specific

behavior. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 27(1), 41–57.

https://doi.org/10.1037/h0034440

Alarifi, G., Robson, P., & Kromidha, E. (2019). The manifestation of entrepreneurial orientation

in the social entrepreneurship context. Journal of Social Entrepreneurship, 10(3), 307–

327. https://doi.org/10.1080/19420676.2018.1541015

Aldrich, H. E. (1972). Technology and organization structure: A reexamination of the findings of

the Aston Group. Administrative Science Quarterly, 17(1), 26–43.

https://doi.org/10.2307/2392089

Allport, G. W., & Schanck, R. L. (1936). Are attitudes biological or cultural in origin? Character

& Personality, 4(3), 195–205. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-6494.1936.tb02122.x

Alt, E., & Craig, J. B. (2016). Selling issues with solutions: Igniting social intrapreneurship in

for-profit organizations. Journal of Management Studies, 53(5), 794–820.

https://doi.org/10.1111/joms.12200
OVERCOMING BARRIERS TO SOCIAL INTRAPRENEURSHIP 107

Alt, E., & Geradts, T. (2019, August 9). Social intrapreneurship: Unique challenges and

opportunities for future research [Conference session]. 2019 AOM Annual Meeting,

Boston, Massachusetts. https://doi.org/10.5465/AMBPP.2019.188

Anderson, B. S., Kreiser, P. M., Kuratko, D. F., Hornsby, J. S., & Eshima, Y. (2015).

Reconceptualizing entrepreneurial orientation. Strategic Management Journal, 36(10),

1579–1596. https://doi.org/10.1002/smj.2298

Aparicio, S., Turro, A., & Noguera, M. (2020). Entrepreneurship and intrapreneurship in social,

sustainable, and economic development: Opportunities and challenges for future

research. Sustainability, 12(21), 1–11. https://doi.org/10.3390/su12218958

* Arogyaswamy, B., & Elmer, W. (2010). Corporate social entrepreneurship: Concepts and a

case study. Journal of International Business Education, 5, 29–42.

https://doi.org/10.4135/9781526461056

Aspen Institute. (n.d.). First movers fellowship program. Aspen Institute.

https://www.aspeninstitute.org/programs/business-and-society-program/first-movers-

fellowship-program/

Barends, E., Rousseau, D. M., & Briner, R. B. (2017). CEBMa guideline for rapid evidence

assessments in management and organizations (Version 1.0). Center for Evidence Based

Management, Amsterdam. https://cebma.org/assets/Uploads/CEBMa-REA-Guideline.pdf

Barnes, B. (2022, April 21). Disney to lose special tax status in Florida amid ‘don’t say gay’

clash. The New York Times. https://www.nytimes.com/2022/04/21/business/disney-

florida-special-tax-status.html

Baron, D. P. (2003). Corporate social responsibility. In D. P. Baron (Ed.), Business and its

environment (4th ed.) (pp. 642–681). Pearson.

OVERCOMING BARRIERS TO SOCIAL INTRAPRENEURSHIP 108

Bloom, N., Sadun, R., & Van Reenen, J. (2016). Management as a technology? (Working Paper

No. 22327). National Bureau of Economic Research (NBER).

http://doi.org/10.3386/w22327

Bonnici, F., & Bruysten, S. (2020, April 6). Why we need social intrapreneurs more than ever

during COVID-19. World Economic Forum.

https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2020/04/covid-19-coronavirus-social-intrapreneurship/

Bowen, H. R. (1953). Social responsibilities of the businessman. University of Iowa Press.

https://doi.org/10.2307/j.ctt20q1w8f

Breast Cancer Action. (n.d.). Think before you pink – 2019 campaign.

https://www.bcaction.org/about-think-before-you-pink/campaigns/

Briner, R. B., Denyer, D., & Rousseau, D. M. (2009). Evidence-based management: Concept

cleanup time? Academy of Management Perspectives, 23(4), 19–32.

https://doi.org/10.5465/amp.23.4.19

Brown, T. J., & Dacin, P. A. (1997). The company and the product: Corporate associations and

consumer product responses. Journal of Marketing, 61(1), 68–84.

https://doi.org/10.2307/1252190

Buendía-Martínez, I., & Monteagudo, I. C. (2020). The role of CSR on social entrepreneurship:

An international analysis. Sustainability, 12(17), 1–23.

https://doi.org/10.3390/su12176976

Burnes, B., & Cooke, B. (2013). Kurt Lewin’s field theory: A review and re-evaluation.

International Journal of Management Reviews, 15(4), 408–425.

https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2370.2012.00348.x
OVERCOMING BARRIERS TO SOCIAL INTRAPRENEURSHIP 109

Business Fights Poverty. (2018, September 24). The Intrapreneurship ecosystem: Creating the

conditions for social intrapreneurs to thrive. https://businessfightspoverty.org/the-

intrapreneurship-ecosystem-creating-the-conditions-for-social-intrapreneurs-to-thrive/

Business Roundtable. (2019, August 19). Business Roundtable redefines the purpose of a

corporation to promote ‘an economy that serves all Americans.’

https://www.businessroundtable.org/business-roundtable-redefines-the-purpose-of-a-

corporation-to-promote-an-economy-that-serves-all-americans

Cameron, K. S., & Quinn, R. E. (2011). Diagnosing and changing organizational culture (3rd

ed.). Jossey-Bass.

Cantele, S., Vernizzi, S., & Campedelli, B. (2020). Untangling the origins of sustainable

commitment: New insights on the small vs. large firms’ debate. Sustainability, 12(2),1–

12. https://doi.org/10.3390/su12020671

Carroll, A. B. (1979). A three-dimensional conceptual model of corporate performance. Academy

of Management Review, 4(4), 497–505. https://doi.org/10.2307/257850

Carroll, A. B. (1991). The pyramid of corporate social responsibility: Toward the moral

management of organizational stakeholders. Business Horizons, 34(4), 39–48.

https://doi.org/10.1016/0007-6813(91)90005-G

* Chang, Y. Y., Liu, Y. P., & Chang, C. Y. (2019). A multilevel examination of entrepreneurial

orientation and corporate entrepreneurship: The joint impact of unit-level social capital

and firm-level transformational leadership. Entrepreneurship Research Journal, 9(4), 1–

19. https://doi.org/10.1515/erj-2018-0130

Charan, R., & Freeman, R. E. (1980). Planning for the business environment of the 1980s.

Journal of Business Strategy, 1(2), 9–19. https://doi.org/10.1108/eb038895

OVERCOMING BARRIERS TO SOCIAL INTRAPRENEURSHIP 110

Chenavaz, R. Y., Couston, A., Heichelbech, S., Pignatel, I., & Dimitrov, S. (2023). Corporate

social responsibility and entrepreneurial ventures: A conceptual framework and research

agenda. Sustainability, 15(11), 1–30. https://doi.org/10.3390/su15118849

Cole, G. A., & Kelly, P. (2011). Management: Theory and practice. Cengage Learning EMEA.

Collins, C. J., & Clark, K. D. (2003). Strategic human resource practices, top management team

social networks, and firm performance: The role of human resource practices in creating

organizational competitive advantage. The Academy of Management Journal, 46(6), 740–

751. https://doi.org/10.5465/30040665

Collins, C. S., & Stockton, C. M. (2018). The central role of theory in qualitative research.

International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 17(1), 1–10.

https://doi.org/10.1177/1609406918797475

Cordell, K., & Li, C. (2021, April 12). It’s time for the United States to reengage with the SDGs,

starting with SDG 16. Center for Strategic & International Studies.

https://www.csis.org/analysis/its-time-united-states-reengage-sdgs-starting-sdg-16

Covin, J. G., & Slevin, D. P. (1989). Strategic management of small firms in hostile and benign

environments. Strategic Management Journal, 10(1), 75–87.

https://doi.org/10.1002/smj.4250100107

Cutter, C., & Glazer, E. (2024, January 9). The latest dirty word in corporate America: ESG. The

Wall Street Journal. https://www.wsj.com/business/the-latest-dirty-word-in-corporate-

america-esg-9c776003?mod=djem10point

* Darcis, A., Hahn, R., & Alt, E. (2023). Putting entrepreneurship in corporate change agency: A

typology of social intrapreneurs. Business Ethics, the Environment & Responsibility

(Advance online publication). https://doi.org/10.1111/beer.12600

OVERCOMING BARRIERS TO SOCIAL INTRAPRENEURSHIP 111

Davis, G. F., & White, C. J. (2015). Changing your company from the inside out: A guide for

social intrapreneurs. Harvard Business Review Press.

Davidson, D. K., Tanimoto, K., Jun, L. G., Taneja, S., Pawan, K., Taneja, P. K., & Yin, J.

(2018). Corporate social responsibility across Asia: A review of four countries. In J.

Weber & D. M. Wasieleski (Eds.), Corporate social responsibility (pp. 73–132). Emerald

Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1108/S2514-175920180000002003

Dees, J. G. (1998). The meaning of “social entrepreneurship.” Stanford University.

https://web.stanford.edu/group/e145/cgi-bin/spring/upload/handouts/dees_SE.pdf

* Ding, Y., & Hu, Y. (2022). The decentralization effects of entrepreneurial characteristics on

corporate social responsibility. PLoS ONE, 17(11), 1–15.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0278030

Donaldson, L. (2013). Organizational structure and design. In E. H. Kessler (Ed.), Encyclopedia

of management theory (Vol. 2, pp. 570–574). SAGE.

https://doi.org/10.4135/9781452276090

Eden, J., Berg, A., Levit, L., & Morton, S. (2011). Finding what works in health care: Standards

for systematic reviews. National Academies Press. https://doi.org/10.17226/13059

Elkington, J. (2006). Governance for sustainability. Corporate Governance: An International

Review, 14(6), 522–529. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8683.2006.00527.x

Elkington, J. (2008). The social intrapreneur: A field guide for corporate changemakers.

SustainAbility.

https://www.allianz.com/content/dam/onemarketing/azcom/Allianz_com/migration/medi

a/current/en/press/news/studies/downloads/thesocialintrapreneur_2008.pdf.
OVERCOMING BARRIERS TO SOCIAL INTRAPRENEURSHIP 112

Elkington, J. (2018). 25 years ago I coined the phrase “triple bottom line.” Here’s why it’s time

to rethink it. Harvard Business Review Digital Articles, 2–5. https://hbr.org/2018/06/25-

years-ago-i-coined-the-phrase-triple-bottom-line-heres-why-im-giving-up-on-it

Ethosolutions. (n.d.). World of Good by eBay: Fair trade online shop and Ethosolution idea eco

friendly store. https://ethosolutions.org/world-of-good-by-ebay-fair-trade-online-shop-

and-eco-friendly-store/

Federal Trade Commission. (2022, April 8). FTC uses penalty offense authority to seek largest-

ever civil penalty for bogus bamboo marketing from Kohl’s and Walmart [Press release].

https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/news/press-releases/2022/04/ftc-uses-penalty-offense-

authority-seek-largest-ever-civil-penalty-bogus-bamboo-marketing-kohls

* Forster, F., & Grichnik, D. (2013). Social entrepreneurial intention formation of corporate

volunteers. Journal of Social Entrepreneurship, 4(2), 153–181.

https://doi.org/10.1080/19420676.2013.777358

* Franco-Leal, N., & Diaz-Carrion, R. (2022). How financing and information drive international

corporate entrepreneurs’ innovations. Journal of International Entrepreneurship, 20(2),

316–343. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10843-021-00285-9

Frederick, W. C. (2018). Corporate social responsibility: From founders to millennials. In J.

Weber & D. M. Wasieleski (Eds.), Corporate social responsibility (pp. 3–38). Emerald

Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1108/S2514-175920180000002001

Freeman, R. E., & Reed, D. L. (1983). Stockholders and stakeholders: A new perspective on

corporate governance. California Management Review, 25(3), 88–106.

https://doi.org/10.2307/41165018
OVERCOMING BARRIERS TO SOCIAL INTRAPRENEURSHIP 113

Friedman, M. (1970, September 13). A Friedman doctrine – The social responsibility of business

is to increase its profits. The New York Times, Section SM, 17.

https://www.nytimes.com/1970/09/13/archives/a-friedman-doctrine-the-social-

responsibility-of-business-is-to.html

* Gallardo-Vázquez, D., Herrador-Alcaide, T. C., & de la Cruz Sánchez-Domínguez, J. (2024).

Developing a measurement scale of corporate socially responsible entrepreneurship in

sustainable management. Review of Management Science, 18, 1377–1426.

https://doi.org/10.1007/s11846-023-00658-5

* Galván-Vela, E., Mercader, V., & Ravina-Ripoll, R. (2023). The ethics and social mission of

workers and their relationship to social intrapreneurship. Anduli: Revista Andaluza de

Ciencias Sociales, 23, 137–157. https://doi.org/10.12795/anduli.2023.i23.08

García-Sánchez, I. M., Hussain, N., Aibar-Guzmán, C., & Aibar-Guzmán, B. (2022). Assurance

of corporate social responsibility reports: Does it reduce decoupling practices? Business

Ethics, the Environment & Responsibility, 31(1), 118–138.

https://doi.org/10.1111/beer.12394

Gast, A., Illanes, P., Probst, N., Schaninger, B., & Simpson, B. (2020, April 22). Purpose:

Shifting from why to how. McKinsey & Company.

https://www.mckinsey.com/capabilities/people-and-organizational-performance/our-

insights/purpose-shifting-from-why-to-how#/

Geradts, T. H., & Alt, E. (2022). Social entrepreneurial action in established organizations:

Developing the concept of social intrapreneurship. Journal of Business Research, 151,

197–206. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2022.06.047
OVERCOMING BARRIERS TO SOCIAL INTRAPRENEURSHIP 114

Germain, R. (1996). The role of context and structure in radical and incremental logistics

innovation adoption. Journal of Business Research, 35(2), 117–127.

https://doi.org/10.1016/0148-2963(95)00053-4

* Ghauri, P. M., Tasavori, M., & Zaefarian, R. (2014). Internationalisation of service firms

through corporate social entrepreneurship and networking. International Marketing

Review, 31(6), 576–600. https://doi.org/10.1108/IMR-09-2013-0196

* Giang, H. T. T., & Dung, L. T. (2022). The effect of internal corporate social responsibility

practices on firm performance: The mediating role of employee intrapreneurial

behaviour. Review of Managerial Science, 16(4), 1035–1061.

https://doi.org/10.1007/s11846-021-00473-w

Girschik, V., Svystunova, L., & Lysova, E. I. (2022). Transforming corporate social

responsibilities: Toward an intellectual activist research agenda for micro-CSR research.

Human Relations, 75(1), 3–32. https://doi.org/10.1177/0018726720970275

Global Reporting Initiative. (2016). GRI 414: Supplier social assessment 2016. Global Reporting

Initiative. https://www.globalreporting.org/how-to-use-the-gri-standards/gri-standards-

english-language/

* Goldsby, M. G., Kuratko, D. F., Bishop, J. W., Kreiser, P. M., & Hornsby, J. S. (2018). Social

proactiveness and innovation: The impact of stakeholder salience on corporate

entrepreneurship. Journal of Small Business Strategy, 28(2), 1–15.

https://libjournals.mtsu.edu/index.php/jsbs/article/view/691

Gough, D. (2007). Weight of evidence: A framework for the appraisal of the quality and

relevance of evidence. Research Papers in Education, 22(2), 213–228.

https://doi.org/10.1080/02671520701296189
OVERCOMING BARRIERS TO SOCIAL INTRAPRENEURSHIP 115

Grant, C., & Osanloo, A. (2014). Understanding, selecting, and integrating a theoretical

framework in dissertation research: Creating the blueprint for your “house.”

Administrative Issues Journal, 4(2), 12–26. https://dc.swosu.edu/aij/vol4/iss2/4/

* Hadad, S. (2015). Analytic hierarchy process analysis for choosing a corporate social

entrepreneurship strategy. Management & Marketing, 10(3), 186–207.

https://doi.org/10.1515/mmcks-2015-0014

* Halme, M., Lindeman, S., & Linna, P. (2012). Innovation for inclusive business:

Intrapreneurial bricolage in multinational corporations. The Journal of Management

Studies, 49(4), 743–784. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-6486.2012.01045.x

Haski-Leventhal, D., & Glavas, A. (2021, September 23). Social intrapreneurship: Unleashing

social innovation from within. MIT Sloan Blogs.

https://sloanreview.mit.edu/article/social-intrapreneurship-unleashing-social-innovation-

from-within/

Hemingway, C. A. (2013). Corporate social entrepreneurship: Integrity within. Cambridge

University Press.

Hemingway, C. A., & Maclagan, P. W. (2004). Managers’ personal values as drivers of

corporate responsibility. Journal of Business Ethics, 50(1), 33–44.

https://doi.org/10.1023/B:BUSI.0000020964.80208.c9

Heucher, K., Alt, E., Soderstrom, S., Scully, M., & Glavas, A. (2024). Catalyzing action on

social and environmental challenges: An integrative review of insider social change

agents. Academy of Management Annals, 18(1), 295–347.

https://doi.org/10.5465/annals.2022.0205
OVERCOMING BARRIERS TO SOCIAL INTRAPRENEURSHIP 116

* Hidden, K., & Marks, J. T. (2020). Misaligned needs in the pursuit of shared value: A multi-

stakeholder study of the shift from corporate social responsibility to corporate social

entrepreneurship in an emerging economy. Journal of Entrepreneurship and Innovation

in Emerging Economies, 6(2), 363–382. https://doi.org/10.1177/2393957520913766

Hotten, R. (2015, December 10). Volkswagen: The scandal explained. BBC News.

https://www.bbc.com/news/business-34324772

Hodgkinson, G. P., Herriot, P., & Anderson, N. (2001). Re‐aligning the stakeholders in

management research: Lessons from industrial, work and organizational psychology.

British Journal of Management, 12(S1), 41–48. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-

8551.12.s1.5

Hudson, R. (2014). The question of theoretical foundations for the spirituality at work

movement. Journal of Management, Spirituality & Religion, 11(1), 27–44.

https://doi.org/10.1080/14766086.2013.801031

IBM. (2024a, February 28). Beyond checking the box: How to create business value with

embedded sustainability. https://www.ibm.com/thought-leadership/institute-business-

value/en-us/report/sustainability-business-value

IBM. (2024b, March 20). What is the corporate sustainability reporting directive (CSRD)?

https://www.ibm.com/topics/csrd

Ichniowski, B. E., Shaw, K. L., & Prennushi, G. (1995, November). The effects of human

resource management practices on productivity (Working Paper No. w5333). National

Bureau of Economic Research (NBER). https://ssrn.com/abstract=225397

Iranmanesh, M., Kumar, K. M., Foroughi, B., Mavi, R. K., & Min, N. H. (2021). The impacts of

organizational structure on operational performance through innovation capability:

OVERCOMING BARRIERS TO SOCIAL INTRAPRENEURSHIP 117

Innovative culture as moderator. Review of Managerial Science, 15(7), 1885–1911.

https://doi.org/10.1007/s11846-020-00407-y

Jenkins, B. (2018, January 4). Cultivating the social intrapreneur. Stanford Social Innovation

Review. https://doi.org/10.48558/SFEE-6M61

Jones, O. (2019, May 23). Woke-washing: How brands are cashing in on the culture wars. The

Guardian. https://www.theguardian.com/media/2019/may/23/woke-washing-brands-

cashing-in-on-culture-wars-owen-jones

Jourdan, J., Kivleniece, I., & McGahan, A. M. (2022, July 6). Towards a stakeholder-oriented

framework on value creation and allocation [Conference session]. 2022 AOM Annual

Meeting, Seattle, Washington. https://doi.org/10.5465/AMBPP.2022.11184symposium

Kim, S., Karlesky, M. J., Myers, C. G., & Schifeling, T. (2016, June 17). Why companies are

becoming B corporations. Harvard Business Review. https://hbr.org/2016/06/why-

companies-are-becoming-b-corporations

Kim, S., & Schifeling, T. (2022). Good corp, bad corp, and the rise of B corps: How market

incumbents’ diverse responses reinvigorate challengers. Administrative Science

Quarterly, 67(3), 674–720. https://doi.org/10.1177/00018392221091734

* Kistruck, G. M., & Beamish, P. W. (2010). The interplay of form, structure, and embeddedness

in social intrapreneurship. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 34(4), 735–761.

https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-6520.2010.00371.x

Kotter, J. P. (2011). Leading change: Why transformation efforts fail. In J. P. Kotter, W. Chan

Kim, & R. A. Mauborgne (Eds.), HBR's 10 must reads on change management (pp. 1–

16). Harvard Business Review Press.

OVERCOMING BARRIERS TO SOCIAL INTRAPRENEURSHIP 118

Kotter, J. P. (2014). Accelerate: Building strategic agility for a faster-moving world. Harvard

Business Review Press.

Kraus, S., Niemand, T., Halberstadt, J., Shaw, E., & Syrjä, P. (2017). Social entrepreneurship

orientation: Development of a measurement scale. International Journal of

Entrepreneurial Behaviour & Research, 23(6), 977–997. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJEBR-

07-2016-0206

Krueger, N. F. (1993). The impact of prior entrepreneurial exposure on perceptions of new

venture feasibility and desirability. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 18(1), 5–21.

https://doi.org/10.1177/104225879301800101

Kuratko, D. F., Hornsby, J. S., & Covin, J. G. (2014). Diagnosing a firm’s internal environment

for corporate entrepreneurship. Business Horizons, 57(1), 37–47.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bushor.2013.08.009

* Kuratko, D. F., McMullen, J. S., Hornsby, J. S., & Jackson, C. (2017). Is your organization

conducive to the continuous creation of social value? Toward a social corporate

entrepreneurship scale. Business Horizons, 60(3), 271–283.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bushor.2016.12.003

* Layman, C. V., Sasmoko, S., Hamsal, M., & Lim, S. (2023). Social performance: A vital

turning point for better hospital care in Indonesia. Journal of Industrial Integration and

Management, 8(01), 83–112. https://doi.org/10.1142/S242486222250018X

le Roux, H., & De Pree, M. (2018, November 12). How to create the conditions for social

intrapreneurs to thrive. Stanford Social Innovation Review.

https://doi.org/10.48558/D9lW-S550
OVERCOMING BARRIERS TO SOCIAL INTRAPRENEURSHIP 119

Lewin, S., Booth, A., Glenton, C., Munthe-Kaas, H., Rashidian, A., Wainwright, M., Bohren, M.

A., Tunçalp, O., Colvin, C. J., Garside, R., Carlsen, B., Langlois, E. V., & Noyes, J.

(2018). Applying GRADE-CERQual to qualitative evidence synthesis findings:

Introduction to the series. Implementation Science, 13(S1), 1–10.

https://doi.org/10.1186/s13012-017-0688-3

* Luu, T. D. (2022). Spiritual leadership and corporate social entrepreneurial orientation: The

mediating role of workplace spirituality. Leadership & Organization Development

Journal, 43(8), 1353–1375. https://doi.org/10.1108/LODJ-05-2022-0244

March, J. G., & Simon, H. A. (1993). Organizations revisited. Industrial and Corporate Change,

2(3), 299–316. https://doi.org/10.1093/icc/2.3.299

Marti, E., Risi, D., Schlindwein, E., & Athanasopoulou, A. (2024, March 27). Corporate social

responsibility creating a corporate social responsibility program with real impact.

Harvard Business Review. https://hbr.org/2024/03/creating-a-corporate-social-

responsibility-program-with-real-impact

* Malaj, A., Zaim, S., Bayyurt, N., & Tarim, M. (2023). ESIB’s antecedents: An analytic

hierarchy process application in the manufacturing industry in Albania. Sustainability,

15(18), 1–20. https://doi.org/10.3390/su151813838

McGaw, N. (2024). Making work matter: How to create positive change in your company and

meaning in your career. Royal Oak Press.

McGaw, N., & Malinsky, E. (2020). Unlocking the potential of corporate social

intrapreneurship: A call to scholars [Research paper]. Aspen Institute.

https://www.aspeninstitute.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/Unlocking-the-Potential-of-

Corporate-Social-Intrapreneurship.pdf
OVERCOMING BARRIERS TO SOCIAL INTRAPRENEURSHIP 120

McKinsey & Company. (2023). What is diversity, equity, and inclusion? McKinsey & Company.

https://www.mckinsey.com/featured-insights/mckinsey-explainers/what-is-diversity-

equity-and-inclusion#/

McWilliams, A., & Siegel, D. (2001). Corporate social responsibility: A theory of the firm

perspective. The Academy of Management Review, 26(1), 117–127.

https://doi.org/10.2307/259398

Miller, D. (1983). The correlates of entrepreneurship in three types of firms. Management

Science, 29(7), 770–791. https://doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.29.7.770

Miller, D. (2011). Miller (1983) revisited: A reflection on EO research and some suggestions for

the future. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 35(5), 873–894.

https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-6520.2011.00457.x

* Mirvis, P., Herrera, M. E. B., Googins, B., & Albareda, L. (2016). Corporate social innovation:

How firms learn to innovate for the greater good. Journal of Business Research, 69(11),

5014–5021. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2016.04.073

* Mirvis, P., & Googins, B. (2018). Engaging employees as social innovators. California

Management Review, 60(4), 25–50. https://doi.org/10.1177/0008125618779062

Moher, D., Liberati, A., Tetzlaff, J., & Altman, D. G. (2009). Preferred reporting items for

systematic reviews and meta-analyses: The PRISMA statement. Annals of Internal

Medicine, 151(4), 264–269. https://doi.org/10.7326/0003-4819-151-4-200908180-00136

* Nandan, M., London, M., & Bent-Goodley, T. (2015). Social workers as social change agents:

Social innovation, social intrapreneurship, and social entrepreneurship. Human Service

Organizations: Management, Leadership & Governance, 39(1), 38–56.

https://doi.org/10.1080/23303131.2014.955236
OVERCOMING BARRIERS TO SOCIAL INTRAPRENEURSHIP 121

Paine, L. S. (2003). Value shift: Why companies must merge social and financial imperatives to

achieve superior performance (1st ed.). McGraw-Hill.

Panwar, R., Nawani, S., & Pandey, V. (2018). Legislated CSR: A brief introduction. In J. Weber

& D. M. Wasieleski (Eds.), Corporate social responsibility (pp. 133–146). Emerald

Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1108/S2514-175920180000002004

Peters, T. J., & Waterman, R. H. (1982). In search of excellence: Lessons from America’s best

run companies. Harper & Row.

Pluye, P., Robert, E., Cargo, M., Bartlett, G., O’Cathain, A., Griffiths, F., Boardman, F., Gagnon,

M. P., & Rousseau, M. C. (2011). Proposal: A mixed methods appraisal tool for

systematic mixed studies reviews. PB Works.

http://mixedmethodsappraisaltoolpublic.pbworks.com

Porter, M. E., & Kramer, M. R. (2011). Creating shared value. Harvard Business Review,

89(1/2), 62–77. https://www.hbs.edu/faculty/Pages/item.aspx?num=39071

Prentice, C., Schoeder, P., & Moise, I. (2020, February 21). Wells Fargo to pay $3 billion to

U.S., admits pressuring workers in fake-accounts scandal. Reuters.

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-wells-fargo-scandal-deal-idUSKBN20F2KN/

Preston, L. E., & Post, I. E. (1975). Private management and public policy: The principle of

public responsibility. Prentice-Hall.

Rendtorff, J. D. (2011). Institutionalization of corporate ethics and corporate social responsibility

programmes in firms. In K. Buhmann, L. Roseberry, & M. Morsing (Eds.), Corporate

social and human rights responsibilities (pp. 244–265). Palgrave Macmillan.

https://doi.org/10.1057/9780230294615_12
OVERCOMING BARRIERS TO SOCIAL INTRAPRENEURSHIP 122

Rendtorff, J. D. (2020). Corporate citizenship, stakeholder management and sustainable

development goals (SDGs) in financial institutions and capital markets. Journal of

Capital Markets Studies, 4(1), 47–59. https://doi.org/10.1108/JCMS-06-2020-0021

Rendtorff, J. D. (2023). Socially responsible innovation between corporate social responsibility

and social entrepreneurship: Towards holistic integration of stakeholder management,

ethics, and sustainable development goals. In L. L. Langergaard, K. Dupret, & J.

Eschweiler (Eds.), Learning about social entrepreneurship and management in times of

social transformation (pp. 79–93). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-47708-

9_6

Roberson, Q., Avery, D. R., & Leigh, A. (2024). Lights, camera, action: Moving beyond

performance diversity management to drive change. Academy of Management

Perspectives, 38(2), 197–213. https://doi.org/10.5465/amp.2021.0188

Robles, M. M. (2012). Executive perceptions of the top 10 soft skills needed in today’s

workplace. Business Communication Quarterly, 75(4), 453–465.

https://doi.org/10.1177/1080569912460400

Rojon, C., Okupe, A., & McDowall, A. (2021). Utilization and development of systematic

reviews in management research: What do we know and where do we go from here?

International Journal of Management Reviews, 23(2), 191–223.

https://doi.org/10.1111/ijmr.12245

Saldaña, J. (2021). The coding manual for qualitative researchers. Sage.

* Salim Saji, B., & Ellingstad, P. (2016). Social innovation model for business performance and

innovation. International Journal of Productivity and Performance Management, 65(2),

256–274. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJPPM-10-2015-0147
OVERCOMING BARRIERS TO SOCIAL INTRAPRENEURSHIP 123

Sayilar, Y. (2016). The past, present and future of structural contingence theory. Is, Güc:

Endüstri Iliskileri Ve Insan Kaynaklari Dergisi, 18(4), 99–124.

https://www.proquest.com/docview/1926956889?sourcetype=Scholarly%20Journals

Schumpeter, J. A. (2021). The theory of economic development. [Routledge Classics]. Taylor &

Francis. (Originally work published 1934)

Schwartz, S. H., & Bilsky, W. (1987). Toward a universal psychological structure of human

values. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 53(3), 550.

https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.53.3.550

* Schwittay, A. (2011). The marketization of poverty. Current Anthropology, 52(3), 71–82

https://doi.org/10.1086/656472

* Schyvinck, C., Babiak, K., Constandt, B., & Willem, A. (2021). What does entrepreneurship

add to the understanding of corporate social responsibility management in sport? Journal

of Sport Management, 35(5), 452–464. https://doi.org/10.1123/jsm.2020-0356

Sethi, S. P. (1979). A conceptual framework for environmental analysis of social issues and

evaluation of business response patterns. Academy of Management Review, 4(1), 63–74.

https://doi.org/10.2307/257404

Shadish, W. R., Cook, T. D., & Campbell, D. T. (2002). Experimental and quasi-experimental

designs for generalized causal inference. Houghton Mifflin.

* Sharifi-Tehrani, M. (2023). Corporate social entrepreneurial orientation in the hospitality and

tourism industry: A religiosity perspective. International Journal of Contemporary

Hospitality Management, 35(8), 2890–2915. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJCHM-04-2022-

0461
OVERCOMING BARRIERS TO SOCIAL INTRAPRENEURSHIP 124

* Silvestri, A., & Veltri, S. (2020). Exploring the relationships between corporate social

responsibility, leadership, and sustainable entrepreneurship theories: A conceptual

framework. Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, 27(2),

585–594. https://doi.org/10.1002/csr.1822

* Spitzeck, H., Boechat, C., & Leão, S. F. (2013). Sustainability as a driver for innovation –

Towards a model of corporate social entrepreneurship at Odebrecht in Brazil. Corporate

Governance, 13(5), 613–625. https://doi.org/10.1108/CG-06-2013-0080

Starkey, K., & Madan, P. (2001). Bridging the relevance gap: Aligning stakeholders in the future

of management research. British Journal of Management, 12(S1), 3–26.

https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-8551.12.s1.2

Sulphey, M. M., & Salim, A. (2020). Development of a tool to measure social entrepreneurial

orientation. Journal of Entrepreneurship in Emerging Economies, 13(2), 231–253.

https://doi.org/10.1108/JEEE-07-2019-0099

Tabuchi, H. (2024, May 28). Lawyers to plastics makers: Prepare for ‘astronomical’ PFAS

lawsuits. The New York Times. https://www.nytimes.com/2024/05/28/climate/pfas-

forever-chemicals-industry-lawsuits.html

* Tasavori, M., Ghauri, P. N., & Zaefarian, R. (2016). Entering the base of the pyramid market

in India: A corporate social entrepreneurship perspective. International Marketing

Review, 33(4), 555–579. https://doi.org/10.1108/IMR-03-2014-0085

* Tavakoli, N., & De Sisto, M. D. (2021). Social intrapreneurship: The foundation of CSR

practices. International Journal of Technology Management, 85(2–4), 230–254.

https://doi.org/10.1504/IJTM.2021.115284
OVERCOMING BARRIERS TO SOCIAL INTRAPRENEURSHIP 125

The League of Intrapreneurs. (n.d.). The League of Intrapreneurs.

https://www.leagueofintrapreneurs.com/

Thomas, J., & Harden, A. (2008). Methods for the thematic synthesis of qualitative research in

systematic reviews. BMC Medical Research Methodology, 8(45), 1–10.

https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2288-8-45

Tilt, C. A. (2016). Corporate social responsibility research: the importance of context.

International Journal Corporate of Social Responsibility, 1(2), 1–9.

https://doi.org/10.1186/s40991-016-0003-7

Tucker, J. J., III, & Jones, S. (2020). Environmental, social, and governance investing: Investor

demand, the great wealth transfer, and strategies for ESG investing. Journal of Financial

Service Professionals, 74(3), 56–75.

https://digitaleditions.sheridan.com/publication/?i=657585&article_id=3654132&view=a

rticleBrowser

* Urmanaviciene, A., Arachchi, U. S. (2020). The effective methods and practices for

accelerating social entrepreneurship through corporate social responsibility. European

Journal of Social Impact and Circular Economy, 1(2), 27–47.

https://doi.org/10.13135/2704-9906/5085

U.N. General Assembly. (2015, October 21). Transforming our world: The 2030 agenda for

sustainable development. Resolution A/RES/70/1. New York: United Nations.

https://www.un.org/en/development/desa/population/migration/generalassembly/docs/glo

balcompact/A_RES_70_1_E.pdf
OVERCOMING BARRIERS TO SOCIAL INTRAPRENEURSHIP 126

Upshaw, T. (2021, September 17). Your CSR strategy needs to be goal driven, achievable, and

authentic. Harvard Business Review. https://hbr.org/2021/09/your-csr-strategy-needs-to-

be-goal-driven-achievable-and-authentic

* Veeran, L., & Srinivasan, C. (2019). Social intrapreneurs: Innovators in making business

sustainable. International Journal of Advanced Science and Technology, 28(17), 791–

799. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/348391722

Venkatesh, V., Brown, S. A., & Bala, H. (2013). Bridging the qualitative-quantitative divide:

Guidelines for conducting mixed methods research in information systems. MIS

Quarterly, 37(1), 21–54. http://www.jstor.org/stable/43825936

Venn, R., & Berg, N. (2013). Building competitive advantage through social intrapreneurship.

South Asian Journal of Global Business Research, 2(1), 104–127.

https://doi.org/10.1108/20454451311303310

* Vinicius de Oliveira Brasil, M., Correia de Oliveira, F., Tassigny, M. M., & Silveira Fontenele,

R. E. (2013). Sustainable entrepreneurship in the energy sector: A perspective from a

Brazilian power utility firm. Revista de Gestão Ambiental e Sustentabilidade: GeAS, 2(2),

1–23. https://periodicos.uninove.br/geas/article/view/9796 85/geas.v2i2.61

Walker, K.D. (2023). Force-field analysis. In J. M. Okoko, S. Tunison, & K. D. Walker (Eds.),

Varieties of qualitative research methods (pp. 197–201). Springer Texts in Education.

https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-04394-9_32

Wang, A., & Yee, C. (2023). A literature review of social entrepreneurship. Open Journal of

Business and Management, 11, 2232–2246. https://doi.org/10.4236/ojbm.2023.115123

Weber, J., & Wasieleski, D. M. (Eds.). (2018). Corporate social responsibility. Emerald

Publishing.
OVERCOMING BARRIERS TO SOCIAL INTRAPRENEURSHIP 127

Westerman, J. W., Acikgoz, Y., Nafees, L., & Westerman, J. (2022). When sustainability

managers greenwash: SDG fit and effects on job performance and attitudes. Business and

Society Review, 127(2), 371–393. https://doi.org/10.1111/basr.12273

Whelan, T. (2024, May 21). Corporate boards have never been more prepared to face down the

anti-ESG backlash, new research finds. Fortune Media Corporation.

https://fortune.com/2024/05/21/corporate-boards-have-never-been-more-prepared-to-

face-down-the-anti-esg-backlash-new-research-finds/

Wood, D. J. (1991). Corporate social performance revisited. The Academy of Management

Review, 16(4), 691–718. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.1991.4279616

* Xie, Q., Islam, M. U., Su, Y. Y., Khan, A., Hishan, S. S., & Lone, S. A. (2022). The

investigation of sustainable environmental performance of manufacturing companies:

Mediating role of organizational support and moderating role of CSR. Economic

Research, 35(1), 4128–4148. https://doi.org/10.1080/1331677X.2021.2011369

* Zhuang, Y., Lee, Y., Chang, X., & Kim, R. B. (2020). Entrepreneurial orientation and

corporate social responsibility performance: An empirical study of state-controlled and

privately controlled firms in China. Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental

Management, 27(1), 383–392. https://doi.org/10.1002/csr.1872

OVERCOMING BARRIERS TO SOCIAL INTRAPRENEURSHIP 128

Appendix A

Databases Searched

OneSearch Databases Descrip on

Business Source Ul mate Business/management ar cles, company profiles, case
studies, from 1886 to present
Emerald Insight Ar cles about interna onal business, marke ng, human
resources, management, organiza onal development, library
management, etc.
ScienceDirect Ar cles and books covering the physical sciences, engineering,
life sciences, health sciences, social sciences, and humani es,
from 1995 to present
JSTOR Ar cles and books from many subject areas (anthropology,
art, business, educa on, history, literature, science, etc.) from
the 1900s to present
APA PsycInfo Ar cles, book chapters, case studies, empirical studies, etc.,
for psychology and the behavioral/social sciences, from the
1800s to present
APA PsycAr cles Full-text ar cles from psychology journals published by the
American Psychological Associa on and allied organiza ons,
from 1894 to present
Psychology and Behavioral Ar cles from scholarly psychology journals; dates of coverage
Sciences Collec on vary by journal tle
SocINDEX with full text Sociology-related ar cles and abstracts, as well as books and
conference papers, from 1895 to present

Addi onal Databases Descrip on

ABI/INFORM Business/management ar cles, company profiles, case
studies, industry reports, country reports, etc., from 1923 to
present. Includes ABI/INFORM Dateline, ABI/INFORM Global,
and ABI/INFORM Trade & Industry.
Scopus Abstract and cita on database of peer-reviewed literature
Source: UMGC Doctor of Administration Subject Guide (https://libguides.umgc.edu/dba)
OVERCOMING BARRIERS TO SOCIAL INTRAPRENEURSHIP 129

Appendix B

PRISMA Flow Diagram

OVERCOMING BARRIERS TO SOCIAL INTRAPRENEURSHIP 130

Appendix C

Data Extraction Chart

Sector & Purpose, Design

Article Source Main Findings Effect Size Limitations
Population & Sample Size
Agrawal & Emerald India-based How corporations 1) Prevalent social N/A Qualitative study of
Sahasranamam Insight corporations can adopt SI (p. problems, govt. three cases in one
(2016) 2) incentives, and country, subject to
Interviews with corporate capabilities selection bias,
one mid-level spur SI (pp. 13–14) limits
manager from 2) Higher corporate generalization (p.
three investments yield 20)
organizations, greater impact (p. 16)
analysis of 3) Positive outcomes
background yield greater future
materials (p. 7) investment (p. 18)

Arogyaswamy ABI/ US-based How MNC 1) Importance of N/A Qualitative study of

& Elmer (2010) INFORM MNC deployed SIs in senior executive one MNC
response to a commitment (p. 36) responding to one
natural disaster 2) Company local disaster,
(p. 29) investment of subject to potential
Interviews and resources and finances bias, limits
literature review (p. 36) generalization
of company 3) Partnership with
response to India local NGO (p. 37)
tsunami of 2004 4) Evolution from
emergency response to
sustainable capability
(p. 41)
OVERCOMING BARRIERS TO SOCIAL INTRAPRENEURSHIP 131

Sector & Purpose, Design

Article Source Main Findings Effect Size Limitations
Population & Sample Size
Chang et al. Business National and Examine strength 1) Statistically All effects Quantitative study
(2019) Source MNCs in of the relationship significant relationship statistically at the unit-level for
Ultimate Taiwan between unit- between unit-level EO significant at p < a cross-section of
level and CE is positively 0.05 (p. 11) companies from
entrepreneurial moderated by unit- one country, limits
orientation (EO), level SC spanning generalization (p.
unit-level inside and outside of 14)
corporate the organization (p.
entrepreneurship 11)
(CE), and social 2) Stronger
capital (SC) (p. 1) moderating effect of
Survey of 372 unit-level SC when
unit managers in firm-level
93 units of 31 transformational
cross-industry leadership (TL) is
companies (p. 7) lower (p. 11)

Darcis et al. Scopus Large and Identify pathways 1) SIs can either be N/A Qualitative nature
(2023) very large for SI adoption initiators or explorers and small sample
global (p. 1) of ideas generated limit generalization
organizations Interviews of 49 elsewhere (p. 7) (p. 12)
individuals self- 2) SIs can operate
identified as SIs within traditional lines
and curated of business or within
through in-person sustainability
and online departments (p. 7)
techniques (p. 4)
OVERCOMING BARRIERS TO SOCIAL INTRAPRENEURSHIP 132

Sector & Purpose, Design

Article Source Main Findings Effect Size Limitations
Population & Sample Size
Ding & Hu Scopus China A-share How corporate The relationship All effects One country, novel
(2022) companies power between statistically use of CPD model,
ranked by distribution entrepreneurial significant at p < limits
Rankins CSR (CPD) impacts characteristics (EC) 0.05 (p. 11) generalization
Ratings from corporate social and CSP is mediated
2009 to 2017 performance by decentralized CPD,
(CSP) (p. 1) and executive: 1)
Analysis of 2,061 gender and age, 2)
companies (p. 5) education, 3)
compensation
structure (pp. 11–12)

Forster & Business Logistics Examine Individual behavioral All effects Data generated
Grichnik (2013) Source MNC antecedents of SI intentions of SIs statistically within a single
Ultimate intentions (p. positively related to significant at p < organization, limits
153) perceived desirability 0.05 (pp. 165–169) generalization
Case-based and perceived
quantitative feasibility (p. 169)
analysis of 200
employees (p.
161)
OVERCOMING BARRIERS TO SOCIAL INTRAPRENEURSHIP 133

Sector & Purpose, Design

Article Source Main Findings Effect Size Limitations
Population & Sample Size
Franco-Leal & Business International How sources of 1. National public All effects Correlation not
Diaz-Carrion Source Spanish firms funding and funding positively statistically causal relationship
(2022) Ultimate from 2004 to information related to social significant at p < established, use of
2014 impact programs for 0.001 (p. 333) aggregated data
international SIs employment and limits
(p. 316) environment (p. 333) generalization (p.
Technological 2. Funding from 338)
Innovation Panel foreign sources
(PITEC) of 4,748 positively related to
firms (pp. 326– environmental
327) programs (p. 333)

Gallardo- Scopus Companies in Develop and 12 factors and 76 Standardized root Exploratory study
Vázquez et al. one Spanish validate a scale to items were validated mean square of tool for
(2024) region assess corporate through exploratory residual (SRMR) measuring SI traits
socially factor analysis (EFA) produced in a limited number
responsible and confirmatory satisfactory values of subjects in a
entrepreneurs’ factor analysis (CFA) well below the defined region of
(CSRS) traits (p. of a survey of 95 standard 0.08 one county (p.
1377) individuals (pp. 1396– upper limit (p. 1414)
A questionnaire 1403) 1400)
was administered
to 95 respondents
from a range of
company sizes,
sectors, and
positions (p.
1392)
OVERCOMING BARRIERS TO SOCIAL INTRAPRENEURSHIP 134

Sector & Purpose, Design

Article Source Main Findings Effect Size Limitations
Population & Sample Size
Galván-Vela et ABI/ Large national Examine the 1) Found no Statistically All data came from
al. (2023) INFORM companies in impact of social significant relationship significant (p. 147) a single geographic
North Mexico mission and between individual region and culture,
business ethics on ethics and SI (p. 151) which limits
SI (p. 137) 2) Found a statistically generalization. No
603 survey significant relationship causal relationship
responses from between individual can be inferred (p.
conveniently social mission and SI 151).
identified and (p. 151)
self-selecting
professionals (p.
144)

Ghauri et al. ABI/ MNCs How employing MNC SIs and NGOs N/A Findings are based
(2014) INFORM operating in SI and non- benefit from on six MNCs
India governmental collaboration when operating in BoP
organizations addressing base of markets in one
(NGOs) can pyramid (BoP) country, limits
address bottom of opportunities through generalization (p.
pyramid (BoP) building awareness 595)
opportunities (p. and offering
576) affordable, acceptable,
25 interviews and available products
with senior and services (p. 592)
managers and
recommended
individuals (p.
581)
OVERCOMING BARRIERS TO SOCIAL INTRAPRENEURSHIP 135

Sector & Purpose, Design

Article Source Main Findings Effect Size Limitations
Population & Sample Size
Giang & Dung ABI/ Large pharma How CSR Firm internal CSR All effects Potential sample
(2022) INFORM firms in practices are practices and firm statistically bias from self-
Vietnam mediated by SI performance significant at p < assessment
behavior (p. positively impacted by 0.001 (p. 1049) questionnaire,
1035) SI behaviors (p. 1049) single country and
Survey of 607 industry, limits
key role generalization.
employees at 33 Model construct
largest needs further
Vietnamese verification (p.
pharmaceutical 1055).
firms (p. 1041)

Goldsby et al. Scopus Senior-level How a company’s “Study’s findings All effects Potential sample
(2018) managers in stakeholder suggest that making statistically bias resulting from
large US salience impacts employees a priority significant at p < participant
Midwestern social issue leads to a more 0.001 (p. 9) selection, limits
corporations proactiveness (p. proactive approach to generalization
1) HR and
Survey of 316 community/environ-
managers (p. 6) mental issues” (p. 10)
OVERCOMING BARRIERS TO SOCIAL INTRAPRENEURSHIP 136

Sector & Purpose, Design

Article Source Main Findings Effect Size Limitations
Population & Sample Size
Hadad (2015) ABI/ Large Examine The most appropriate Using analytical Findings based on a
INFORM Romanian alternative strategies for SI hierarchy process small sample in a
businesses approaches to the adoption are: (a) local (AHP), local specific
adoption of SI (p. development development geography/culture,
185) opportunities, (b) scored .43, .31 for limits
Online transformational transformational generalization (p.
questionnaire sent innovations, (c) innovation, and .26 203)
to 100 business market development for market
executives (p. opportunities (p. 202) development (p.
192) 202)

Halme et al. Scopus MNCs Examine 1) Innovation for N/A Qualitative nature
(2012) serving BoP intrapreneurial inclusivity is and small sample
markets bricolage as a negatively affected by limit generalization
way for middle profit maximization
manager SIs to (p. 756)
innovate pro-poor 2) Bricolage triggered
business models by organizational
(p. 743) constraints and
Semi-structured individual
and unstructured resourcefulness (p.
data collected 764)
from two MNCs 3) The extent to which
over a two-year innovators can pursue
period. (p. 750) intrapreneurial
bricolage depends on
organizational
tolerance (p. 766)
OVERCOMING BARRIERS TO SOCIAL INTRAPRENEURSHIP 137

Sector & Purpose, Design

Article Source Main Findings Effect Size Limitations
Population & Sample Size
Hidden & Scopus MNC with Provide a Findings generated a N/A Qualitative nature
Marks (2020) operations in sustainable model Corporate Social and small sample
South Africa for engagement Alignment Canvas limit generalization
between (CSAC) capturing key
corporate elements of a practical
stakeholders (p. SI model addressing
363) the needs of the MNC
One MNC and and its recipient
two recipient organizations (p. 373)
organizations via
semi-structured
interviews and
secondary data (p.
368)

Kistruck & Scopus Larger for- Answer questions 1) Historically for- N/A Qualitative nature
Beamish (2010) profit on success of SEs profit organizations and small sample
organizations and SIs based on are more successful limit generalization
in South embeddedness than nonprofits in SI
Africa and and structure (p. (p. 747)
Latin America 735) 2) For-profit
Case study of 10 organizational success
organizations; in SI depends on
archival data, achieving a level of
observation, and structural separation to
semi-structured pursue market-based
interviews. (p. activities (p. 753)
740)
OVERCOMING BARRIERS TO SOCIAL INTRAPRENEURSHIP 138

Sector & Purpose, Design

Article Source Main Findings Effect Size Limitations
Population & Sample Size
Kuratko et al. Scopus Midwestern Examine the Social proactiveness Statistically Limitations come
(2017) US creation of a was found to have significant from self-reported
corporations corporate social significance in manager
entrepreneurship predicting the number perceptions at one
scale (SCES) to of new SI ideas; moment in time,
measure SI additional factors of and one region of
antecedents (p. transparency, rewards, the US (p. 280)
271) work discretion, and
Survey of 500 time availability were
senior-level also positively
business correlated (p. 280)
managers: 152
respondents
(30.36%) (p. 277)

Layman et al. ABI/ Accredited Examine factors Intrapreneurship Z-scores between Generalization
(2023) INFORM hospitals in that influence mediates (a) +/- 1.96 for these limited by single-
Indonesia social organizational social findings (p. 99) country, single-
performance in performance, (b) industry study.
hospitals (p. 83) environmental forces Further limited by
Data from on social performance, use of selected
government (c) IT resources effect implied indicators
accreditation on social performance of factors under
bodies on 752 (p. 100) study derived from
hospitals (p. 83) independent
government-
collected data.
OVERCOMING BARRIERS TO SOCIAL INTRAPRENEURSHIP 139

Sector & Purpose, Design

Article Source Main Findings Effect Size Limitations
Population & Sample Size
Luu (2022) Emerald Hotel and Examine the This study reveals that Statistically A self-report
Insight tourism moderating- both SL and significant support questionnaire scale
industry in Ho mediating effect workplace spirituality for paper’s four and cross-sectional
Chi Minh of spiritual (WS) are mediators of hypotheses (pp. data limit
City, Vietnam leadership (SL) CSEO (p. 1366) 1363–1365) generalization
on corporate
social
entrepreneurial
orientation
(CSEO) (p. 1353)
The study used a
sample of 524
key-role
employees at 76
four–five-star
hotels (p. 1359)

Malaj et al. Business Manufacturing Identify factors SI behavior is enabled 82% of an Generalization
(2023) Source sector in affecting more by internal employee’s SI limited by study of
Ultimate Albania employee social factors, such as behavior is driven specific region and
intrapreneurship relationship quality, by internal as culture
behavior (ESIB) perceived image gain, opposed to
(p. 1) financial benefits, and external factors (p.
Responses from leadership style (p. 14) 12)
11 managers and
executives in four
firms (p. 11)
OVERCOMING BARRIERS TO SOCIAL INTRAPRENEURSHIP 140

Sector & Purpose, Design

Article Source Main Findings Effect Size Limitations
Population & Sample Size
Mirvis et al. Scopus Global MNCs Examine how Research indicates that N/A Potential for bias
(2016) companies corporate social from long-term
engage in social innovation (CSI) and relationship
innovations SI involves and between authors
through external contributes to and participants
partners (p. 5014) knowledge gain limits
Review of case through explicit generalization
material from knowledge, tacit local
interviews, field knowledge on
observations, and methods, and
selected materials improved
from 70 understanding of the
companies (p. importance of CSI (p.
5015) 5019)

Mirvis & ABI/ Global MNCs Examine ways Four platforms for SI N/A Findings based on
Googins (2018) INFORM companies implementation were researcher’s work
engage SIs (p. 15) identified (pp. 27–29) with identified
Field research of companies;
16 companies potential biases and
over a five-year limitations not
period (p. 29) identified
OVERCOMING BARRIERS TO SOCIAL INTRAPRENEURSHIP 141

Sector & Purpose, Design

Article Source Main Findings Effect Size Limitations
Population & Sample Size
Nandan et al. SocIndex Midwestern Explore the role “The social work N/A Small sample, one
(2015) social services of social curriculum should city, one industry.
corporations innovation and SI emphasize and reflect Potential bias of
to address the development of authors.
growing entrepreneurial and
complexity of intrapreneurial
communities (p. behavior” (p. 53)
38)
Interviews with
10 social worker
administrators
and practitioners
(p. 43)

Salim Saji & Scopus MNC (HP) Develop a social 1) Social actors or N/A Single case study,
Ellingstad innovation model technology actors are two researchers;
(2016) for the motivated and analysis not
involvement of organized (p. 263) sufficiently detailed
different 2) Businesses respond for replication
corporate social to “public cry” for a
actors (p. 256) business solution to a
Analysis of social issue (p. 264)
transcripts and
supporting
literature (p. 256)
OVERCOMING BARRIERS TO SOCIAL INTRAPRENEURSHIP 142

Sector & Purpose, Design

Article Source Main Findings Effect Size Limitations
Population & Sample Size
Schwittay Scopus MNC (HP) Examination of What began as an SI N/A Single case study,
(2011) development and initiative evolved single researcher;
impact of an where the project’s analysis not
intrapreneurial “social aspects became sufficiently detailed
program for BoP part of the company’s for replication
(p. S71) philanthropy program,
12 months of which itself came to
fieldwork at HP focus more on support
headquarters for small enterprises”
program sites in (p. S80)
Costa Rica and
India (p. S72)
Schyvinck et al. Business Single case Examines SI as a “The Club executives N/A No causal claims
(2021) Source study pathway toward provided an enabling can be made; single
Ultimate (Belgium more strategic environment—with case study limits
soccer club) CSR (p. 452) the necessary generalization (p.
Interviews with structures, guidance 462)
22 internal and systems, and
external resources—for the
stakeholders (p. Foundation (and the
455) intrapreneur in
particular) to drive the
transition toward more
a strategic approach to
CSR” (p. 457)
OVERCOMING BARRIERS TO SOCIAL INTRAPRENEURSHIP 143

Sector & Purpose, Design

Article Source Main Findings Effect Size Limitations
Population & Sample Size
Sharifi-Tehrani Emerald Tourism Analyze the Three of the driving SI was Study of specific
(2023) Insight industry in interrelationship forces refer to significantly region and culture
Iran between personal religious factors, higher (~3 times) limits
experiences and indicating that for practicing generalization;
SI (p. 2890) interviewees’ Muslim believers purposive sampling
391 surveys from involvement in SI (PMB) than non- methods versus
121 hospitality activities is highly practicing Muslim probability
and tourism motivated by their believers (NMB) sampling methods
enterprises; 1 in 8 religious philosophy (Table 1, p. 2900) applied (p. 2905)
participated in a (p. 2901)
semi-structured
interview (p.
2896)

Silvestri & Business Regional Develop and test Micro-focused, N/A Conceptual model
Veltri (2020) Source cooperative a conceptual multilevel, and multi- tested against one
Ultimate alliance model for theoretical model that organization in one
operating in understanding the merges CSR, region or one
Italy relationship leadership, and social country; care must
between CSR, entrepreneurship be taken when
leadership, and SI provides a framework generalizing these
(p. 585) for examining findings (p. 592)
Findings applied organizational
to a single case interactions and their
study of a relationship to
strategic alliance outcomes (p. 591)
operating in one
region of one
country (p. 589)
OVERCOMING BARRIERS TO SOCIAL INTRAPRENEURSHIP 144

Sector & Purpose, Design

Article Source Main Findings Effect Size Limitations
Population & Sample Size
Spitzeck et al. Scopus Brazilian Present a model Common elements N/A Findings based
(2013) MNC of SI are: (a) an innovative upon a single
demonstrated response to an external organization, limits
through actual trigger, (b) external generalization (p.
case studies (p. collaboration in the 622)
613) design and
Comparative implementation, (c)
review of two financial and
major projects intangible outcomes,
using both (d) positive outcomes
interviews and when local
company communities are
literature (p. 615) involved (p. 618)

Tasavori et al. ABI/ MNCs in BoP Examine MNC Successful entry into N/A One country, three
(2016) INFORM market in approach to BoP BoP markets through companies; limits
India using SI (p. 555) SI requires viewing generalization
44 management social problems as an
interviews and opportunity and a deep
supporting understanding of
background environmental factors,
material from especially demand
three companies conditions and socio-
(pp. 561–562) political actors’
expectations (pp. 572–
573)
OVERCOMING BARRIERS TO SOCIAL INTRAPRENEURSHIP 145

Sector & Purpose, Design

Article Source Main Findings Effect Size Limitations
Population & Sample Size
Tavakoli & De Scopus Australian Examine Number of potential N/A Sample size and
Sisto (2021) firms in promotion and antecedents and single country
banking, integration of SI outcomes of SI scope limit
finance, and into Australian confirmed and/or generalization
engineering firms’ strategies identified (p. 244)
(p. 230)
Semi-structured
interviews with
18 organizations
recruited through
a snowball
technique (p. 239)

Urmanaviciene Journal Two national Examine strategic Most impactful forms N/A One country, small
& Arachchi Website corporations CSR (SCSR) of support are sample; limits
(2020) in Estonia practices that partnership, education generalization
advance and mentoring,
entrepreneurially sharing knowledge,
driven funding, and market
opportunities (p. development (p. 38)
27)
In-depth
interviews with
six academic and
industry
participants (p.
35)
OVERCOMING BARRIERS TO SOCIAL INTRAPRENEURSHIP 146

Sector & Purpose, Design

Article Source Main Findings Effect Size Limitations
Population & Sample Size
Veeran & Scopus Three Examine the 1) Innovativeness, Statistically One country, small
Srinivasan business challenges and internal policies, significant at p < number of
(2019) sectors benefits of SI (p. personal factors, 0.05 (p. 797) companies; limits
(education, 791) stakeholders, and generalization
food, and 39 SIs were external conflicts are
micro- surveyed and primary challenges for
finance) in interviewed, SI (pp. 797–798)
Chennai, supported by 2) Experience and
India relevant third- perceived benefits are
party literature (p. the primary enablers
793) (pp. 797–798)

Vinicius de Academic MNC in Examine the 1) Enabling Not presented One company in
Oliveira Brasil Search Ceará, Brazil relationship organizational one country, high-
et al. (2013) Ultimate between firm leadership factors are level analysis;
promotion of flexibility, creativity, limits
sustainability knowledge, generalization
entrepreneurship information, and
and sustainability commitment (p. 18)
development 2) Two additional
outcomes (p. 1) pillars of sustainability
Questionnaires intrapreneurship are
obtained from environmental and
leaders of social economic (p. 17)
projects at a
company (p. 13)
OVERCOMING BARRIERS TO SOCIAL INTRAPRENEURSHIP 147

Sector & Purpose, Design

Article Source Main Findings Effect Size Limitations
Population & Sample Size
Xie et al. (2022) Scopus Manufacturing Examine the Green entrepreneurial Statistically Cross-verification
companies in factors affecting orientation, social significant at p < and variability
China sustainability entrepreneurship, and 0.05 (p. 4139) required for further
environmental organizational generalization (p.
performance. (p. ambidexterity 4143)
4128) positively affect
Random selection sustainability
of 510 environmental
participants from performance (p. 4139)
Chinese
manufacturing
companies (p.
4135)

Zhuang et al. Business Chinese Compare state- 1) Entrepreneurial Statistically Single country
(2020) Source public firms and privately- orientation (EO) is significant at p < study; potential for
Ultimate using Rankins owned firms on positively associated 0.05 (p. 388) bias limits
database the relationship with CSR performance generalization
between EO, in state-owned firms
cultivation of (p. 387)
internal 2) EO is not
entrepreneurship, significantly related to
and CSR CSR in privately
outcomes (p. 383) controlled firms EO
Analysis of public (p. 387)
data from 738
firms in 69
industries from
2008 to 2015 (p.
386)
OVERCOMING BARRIERS TO SOCIAL INTRAPRENEURSHIP 148

Appendix D

Critical Appraisal Chart

Author MA MQ MMAT Does Is the Data Is the Is the Do Findings Were the
Level Score Type Study Relevant Source/ Process/ Relate to the Researcher’s
(AA- (4-high, Have to Sampling Sample Context/Are Influence
high, E- 1-low) Clear Objectives Strategy Analysis the Considered/Is the
low) Objectives Relevant Relevant Measurements Response Rate
Appropriate Acceptable
Agrawal & E 3 Qualitative Yes Yes Yes Can’t tell Yes Yes
Sahasranamam
(2016)
Arogyaswamy E 2 Qualitative Yes Yes Yes Can’t tell Yes Can’t tell
& Elmer (2010)
Chang et al. D 4 Quantitative Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
(2019)
Darcis et al. E 4 Qualitative Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
(2023)

Ding & Hu D 3 Quantitative Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Can’t tell
(2022)

Forster & D 4 Quantitative Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes

Grichnik (2013)

Franco-Leal & D 3 Quantitative Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Can’t tell
Diaz-Carrion
(2022)
OVERCOMING BARRIERS TO SOCIAL INTRAPRENEURSHIP 149

Author MA MQ MMAT Does Is the Data Is the Is the Do Findings Were the
Level Score Type Study Relevant Source/ Process/ Relate to the Researcher’s
(AA- (4-high, Have to Sampling Sample Context/Are Influence
high, E- 1-low) Clear Objectives Strategy Analysis the Considered/Is the
low) Objectives Relevant Relevant Measurements Response Rate
Appropriate Acceptable
Gallardo- D 3 Quantitative Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Can’t tell
Vázquez et al.
(2024)

Galván-Vela et D 4 Quantitative Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes

al. (2023)

Ghauri et al. E 4 Qualitative Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes

(2014)

Giang & Dung D 4 Quantitative Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
(2022)

Goldsby et al. D 4 Quantitative Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes

(2018)

Hadad (2015) D 3 Quantitative Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Can’t tell

Halme et al. E 4 Qualitative Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes

(2012)

Hidden & E 4 Qualitative Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes

Marks (2020)
OVERCOMING BARRIERS TO SOCIAL INTRAPRENEURSHIP 150

Author MA MQ MMAT Does Is the Data Is the Is the Do Findings Were the
Level Score Type Study Relevant Source/ Process/ Relate to the Researcher’s
(AA- (4-high, Have to Sampling Sample Context/Are Influence
high, E- 1-low) Clear Objectives Strategy Analysis the Considered/Is the
low) Objectives Relevant Relevant Measurements Response Rate
Appropriate Acceptable
Kuratko et al. D 3 Quantitative Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No
(2017)
Layman et al. D 3 Quantitative Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No
(2023)

Luu (2022) D 3 Quantitative Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Can’t tell

Malaj et al. D 4 Quantitative Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes

(2023)

Mirvis et al. E 3 Qualitative Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Can’t tell
(2016)

Mirvis & E 3 Qualitative Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Can’t tell
Googins (2018)

Nandan et al. E 2 Qualitative Yes Yes Yes Yes No Can’t tell

(2015)

Salim Saji & E 2 Qualitative Yes Yes Yes Can’t tell Yes Can’t tell
Ellingstad
(2016)

Schwittay E 2 Qualitative Yes Yes Yes Can’t tell Yes Can’t tell
(2011)
OVERCOMING BARRIERS TO SOCIAL INTRAPRENEURSHIP 151

Author MA MQ MMAT Does Is the Data Is the Is the Do Findings Were the
Level Score Type Study Relevant Source/ Process/ Relate to the Researcher’s
(AA- (4-high, Have to Sampling Sample Context/Are Influence
high, E- 1-low) Clear Objectives Strategy Analysis the Considered/Is the
low) Objectives Relevant Relevant Measurements Response Rate
Appropriate Acceptable
Schyvinck et al. E 4 Qualitative Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
(2021)
Sharifi-Tehrani C 3 Quantitative Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Can’t tell
(2023)

Silvestri & E 3 Qualitative Yes Yes Yes Can’t tell Yes Can’t tell
Veltri (2020)

Spitzeck et al. E 4 Qualitative Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes

(2013)

Tasavori et al. E 4 Qualitative Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes

(2016)

Tavakoli & De E 4 Qualitative Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes

Sisto (2021)

Urmanaviciene E 3 Qualitative Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Can’t tell

& Arachchi
(2020)

Veeran & D 2 Quantitative Yes Yes Yes Can’t tell Yes Can’t tell
Srinivasan
(2019)
OVERCOMING BARRIERS TO SOCIAL INTRAPRENEURSHIP 152

Author MA MQ MMAT Does Is the Data Is the Is the Do Findings Were the
Level Score Type Study Relevant Source/ Process/ Relate to the Researcher’s
(AA- (4-high, Have to Sampling Sample Context/Are Influence
high, E- 1-low) Clear Objectives Strategy Analysis the Considered/Is the
low) Objectives Relevant Relevant Measurements Response Rate
Appropriate Acceptable
Vinicius de D 2 Quantitative Yes Yes Yes Can’t tell Yes Can’t tell
Oliveira Brasil
et al. (2013)

Xie et al. (2022) D 4 Quantitative Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes

Zhuang et al. D 3 Quantitative Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Can’t tell
(2020)

Note. MA level is based on a hierarchy of methodological appropriateness (Barends et al., 2017, p. 17), where systematic and meta-
analysis studies based on randomized controlled studies are considered the most trustworthy (rated AA). The lowest level of MA is
ascribed to case studies (rated E). Other methodologies are rated from D up to A. The second consideration in trustworthiness is
methodological quality (MQ). The Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool (MMAT; Pluye et al., 2011) was used to assess the MQ of each
paper. MMAT Type is the study type. To be included, the study must have clear objectives and be based on relevant data. Depending
on the study type, the final four columns are scored using either the qualitative or quantitative MMAT criteria. The MQ score is the
total of yes responses in the last four columns. A score of 1 represents a low MQ, whereas a score of 4 represents a high MQ. MA and
MQ must be considered together when establishing the research’s trustworthiness.
OVERCOMING BARRIERS TO SOCIAL INTRAPRENEURSHIP 153

Appendix E

Code Book

Code descriptions in red are contrary, null, or negatively correlated

Code Description Theme: Category: Code

CSR part of business model Investing: Organizational Investments: Management Practices
Develop supportive SI policies Investing: Organizational Investments: Management Practices
Employee salience drives entrepreneurial Investing: Organizational Investments: Management Practices
strategy
EO positively related to CSR in state- Investing: Organizational Investments: Management Practices
controlled firms
Focus on employees drives social Investing: Organizational Investments: Management Practices
proactiveness
Focus on stakeholders does not drive social Investing: Organizational Investments: Management Practices
proactiveness
Innovative response non-market external Investing: Organizational Investments: Management Practices
trigger
Management practice – firm transparency Investing: Organizational Investments: Management Practices
Management practice – rewards Investing: Organizational Investments: Management Practices
Management practice – social proactiveness Investing: Organizational Investments: Management Practices
Management practice – time availability Investing: Organizational Investments: Management Practices
Management practice – work discretion Investing: Organizational Investments: Management Practices
Organizational history used to address social Investing: Organizational Investments: Management Practices
issues
Proactive HR leads to externally directed Investing: Organizational Investments: Management Practices
innovation
SE and organizational ambidexterity affect SI Investing: Organizational Investments: Management Practices
success
SI team self-reviews Investing: Organizational Investments: Management Practices
Social engagement part of company charter Investing: Organizational Investments: Management Practices
Supportive management practices Investing: Organizational Investments: Management Practices
OVERCOMING BARRIERS TO SOCIAL INTRAPRENEURSHIP 154

Code Description Theme: Category: Code

Vision enabled by practices Investing: Organizational Investments: Management Practices
Accept greater uncertainty Investing: Organizational Investments: Management Practices – Funding Practices
Alternate success metrics Investing: Organizational Investments: Management Practices – Funding Practices
Availability of patient financial resources Investing: Organizational Investments: Management Practices – Funding Practices
Avoid short-term ROI Investing: Organizational Investments: Management Practices – Funding Practices
Balance risk avoidance and need for Investing: Organizational Investments: Management Practices – Funding Practices
innovation
Business plan for SI project Investing: Organizational Investments: Management Practices – Funding Practices
Contextualize both implicit and explicit Investing: Organizational Investments: Management Practices – Funding Practices
outcomes
Continuing investment is essential Investing: Organizational Investments: Management Practices – Funding Practices
Don’t assess solely on financial performance Investing: Organizational Investments: Management Practices – Funding Practices
Financial and intangible outcomes Investing: Organizational Investments: Management Practices – Funding Practices
Funding clarity Investing: Organizational Investments: Management Practices – Funding Practices
Grow company funding with initiative Investing: Organizational Investments: Management Practices – Funding Practices
Longer development timeframe Investing: Organizational Investments: Management Practices – Funding Practices
Long-term financial strategy Investing: Organizational Investments: Management Practices – Funding Practices
Reduced risks accelerate projects Investing: Organizational Investments: Management Practices – Funding Practices
Willingness to invest Investing: Organizational Investments: Management Practices – Funding Practices
Funding through corporate foundation Investing: Organizational Investments: Management Practices – Funding Sources
Government incentives foster SI action Investing: Organizational Investments: Management Practices – Funding Sources
Half of funding from development Investing: Organizational Investments: Management Practices – Funding Sources
organization
Foundation was founded Investing: Organizational Investments: Management Practices – Funding Sources
Multiple funding streams Investing: Organizational Investments: Management Practices – Funding Sources
Work with micro-finance NGOs Investing: Organizational Investments: Management Practices – Funding Sources
Business decision to expand into emerging Investing: Organizational Investments: Management Practices – Market
markets Development
Business permitted expansion into consumer Investing: Organizational Investments: Management Practices – Market
market Development
Collaboration with partners Investing: Organizational Investments: Management Practices – Partner
Development
OVERCOMING BARRIERS TO SOCIAL INTRAPRENEURSHIP 155

Code Description Theme: Category: Code

Collaborations with local stakeholders Investing: Organizational Investments: Management Practices – Partner
Development
Company created collaboration with NGO Investing: Organizational Investments: Management Practices – Partner
Development
Company formed foundation leveraged for SI Investing: Organizational Investments: Management Practices – Partner
Development
Connect with ecosystem of SIs Investing: Organizational Investments: Management Practices – Partner
Development
Cross-section partnerships create sustainable Investing: Organizational Investments: Management Practices – Partner
development Development
CSI in social engagements leads to unplanned Investing: Organizational Investments: Management Practices – Partner
knowledge gain Development
CSI in value chained more planned Investing: Organizational Investments: Management Practices – Partner
knowledge transfer Development
CSR strategy drives organizational focus Investing: Organizational Investments: Management Practices – Partner
Development
Engage stakeholders Investing: Organizational Investments: Management Practices – Partner
Development
Expanded uses for knowledge gained through Investing: Organizational Investments: Management Practices – Partner
alliances Development
Explore ways to collaborate with NGO Investing: Organizational Investments: Management Practices – Partner
Development
Foundation created collaborations with NGOs Investing: Organizational Investments: Management Practices – Partner
etc. Development
Foundation developed other partnerships Investing: Organizational Investments: Management Practices – Partner
Development
Foundation focused on external stakeholders Investing: Organizational Investments: Management Practices – Partner
Development
Ideas generated through research partnership Investing: Organizational Investments: Management Practices – Partner
Development
Joint venture with external social business Investing: Organizational Investments: Management Practices – Partner
partner Development
OVERCOMING BARRIERS TO SOCIAL INTRAPRENEURSHIP 156

Code Description Theme: Category: Code

Joint venture with social business partner Investing: Organizational Investments: Management Practices – Partner
Development
Knowledge emerges from empathic Investing: Organizational Investments: Management Practices – Partner
interactions Development
Knowledge gained through societal Investing: Organizational Investments: Management Practices – Partner
innovations Development
Knowledge gained through value chain Investing: Organizational Investments: Management Practices – Partner
(internal) Development
Learning through cross-sectional alliances Investing: Organizational Investments: Management Practices – Partner
Development
Local community impacts Investing: Organizational Investments: Management Practices – Partner
Development
NGO assist with implementation Investing: Organizational Investments: Management Practices – Partner
Development
NGO identified need Investing: Organizational Investments: Management Practices – Partner
Development
NGOs welcome initiative Investing: Organizational Investments: Management Practices – Partner
Development
Open communications across partners Investing: Organizational Investments: Management Practices – Partner
Development
Partner with citizen groups Investing: Organizational Investments: Management Practices – Partner
Development
Partner with government agencies Investing: Organizational Investments: Management Practices – Partner
Development
Partner with international development NGOs Investing: Organizational Investments: Management Practices – Partner
Development
Partner with local government Investing: Organizational Investments: Management Practices – Partner
Development
Partner with NGO consortium Investing: Organizational Investments: Management Practices – Partner
Development
Partnering enables a more comprehensive Investing: Organizational Investments: Management Practices – Partner
manner Development
OVERCOMING BARRIERS TO SOCIAL INTRAPRENEURSHIP 157

Code Description Theme: Category: Code

Partnering with financial institutions Investing: Organizational Investments: Management Practices – Partner
Development
Partnering with other firms for SI Investing: Organizational Investments: Management Practices – Partner
Development
Partnering with training organizations Investing: Organizational Investments: Management Practices – Partner
Development
Provide pro bono business services to social Investing: Organizational Investments: Management Practices – Partner
businesses Development
See business role as “serving society” Investing: Organizational Investments: Management Practices – Partner
Development
Shared value of knowledge gained through Investing: Organizational Investments: Management Practices – Partner
partners Development
Support for SIs teaming with NGO Investing: Organizational Investments: Management Practices – Partner
Development
Unite multiple organizations under company Investing: Organizational Investments: Management Practices – Partner
brand Development
Value of B2N Alliances Investing: Organizational Investments: Management Practices – Partner
Development
Company managed business side of project Investing: Organizational Investments: Management Practices – Resources
Core competencies used to address social Investing: Organizational Investments: Management Practices – Resources
issues
Ensured continuity across individual SIs Investing: Organizational Investments: Management Practices – Resources
Global pro bono programs Investing: Organizational Investments: Management Practices – Resources
Management contributes personal time Investing: Organizational Investments: Management Practices – Resources
Management provides resources Investing: Organizational Investments: Management Practices – Resources
Organizational resources used to address Investing: Organizational Investments: Management Practices – Resources
social issues
Resource availability needs clarity Investing: Organizational Investments: Management Practices – Resources
Resources grew with initiative Investing: Organizational Investments: Management Practices – Resources
SI communications with senior management Investing: Organizational Investments: Management Practices – Resources
SIs need unofficial access to resources Investing: Organizational Investments: Management Practices – Resources
Social R&D initiatives Investing: Organizational Investments: Management Practices – Resources
OVERCOMING BARRIERS TO SOCIAL INTRAPRENEURSHIP 158

Code Description Theme: Category: Code

Substantial resource commitments Investing: Organizational Investments: Management Practices – Resources
Align company structure and process toward Investing: Organizational Investments: Organizational Structures – General
social value creation
Align environmental and economic factors Investing: Organizational Investments: Organizational Structures – General
Company created foundation for CSR Investing: Organizational Investments: Organizational Structures – General
Company created subsidiary Investing: Organizational Investments: Organizational Structures – General
Create SWAT teams for SI Investing: Organizational Investments: Organizational Structures – General
CSR model focuses on rules and compliance Investing: Organizational Investments: Organizational Structures – General
Distributed organizational structure promotes Investing: Organizational Investments: Organizational Structures – General
social entrepreneurship
Executive characteristics influence structure Investing: Organizational Investments: Organizational Structures – General
Internal accelerator for SI ideas Investing: Organizational Investments: Organizational Structures – General
Management structure requires flexibility Investing: Organizational Investments: Organizational Structures – General
New CSR model Investing: Organizational Investments: Organizational Structures – General
No direct effect from organizational Investing: Organizational Investments: Organizational Structures – General
architecture
Project managed jointly by operating division Investing: Organizational Investments: Organizational Structures – General
and CSR
SI goodwill sells Investing: Organizational Investments: Organizational Structures – General
SIs form cross-functional team Investing: Organizational Investments: Organizational Structures – General
Team collaboration very important Investing: Organizational Investments: Organizational Structures – General
Vision enabled by structures Investing: Organizational Investments: Organizational Structures – General
SI close to target community Investing: Organizational Investments: Organizational Structures – SI Positioning
SI located near headquarters Investing: Organizational Investments: Organizational Structures – SI Positioning
SI prefers to be in core business Investing: Organizational Investments: Organizational Structures – SI Positioning
SI views sustainability as disconnected Investing: Organizational Investments: Organizational Structures – SI Positioning
SI within core business Investing: Organizational Investments: Organizational Structures – SI Positioning
SI within sustainability or similar departments Investing: Organizational Investments: Organizational Structures – SI Positioning
SI worked with sustainability department Investing: Organizational Investments: Organizational Structures – SI Positioning
SIs partner Investing: Organizational Investments: Organizational Structures – SI Positioning
SIs work in pairs Investing: Organizational Investments: Organizational Structures – SI Positioning
Synthesize ideas into single business unit Investing: Organizational Investments: Organizational Structures – SI Positioning
OVERCOMING BARRIERS TO SOCIAL INTRAPRENEURSHIP 159

Code Description Theme: Category: Code

Unit-level entrepreneurial orientation, Investing: Organizational Investments: Organizational Structures – SI Positioning
intrapreneurship positively related
Unit-level social capital supports EO and Investing: Organizational Investments: Organizational Structures – SI Positioning
intrapreneurship
SI background helped in implementation Investing: SI Investments: Recruiting Practices – Background
SI experience in developing country Investing: SI Investments: Recruiting Practices – Background
SI had experience as UN volunteer Investing: SI Investments: Recruiting Practices – Background
SI new to social topics Investing: SI Investments: Recruiting Practices – Background
SI recruited for understanding of social Investing: SI Investments: Recruiting Practices – Background
context
External experts hired to develop idea Investing: SI Investments: Recruiting Practices – Externally
SI formerly worked in partner foundation Investing: SI Investments: Recruiting Practices – Externally
SI had career in sustainability Investing: SI Investments: Recruiting Practices – Externally
SI recruited from other company CSR Investing: SI Investments: Recruiting Practices – Externally
division
SI rejoined corporation for larger impact Investing: SI Investments: Recruiting Practices – Externally
SI worked as SI in other company Investing: SI Investments: Recruiting Practices – Externally
SI assigned to takeover initiative Investing: SI Investments: Recruiting Practices – Internally
SI climbed ladder to lead CSR Investing: SI Investments: Recruiting Practices – Internally
SI made not born Investing: SI Investments: Recruiting Practices – Internally
Passion for social mission Investing: SI Investments: Skills Development – Characteristics
SI business characteristic – ability to adapt Investing: SI Investments: Skills Development – Characteristics
SI business characteristic – initiative Investing: SI Investments: Skills Development – Characteristics
SI business characteristic – predisposed to Investing: SI Investments: Skills Development – Characteristics
change
SI entrepreneurial characteristic – risk taking Investing: SI Investments: Skills Development – Characteristics
SI personal characteristic – enthusiasm Investing: SI Investments: Skills Development – Characteristics
SI personal characteristic – self-criticism Investing: SI Investments: Skills Development – Characteristics
SI personal characteristic – self-esteem Investing: SI Investments: Skills Development – Characteristics
SI personal characteristic – valuing effort Investing: SI Investments: Skills Development – Characteristics
SI social characteristic – employee care Investing: SI Investments: Skills Development – Characteristics
SI zeal and commitment drove initiative Investing: SI Investments: Skills Development – Characteristics
OVERCOMING BARRIERS TO SOCIAL INTRAPRENEURSHIP 160

Code Description Theme: Category: Code

Develop SI skills Investing: SI Investments: Skills Development – Hard
SI business characteristic – recognize Investing: SI Investments: Skills Development – Hard
opportunity
SI business characteristics – inclusive labor Investing: SI Investments: Skills Development – Hard
practices
SI economic characteristic – business Investing: SI Investments: Skills Development – Hard
relationships
SI economic characteristic – quality Investing: SI Investments: Skills Development – Hard
SI environmental characteristic – reducing Investing: SI Investments: Skills Development – Hard
ecological footprint
SI environmental characteristic – energy Investing: SI Investments: Skills Development – Hard
conservation
SI leadership skills Investing: SI Investments: Skills Development – Hard
SI navigates internal structures Investing: SI Investments: Skills Development – Hard
SI training Investing: SI Investments: Skills Development – Hard
SI understands internal organization Investing: SI Investments: Skills Development – Hard
SI uses bricolage Investing: SI Investments: Skills Development – Hard
Train to work in groups Investing: SI Investments: Skills Development – Hard
Training - innovation Investing: SI Investments: Skills Development – Hard
Training enhances critical thinking skills Investing: SI Investments: Skills Development – Hard
Training on budgeting and finance Investing: SI Investments: Skills Development – Hard
Training on data management and analysis Investing: SI Investments: Skills Development – Hard
Training on grant writing and fund Investing: SI Investments: Skills Development – Hard
development
Innovation team immersion Investing: SI Investments: Skills Development – Soft
SI ability to influence Investing: SI Investments: Skills Development – Soft
SI background helped in external Investing: SI Investments: Skills Development – Soft
communication
SI background helped in internal Investing: SI Investments: Skills Development – Soft
communication
SI business characteristic - engage others in Investing: SI Investments: Skills Development – Soft
decisions
OVERCOMING BARRIERS TO SOCIAL INTRAPRENEURSHIP 161

Code Description Theme: Category: Code

SI calls on favors Investing: SI Investments: Skills Development – Soft
SI communication skills Investing: SI Investments: Skills Development – Soft
Si deals with inertia Investing: SI Investments: Skills Development – Soft
SI deals with opposition Investing: SI Investments: Skills Development – Soft
SI has gravitas Investing: SI Investments: Skills Development – Soft
SI innovativeness Investing: SI Investments: Skills Development – Soft
SI risk-taking Investing: SI Investments: Skills Development – Soft
SIs need to be story tellers Investing: SI Investments: Skills Development – Soft
Social interaction, cooperation, and Investing: SI Investments: Skills Development – Soft
networking drive SC
Team members created common sense of Investing: SI Investments: Skills Development – Soft
commitment
Address underlying socio-economic issues Pursuing: Organizational Goals: Project Goals
Align SI and organizational commitment Pursuing: Organizational Goals: Project Goals
Align SI and organizational purpose Pursuing: Organizational Goals: Project Goals
Blend business-society through Pursuing: Organizational Goals: Project Goals
entrepreneurial initiatives
Corporation match project type to desired Pursuing: Organizational Goals: Project Goals
goals
SIs must embrace both business and social Pursuing: Organizational Goals: Project Goals
goals
SIs success requires balancing goals and risks Pursuing: Organizational Goals: Project Goals
Social innovation Pursuing: Organizational Goals: Project Goals
Embeddedness counterbalances reductionism Pursuing: Organizational Goals: Project Types
Centrality of innovation to core business Pursuing: Organizational Goals: Project Types
Environmental dynamics source of social Pursuing: Organizational Goals: Project Types
innovation
Green entrepreneurial orientation and SE Pursuing: Organizational Goals: Project Types
correlate with innovation
Green entrepreneurial orientation impacts SI Pursuing: Organizational Goals: Project Types
success
Local embeddedness drives motivation Pursuing: Organizational Goals: Project Types
OVERCOMING BARRIERS TO SOCIAL INTRAPRENEURSHIP 162

Code Description Theme: Category: Code

New business models Pursuing: Organizational Goals: Project Types
Service oriented business model Pursuing: Organizational Goals: Project Types
SI assigned to assess, legitimate, implement, Pursuing: Organizational Goals: Project Types
scale
Social problem opportunity for Pursuing: Organizational Goals: Project Types
entrepreneurial action
Target unique socio-economic issues Pursuing: Organizational Goals: Project Types
Creation of external networks critical Pursuing: SI Enablers: Freedom of Action
Creation of internal networks critical Pursuing: SI Enablers: Freedom of Action
Establish organizational creative space Pursuing: SI Enablers: Freedom of Action
Freedom to explore new ideas Pursuing: SI Enablers: Freedom of Action
Resourcefulness a mindset for bricolage Pursuing: SI Enablers: Freedom of Action
SI as a rebel Pursuing: SI Enablers: Freedom of Action
SI as pioneer Pursuing: SI Enablers: Freedom of Action
SI as risk-taker Pursuing: SI Enablers: Freedom of Action
SI drives implementation of opportunity Pursuing: SI Enablers: Freedom of Action
SI invest personal time Pursuing: SI Enablers: Freedom of Action
SI mediates external forces Pursuing: SI Enablers: Freedom of Action
SI mediates IT resources Pursuing: SI Enablers: Freedom of Action
SI take project to next level Pursuing: SI Enablers: Freedom of Action
SI taking personal/professional risk Pursuing: SI Enablers: Freedom of Action
SIs are stubborn Pursuing: SI Enablers: Freedom of Action
SIs bring shared-value strategy to life Pursuing: SI Enablers: Freedom of Action
SIs need space to develop their idea Pursuing: SI Enablers: Freedom of Action
SIs use personal network Pursuing: SI Enablers: Freedom of Action
SIs work underground Pursuing: SI Enablers: Freedom of Action
Worldwide change manager Pursuing: SI Enablers: Freedom of Action
Connect SIs with ideas and experts Pursuing: SI Enablers: Freedom of Thought
Encourage entrepreneurial thinking Pursuing: SI Enablers: Freedom of Thought
Freedom of thought Pursuing: SI Enablers: Freedom of Thought
SI exposed to new ideas Pursuing: SI Enablers: Freedom of Thought
SI refuse limits of organizational constraints Pursuing: SI Enablers: Freedom of Thought
OVERCOMING BARRIERS TO SOCIAL INTRAPRENEURSHIP 163

Code Description Theme: Category: Code

Initiative made part of opportunity Pursuing: SI Motivations: Organizational Concerns
development unit
SI and organizational alignment improve Pursuing: SI Motivations: Organizational Concerns
environmental performance
SI dissatisfied with corporate approaches Pursuing: SI Motivations: Organizational Concerns
SI identifies opportunity Pursuing: SI Motivations: Organizational Concerns
SI motivate by corporate response to human Pursuing: SI Motivations: Organizational Concerns
catastrophe
SI motivated by concern existing programs Pursuing: SI Motivations: Organizational Concerns
not scalable
SI perceived feasibility and desirability Pursuing: SI Motivations: Organizational Concerns
mediate intentions
SI skeptical of existing corporate programs Pursuing: SI Motivations: Organizational Concerns
SIs apply for positions in innovation Pursuing: SI Motivations: Organizational Concerns
departments
SIs motivated by concerns programs not Pursuing: SI Motivations: Organizational Concerns
connected to business
SIs see company as supportive of their vision Pursuing: SI Motivations: Organizational Concerns
SI competition for best opportunities Pursuing: SI Motivations: Personal Rewards
SI monetary incentives Pursuing: SI Motivations: Personal Rewards
SIs not motivated by money Pursuing: SI Motivations: Personal Rewards
Ethics and SI not related Pursuing: SI Motivations: Personal Values
Individual social mission predicts SI Pursuing: SI Motivations: Personal Values
Religious beliefs Pursuing: SI Motivations: Personal Values
Seek SIs not zealots Pursuing: SI Motivations: Personal Values
SI motivated by environmental impact Pursuing: SI Motivations: Personal Values
SI motivated by encounters with great Pursuing: SI Motivations: Personal Values
thinkers
SI motivated by first-person experiences Pursuing: SI Motivations: Personal Values
SI motivated by societal impact Pursuing: SI Motivations: Personal Values
SI motivated to find more personal value Pursuing: SI Motivations: Personal Values
OVERCOMING BARRIERS TO SOCIAL INTRAPRENEURSHIP 164

Code Description Theme: Category: Code

SI perceived social norms and efficacy shape Pursuing: SI Motivations: Personal Values
intentions
SI seek opportunities to engage their Pursuing: SI Motivations: Personal Values
Indigenous communities
SI’s empathy and self-efficacy are motivators Pursuing: SI Motivations: Personal Values
SI learn through background in development Pursuing: SI Motivations: Personal Values
sector
SIs motivate through learning experiences Pursuing: SI Motivations: Personal Values
Appointed successors to social intrapreneurs Signaling: Executive Support: Action
CEO commitment was instrumental Signaling: Executive Support: Action
Continuity of executive leadership Signaling: Executive Support: Action
Executive provides necessary guidance Signaling: Executive Support: Action
systems
Executive provides necessary resources Signaling: Executive Support: Action
Executive provides necessary structure Signaling: Executive Support: Action
Executive support Signaling: Executive Support: Action
Initiated by CEO and partner NGO Signaling: Executive Support: Action
Leader capabilities – attracting resources Signaling: Executive Support: Action
Leader capabilities – hiring entrepreneurial Signaling: Executive Support: Action
skills
Leader capabilities – hiring progressive ideas Signaling: Executive Support: Action
Leader capabilities – innovative Signaling: Executive Support: Action
collaborations
Leader capabilities – innovative projects Signaling: Executive Support: Action
Leader demonstrates SE characteristics Signaling: Executive Support: Action
Leadership – social, environmental, business Signaling: Executive Support: Action
model
Mandate to explore Signaling: Executive Support: Action
Organization gives legitimacy to effort Signaling: Executive Support: Action
SI empowered by top management support Signaling: Executive Support: Action
SI leadership requires commitment Signaling: Executive Support: Action
SI leadership requires creativity Signaling: Executive Support: Action
OVERCOMING BARRIERS TO SOCIAL INTRAPRENEURSHIP 165

Code Description Theme: Category: Code

SI leadership requires flexibility Signaling: Executive Support: Action
SI leadership requires information Signaling: Executive Support: Action
SI leadership requires knowledge Signaling: Executive Support: Action
Top management commitment Signaling: Executive Support: Action
Top managers would assign to individuals Signaling: Executive Support: Action
Transform traditional sustainability initiatives Signaling: Executive Support: Action
Transformational leadership weakens unit- Signaling: Executive Support: Action
level EO, CE, and SC
Company and foundation have different Signaling: Executive Support: Culture
logics
Cultural embeddedness Signaling: Executive Support: Culture
Spiritual leadership (SL) affects SEO Signaling: Executive Support: Culture
SL affects WS Signaling: Executive Support: Culture
SL positively affects SI Signaling: Executive Support: Culture
Subcultures exist within groups Signaling: Executive Support: Culture
Value-based organizational culture Signaling: Executive Support: Culture
WS has positive effect on SI Signaling: Executive Support: Culture
WS mediates SL, SEO, and SI Signaling: Executive Support: Culture
Idea actually came from [the] former Signaling: Executive Support: Idea Generation
chairperson
Idea originating from cross-sector partnership Signaling: Executive Support: Idea Generation
Idea originating from sustainability Signaling: Executive Support: Idea Generation
department
Idea originating from top management Signaling: Executive Support: Idea Generation
Annual corporate reports of foundation's Signaling: Executive Support: Messaging
activities
CEO public commitment Signaling: Executive Support: Messaging
Cognitive shift Signaling: Executive Support: Messaging
Executive encourages Signaling: Executive Support: Messaging
Executive focus on wider set of outcomes Signaling: Executive Support: Messaging
Executive vision Signaling: Executive Support: Messaging
Fair and holistic vision communicated Signaling: Executive Support: Messaging
OVERCOMING BARRIERS TO SOCIAL INTRAPRENEURSHIP 166

Code Description Theme: Category: Code

Honored with multiple awards Signaling: Executive Support: Messaging
Many of the alumni return as guest speakers Signaling: Executive Support: Messaging
Project receives public press coverage Signaling: Executive Support: Messaging
Recognition programs maintain loyalties Signaling: Executive Support: Messaging
Social and financial goals congruent Signaling: Executive Support: Messaging
Social responsibility seen integral to firm Signaling: Executive Support: Messaging
Collaborative idea management program Signaling: Organizational Benefits: New Approaches
Create intangible benefits Signaling: Organizational Benefits: New Approaches
Excellence award for SIs Signaling: Organizational Benefits: New Approaches
Externality benefits business and community Signaling: Organizational Benefits: New Approaches
alike
Grants to SIs Signaling: Organizational Benefits: New Approaches
Partner with social venture fund Signaling: Organizational Benefits: New Approaches
Philanthropic efforts are learning Signaling: Organizational Benefits: New Approaches
opportunities
SI activated through innovation contest Signaling: Organizational Benefits: New Approaches
Success led to greater SI actions Signaling: Organizational Benefits: New Approaches
Transition from philanthropic to sustainability Signaling: Organizational Benefits: New Approaches
strategy
Transition from project to sustainable Signaling: Organizational Benefits: New Approaches
solutions
Transition to a hands-on role Signaling: Organizational Benefits: New Approaches
View social innovation as part of mission Signaling: Organizational Benefits: New Approaches
Addressing social issue acquired new Signaling: Organizational Benefits: New Markets
customers
Addressing social issue created new market Signaling: Organizational Benefits: New Markets
Division gained socio-political-market Signaling: Organizational Benefits: New Markets
legitimacy
NGO opened new markets Signaling: Organizational Benefits: New Markets
SI success positive for firm performance Signaling: Organizational Benefits: New Markets
Success led to larger customer base Signaling: Organizational Benefits: New Markets
Access to cheaper funding Signaling: Organizational Benefits: New Opportunities
OVERCOMING BARRIERS TO SOCIAL INTRAPRENEURSHIP 167

Code Description Theme: Category: Code

Addressing social issue led to additional Signaling: Organizational Benefits: New Opportunities
revenues
Addressing social issue led to government Signaling: Organizational Benefits: New Opportunities
projects
Attracted co-funding for future project Signaling: Organizational Benefits: New Opportunities
Developed community model linked to Signaling: Organizational Benefits: New Opportunities
business objectives
Investments compound over time Signaling: Organizational Benefits: New Opportunities
Reputation leveraged for new opportunities Signaling: Organizational Benefits: New Opportunities
Strong case for value of SI Signaling: Organizational Benefits: New Opportunities
OVERCOMING BARRIERS TO SOCIAL INTRAPRENEURSHIP 168

Appendix F

Quantitative Study Hypotheses Summary

Contribution to Thematic
Article Hypotheses/Research Question Results
Analysis
Chang et al. Hypothesis 1: There is a positive relationship between unit-level Accepted Supports aligning EO, CE,
(2019) EO and unit-level CE and SC at the unit level
Hypothesis 2: Unit-level SC moderates the relationship between Accepted TL can negatively impact
unit-level EO and unit-level CE unit-level SC
Hypothesis 3: Firm-level transformational leadership (TL) Accepted
negatively moderates the effect of unit-level SC

Ding & Hu Hypothesis 1: The female entrepreneur plays a positive role in Supported Business strategy should
(2022) improving CSR performance, which positively correlates gender optimize the power
and CSR distribution of internal
Hypothesis 2: High-educated entrepreneurs contribute to CSR Supported governance structures in
performance, which positively correlates experience support of SI
characteristics and CSR
Hypothesis 3: The high salary of entrepreneurs contributes to Supported
CSR performance, which positively correlates incentive feature
and CSR
Hypothesis 4: CPDI can mediate the relation between EC and Supported
CSR
OVERCOMING BARRIERS TO SOCIAL INTRAPRENEURSHIP 169

Contribution to Thematic
Article Hypotheses/Research Question Results
Analysis
Forster & Hypothesis 1: The effect of empathy and perceived social norms Supported Positive relationships
Grichnik on behavioral intentions is positive and mediated by perceived between empathy,
(2013) desirability perceived social norms,
Hypothesis 2: The effect of self-efficacy and perceived Supported self-efficacy, perceived
collective efficacy on behavioral intentions is positive and collective efficacy, and
mediated by perceived feasibility social entrepreneurial
intentions with mediation
by perceived desirability
and perceived feasibility

Franco-Leal Hypothesis 1: National public funding, funds from foreign Partially Source of funding and
& Diaz- sources, and funding from other companies are positively related supported information is positively
Carrion to strategic objectives in the innovation processes of related to both strategic and
(2022) international corporate entrepreneurs social objectives in the
Hypothesis 2: National public funding, funds from foreign Partially innovation process of
sources, and funding from other companies are positively related supported international corporate
to social objectives in the innovation processes of international entrepreneurs
corporate entrepreneurs
Hypothesis 3: Information from research sources and market Supported
sources is positively related to strategic objectives in the
innovation processes of international corporate entrepreneurs
Hypothesis 4: Information from research sources and market Supported
sources is positively related to social objectives in the innovation
processes of international corporate entrepreneurs
OVERCOMING BARRIERS TO SOCIAL INTRAPRENEURSHIP 170

Contribution to Thematic
Article Hypotheses/Research Question Results
Analysis
Gallardo- Research question: How can a measurement scale that integrates A reliable, valid Identified and confirmed 12
Vázquez et al. CSR and entrepreneurship characteristics be designed in order to scale, delimiting factors defining the traits of
(2024) identify corporate socially responsible entrepreneurs? entrepreneurial SIs
traits linked to
sustainability
practices

Galván-Vela Hypothesis 1: Ethics is a predictor of SI Rejected An individual’s social

et al. (2023) Hypothesis 2: Individual social mission is a predictor of SI Supported mission is a good predictor
of their SI characteristics
Giang & Hypothesis 1: Internal CSR practices have a positive and Accepted Supports problem
Dung (2022) significant effect on firm performance statement
Hypothesis 2: Employee strategic renewal behavior and Accepted Supports the relationship
employee new business venturing behavior positively influence between SI and firm
firm performance performance
Hypothesis 3: Firm internal CSR practices are positively, Accepted Supports the relationship
strongly, and significantly related to employee strategic renewal between internal CSR
behavior practices and SI
Hypothesis 4: Two employee intrapreneurial behaviors, strategic Accepted Supports mediating
renewal behavior, and new business venturing behavior, mediate relationship of SI to CSR
the relationship between internal CSR practices and firm practices and firm
performance performance
OVERCOMING BARRIERS TO SOCIAL INTRAPRENEURSHIP 171

Contribution to Thematic
Article Hypotheses/Research Question Results
Analysis
Goldsby et al. Hypothesis 1a-b: Stockholder salience is positively associated 1a, c, d Findings suggest that
(2018) with proactive (a) HR ethics, (b) community/environmental supported prioritizing employees
ethics leads to a more proactive
Hypothesis 1c-d: Employee saliences is positively associated 1b, e, f approach to
with proactive (c) HR ethics, (d) community/environmental rejected* community/environmental
ethics issues (*Authors concluded
Hypothesis 1e-f: Customer salience is positively associated with that these required further
proactive (e) HR ethics, (f) community/ environmental ethics interpretation.)
Hypothesis 2a-b: Proactiveness on (a) HR issues and/or (b) 2a was
community/environmental issues is positively associated with supported, 2b
externally directed innovation rejected
Hypothesis 3: Externally directed innovation is positively related 3 was supported
to internally directed innovation

Hadad (2015) Research question: Which of three alternative SI strategies are Study found SI Provides guidance on
best: SI as market development tool, SI as transformational most effective selecting the most effective
innovation tool, or SI as local development tool? as a local SI strategy based on a
development bushiness’s goals and
tool, followed priorities
by
transformational
and market
development
OVERCOMING BARRIERS TO SOCIAL INTRAPRENEURSHIP 172

Contribution to Thematic
Article Hypotheses/Research Question Results
Analysis
Kuratko et al. Research question: Examine the creation of social value within Five factors Provides guidance on
(2017) corporations through an instrument that measures organizational were identified: organizational antecedents
antecedents for social corporate entrepreneurship firm to SI success
transparency,
social
proactiveness,
rewards, work
discretion, and
time
availability.
However, social
proactiveness
was only one
statistically
significant.

Layman et al. Hypothesis 1: Organizational architecture has a positive effect Rejected Counter-finding on the
(2023) on social performance relationship between
Hypothesis 2: Intrapreneurship mediates the positive effect of Accepted organizational structure and
organizational architecture on social performance SI, attributed to
Hypothesis 3: Environmental forces have a positive effect on Accepted government influence in
social performance the hospital setting;
Hypothesis 4: Intrapreneurship mediates the positive effects of Accepted remaining hypotheses
environmental forces on social performance support thematic
Hypothesis 5: IT resources have a positive effect on social Accepted development.
performance
Hypothesis 6: Intrapreneurship mediates the positive effects of Accepted
IT resources on social performance
OVERCOMING BARRIERS TO SOCIAL INTRAPRENEURSHIP 173

Contribution to Thematic
Article Hypotheses/Research Question Results
Analysis
Luu (2022) Hypothesis 1: SL has a positive effect on corporate SEO Accepted SL of SIs can promote
Hypothesis 2: SL has a positive effect on workplace spirituality Accepted corporate SEO formation
Hypothesis 3: WS has a positive effect on corporate SEO Accepted and development, with WS
Hypothesis 4: WS partially mediates the positive effect of SL Accepted having a mediating effect
and corporate SEO

Malaj et al. Research question: What is the relative importance of factors Top external factors (in order of impact):
(2023) impacting Employee Social Intrapreneurial Behavior (ESIB) in Culture intelligence, dynamic work
the manufacturing sector in Albania environment, collectivist culture
Top internal factors (in order of impact):
Superior relationship quality, expected image
gains, need for cognition
OVERCOMING BARRIERS TO SOCIAL INTRAPRENEURSHIP 174

Contribution to Thematic
Article Hypotheses/Research Question Results
Analysis
Sharifi- Hypothesis 1: Islamic religiosity has a positive relationship with Accepted Involvement in corporate
Tehrani corporate SEO SE activities is highly
(2023) Hypothesis 2: Islamic religiosity has a positive relationship with Accepted motivated by an
attitude toward SE individual’s religious
Hypothesis 3: Attitude toward SE has a positive relationship Accepted philosophy
with corporate SEO
Hypothesis 4: Experiencing major life hardships has a positive Accepted
relationship with corporate SEO
Hypothesis 5: Experiencing major life hardships has a positive Accepted
relationship with attitudes toward SE
Hypothesis 6: Islamic religiosity has a positive relationship with Rejected
experiencing major life hardships
Hypothesis 7: Attitude toward SE mediates the relationship Accepted
between Islamic religiosity and corporate SEO
Hypothesis 8: Attitude toward SE mediates the relationship Accepted
between experiencing major life hardships and corporate SEO
Hypothesis 9: Experiencing major life hardship mediates the Rejected
relationship between Islamic religiosity and corporate SEO

Veeran & Hypothesis: There is no significant difference between Accepted Innovativeness and internal
Srinivasan experience and benefits associated with social intrapreneurs in policy factors, personal
(2019) developing sustainable business factors, stakeholders, and
external conflict factors are
the main challenges for
social intrapreneurs
OVERCOMING BARRIERS TO SOCIAL INTRAPRENEURSHIP 175

Contribution to Thematic
Article Hypotheses/Research Question Results
Analysis
Vinicius de Eight themes were examined to assess the relationship between Themes 1-6 Enabling organizational
Oliveira entrepreneurship and sustainability in a company’s operations: were confirmed; leadership factors are
Brasil et al. (1) values, transparency, and governance; (2) workforce; (3) 7-8 were flexibility, creativity,
(2013) environment; (4) suppliers; (5) consumers and customers; (6) inconclusive knowledge, information,
community; (7) government and society; (8) innovation and commitment

Xie et al. Hypothesis 1: Organizational ambidexterity significantly Accepted Staff and organizational
(2022) influences sustainable environmental performance alignment lead to improved
Hypothesis 2: Green entrepreneurship orientation significantly Accepted environmental and social
influences sustainable environmental performance performance
Hypothesis 3: Social entrepreneurship significantly influences Accepted
sustainable environmental performance
Hypothesis 4: Corporate social responsibilities significantly Accepted
moderate the relationship between organizational support and
sustainable environmental performance.
Hypothesis 5: Organizational support significantly and Accepted
positively mediates between green entrepreneurship orientation
and sustainable environmental performance
Hypothesis 6: Organizational support significantly and Accepted
positively mediates between social entrepreneurship and
sustainable environmental performance

Zhuang et al. Hypothesis 1a. A state-controlled firm’s EO is positively Accepted EO and SE are positively
(2020) associated with its CSR performance related to CSR performance
Hypothesis 1b. A state-controlled firm’s EO is negatively Rejected in state-controlled firms
associated with its CSR performance
Hypothesis 2. A privately controlled firm’s EO is negatively Rejected
associated with its CSR performance
OVERCOMING BARRIERS TO SOCIAL INTRAPRENEURSHIP 176

Appendix G

CERQual

Table G1

CERQual Evidence Profile: Result 1

Result 1 SI Success Requires Strategic Investments

Contributing 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 7, 8, 10, 12, 14, 15,16, 17, 18, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36
studies
Assessment of Minor concerns
methodological
None or very minor concerns with methodological design or conduct. Minor concern with the absence of
limitations
studies based on more robust methodologies, i.e., controlled and randomized studies or systematic and meta-
analysis based on these types of studies. This is common in the business setting.
Assessment of No concern
relevance
The studies directly relate to SI and provide insights into management strategies and actions.
Assessment of No concern
coherence
All studies were found to be clear and cogent.
Assessment of Minor concern
adequacy
Seven of the 18 quantitative studies reported a response rate below 60; statistical tests for response bias were
conducted.

Overall Moderate Confidence

Concerns: Methodologies limit the ability to establish a causal relationship
OVERCOMING BARRIERS TO SOCIAL INTRAPRENEURSHIP 177

Table G2

CERQual Evidence Profile: Result 2

Result 2 Aligning Business and SI Goals, Actions, and Motivations

Contributing 1, 4, 6, 9, 10, 11, 13, 14, 16, 18, 20, 21, 22, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 31, 35
studies
Assessment of Minor concerns
methodological
None or very minor concerns with methodological design or conduct. Minor concern with the absence of
limitations
studies based on more robust methodologies, i.e., controlled and randomized studies or systematic and meta-
analysis based on these types of studies. This is common in the business setting.
Assessment of No concern
relevance
The studies directly relate to SI and provide insights into management strategies and actions.
Assessment of No concern
coherence
All studies were found to be clear and cogent.
Assessment of No concern
adequacy
Only two of the seven quantitative studies reported a response rate below 60 percent; statistical tests for
response bias were conducted.

Overall Moderate Confidence

Concerns: Methodologies limit the ability to establish a causal relationship
OVERCOMING BARRIERS TO SOCIAL INTRAPRENEURSHIP 178

Table G3

CERQual Evidence Profile: Result 3

Result 3 Signal Executive and Organizational Support for SI

Contributing 1, 2, 3, 4, 7, 11, 14, 16, 19, 20, 21, 22, 24, 28, 29, 30, 31, 34
studies
Assessment of Minor concerns
methodological
None or very minor concerns with methodological design or conduct. Minor concern with the absence of
limitations
studies based on more robust methodologies, i.e., controlled and randomized studies or systematic and meta-
analysis based on these types of studies. This is common in the business setting.
Assessment of No concern
relevance
The studies directly relate to SI and provide insights into management strategies and actions.
Assessment of No concern
coherence
All studies were found to be clear and cogent.
Assessment of Minor concern
adequacy
Two of the six quantitative studies reported a response rate below 60 percent; however, statistical tests for
response bias were conducted.

Overall Moderate Confidence

Concerns: Methodologies limit the ability to establish a causal relationship
OVERCOMING BARRIERS TO SOCIAL INTRAPRENEURSHIP 179

Appendix H

Subject Matter Experts (SMEs)

SME Contributions to Study

SME # Expertise How contacted Contribution

1 Executive, In-person (a) Expand emphasis on making SI an organizational-wide priority, (b)
international interview create a measurement system tied directly to three strategic themes, (c)
business emphasize the cultural dimension, and (d) define SI but be prepared to
consultant embrace other forms
2 Academic, Email exchange (a) Confirmed importance of the research question; and (b) confirmed
published author the relevance of themes of investing, pursuing, and signaling
3 Executive, Email exchange (a) Confirmed the need for more work addressing organizational
published author and discussion structures to encourage and enable SI, and (b) recommended expanding
the definition of an SI to include management practices in addition to
products and services

4 CEO, global Email exchange (a) Suggested using change management or business transformation
business advisor models for implementation; (b) tone must be set at the top, establishing
SI adoption as a critical success factor for the business; (c) companies
fail to establish the link between CSR and business performance; (d)
best people will not engage in SI unless leadership communicates its
importance; (e) SIs need lateral leadership skills; and (f) make SI an
integral part of a fast-track career development program
5 CEO, global Zoom discussion (a) SI received a great deal of attention in 2005–2015 period but has
business advisor, received less attention recently, suggesting a cyclical nature; and (b)
published author over this same period, financial power has become even more
concentrated, making the bottom-up nature of SI potentially less
impactful
OVERCOMING BARRIERS TO SOCIAL INTRAPRENEURSHIP 180

Appendix I

Diagnostic Tools

Table I1

Corporate Social Entrepreneurship Scale

OVERCOMING BARRIERS TO SOCIAL INTRAPRENEURSHIP 181

Note. Reprinted with permission from: Kuratko, D. F., McMullen, J. S., Hornsby, J. S., &
Jackson, C. (2017). Is your organization conducive to the continuous creation of social value?
Toward a social corporate entrepreneurship scale. Business Horizons, 60(3), 271–283.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bushor.2016.12.003. Copyright permission attached. Copyright
Elsevier.
OVERCOMING BARRIERS TO SOCIAL INTRAPRENEURSHIP 182

ELSEVIER ORDER DETAILS

Aug 29, 2024
This Agreement between Michael F. Corbett ("You") and Elsevier ("Elsevier") consists of your order details and the terms and
conditions provided by Elsevier and Copyright Clearance Center.
Order Number 501928567
Order date Aug 26, 2024
Licensed Content Publisher Elsevier
Licensed Content Publication Business Horizons
Licensed Content Title Is your organization conducive to the continuous creation of social value? Toward a social
corporate entrepreneurship scale
Licensed Content Author Donald F. Kuratko, Jeffery S. McMullen, Jeffrey S. Hornsby, Chad Jackson
Licensed Content Date May–June 2017
Licensed Content Volume 60
Licensed Content Issue 3
Licensed Content Pages 13
Start Page 271
End Page 283
Type of Use reuse in a thesis/dissertation
Portion figures/tables/illustrations
Number of
figures/tables/illustrations 1
Format electronic
Are you the author of this Elsevier No
article?
Will you be translating? No
Title of new work A SYSTEMATIC REVIEW: EXPLORING HOW
CORPORATIONS CAN DEVELOP
MANAGEMENT STRATEGIES TO OVERCOME
BARRIERS TO SOCIAL INTRAPRENEURSHIP
Institution name UMGC
Expected presentation date Dec 2024
Order reference number 2
Portions
The Requesting Person / Appendix
Organization to Appear on the
License
Requestor Location Michael F. Corbett
Mike Corbett
5142 Tildens Grove Blvd
WINDERMERE, FL 34786
United States
Attn: Mike
Publisher Tax ID 98-0397604
Billing Type Invoice
Billing Address Mike Corbett
5142 Tildens Grove Blvd
WINDERMERE, FL 34786
United States
Attn: Mike
Total
Terms and Conditions 0.00 USD
INTRODUCTION
1. The publisher for this copyrighted material is Elsevier. By clicking "accept" in connection with completing this licensing
transaction, you agree that the following terms and conditions apply to this transaction (along with the Billing and Payment terms
and conditions established by Copyright Clearance Center, Inc. ("CCC"), at the time that you opened your RightsLink account
and that are available at any time at https://myaccount.copyright.com).
GENERAL TERMS
2. Elsevier hereby grants you permission to reproduce the aforementioned material subject to the terms and conditions
indicated.
3. Acknowledgement: If any part of the material to be used (for example, figures) has appeared in our publication with
credit or acknowledgement to another source, permission must also be sought from that source. If such permission is not
OVERCOMING BARRIERS TO SOCIAL INTRAPRENEURSHIP 183

obtained then that material may not be included in your publication/copies. Suitable acknowledgement to the source must be
made, either as a footnote or in a reference list at the end of your publication, as follows:
"Reprinted from Publication title, Vol /edition number, Author(s), Title of article / title of chapter, Pages No., Copyright (Year),
with permission from Elsevier [OR APPLICABLE
SOCIETY COPYRIGHT OWNER]." Also Lancet special credit - "Reprinted from The Lancet, Vol. number, Author(s), Title of
article, Pages No., Copyright (Year), with permission from Elsevier."
4. Reproduction of this material is confined to the purpose and/or media for which permission is hereby given. The
material may not be reproduced or used in any other way, including use in combination with an artificial intelligence tool
(including to train an algorithm, test, process, analyse, generate output and/or develop any form of artificial intelligence tool), or
to create any derivative work and/or service (including resulting from the use of artificial intelligence tools).
5. Altering/Modifying Material: Not Permitted. However, figures and illustrations may be altered/adapted minimally to
serve your work. Any other abbreviations, additions, deletions and/or any other alterations shall be made only with prior written
authorization of Elsevier Ltd. (Please contact Elsevier’s permissions helpdesk here). No modifications can be made to any Lancet
figures/tables and they must be reproduced in full.
6. If the permission fee for the requested use of our material is waived in this instance, please be advised that your future
requests for Elsevier materials may attract a fee.
7. Reservation of Rights: Publisher reserves all rights not specifically granted in the combination of (i) the license details
provided by you and accepted in the course of this licensing transaction, (ii) these terms and conditions and (iii) CCC's Billing
and Payment terms and conditions.
8. License Contingent Upon Payment: While you may exercise the rights licensed immediately upon issuance of the
license at the end of the licensing process for the transaction, provided that you have disclosed complete and accurate details of
your proposed use, no license is finally effective unless and until full payment is received from you (either by publisher or by
CCC) as provided in CCC's Billing and Payment terms and conditions. If full payment is not received on a timely basis, then any
license preliminarily granted shall be deemed automatically revoked and shall be void as if never granted. Further, in the event
that you breach any of these terms and conditions or any of CCC's Billing and Payment terms and conditions, the license is
automatically revoked and shall be void as if never granted. Use of materials as described in a revoked license, as well as any use
of the materials beyond the scope of an unrevoked license, may constitute copyright infringement and publisher reserves the right
to take any and all action to protect its copyright in the materials.
9. Warranties: Publisher makes no representations or warranties with respect to the licensed material.
10. Indemnity: You hereby indemnify and agree to hold harmless publisher and CCC, and their respective officers,
directors, employees and agents, from and against any and all claims arising out of your use of the licensed material other than as
specifically authorized pursuant to this license.
11. No Transfer of License: This license is personal to you and may not be sublicensed, assigned, or transferred by you to
any other person without publisher's written permission.
12. No Amendment Except in Writing: This license may not be amended except in a writing signed by both parties (or, in
the case of publisher, by CCC on publisher's behalf).
13. Objection to Contrary Terms: Publisher hereby objects to any terms contained in any purchase order, acknowledgment,
check endorsement or other writing prepared by you, which terms are inconsistent with these terms and conditions or CCC's
Billing and Payment terms and conditions. These terms and conditions, together with CCC's Billing and Payment terms and
conditions (which are incorporated herein), comprise the entire agreement between you and publisher (and CCC) concerning this
licensing transaction. In the event of any conflict between your obligations established by these terms and conditions and those
established by CCC's Billing and Payment terms and conditions, these terms and conditions shall control.
14. Revocation: Elsevier or Copyright Clearance Center may deny the permissions described in this License at their sole
discretion, for any reason or no reason, with a full refund payable to you. Notice of such denial will be made using the contact
information provided by you. Failure to receive such notice will not alter or invalidate the denial. In no event will Elsevier or
Copyright Clearance Center be responsible or liable for any costs, expenses or damage incurred by you as a result of a denial of
your permission request, other than a refund of the amount(s) paid by you to Elsevier and/or Copyright Clearance Center for
denied permissions.
LIMITED LICENSE
The following terms and conditions apply only to specific license types:
15. Translation: This permission is granted for non-exclusive world English rights only unless your license was granted for
translation rights. If you licensed translation rights you may only translate this content into the languages you requested. A
professional translator must perform all translations and reproduce the content word for word preserving the integrity of the
article.
16. Posting licensed content on any Website: The following terms and conditions apply as follows: Licensing material from
an Elsevier journal: All content posted to the web site must maintain the copyright information line on the bottom of each image;
A hyper-text must be included to the Homepage of the journal from which you are licensing at
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/journal/xxxxx or the Elsevier homepage for books at http://www.elsevier.com; Central
Storage: This license does not include permission for a scanned version of the material to be stored in a central repository such as
that provided by Heron/XanEdu.
OVERCOMING BARRIERS TO SOCIAL INTRAPRENEURSHIP 184

Licensing material from an Elsevier book: A hyper-text link must be included to the Elsevier homepage at
http://www.elsevier.com . All content posted to the web site must maintain the copyright information line on the bottom of each
image.
Posting licensed content on Electronic reserve: In addition to the above the following clauses are applicable: The web site must
be password-protected and made available only to bona fide students registered on a relevant course. This permission is granted
for 1 year only. You may obtain a new license for future website posting.
17. For journal authors: the following clauses are applicable in addition to the above:
Preprints:
A preprint is an author's own write-up of research results and analysis, it has not been peer-reviewed, nor has it had any other
value added to it by a publisher (such as formatting, copyright, technical enhancement etc.).
Authors can share their preprints anywhere at any time. Preprints should not be added to or enhanced in any way in order to
appear more like, or to substitute for, the final versions of articles however authors can update their preprints on arXiv or RePEc
with their Accepted Author Manuscript (see below).
If accepted for publication, we encourage authors to link from the preprint to their formal publication via its DOI. Millions of
researchers have access to the formal publications on ScienceDirect, and so links will help users to find, access, cite and use the
best available version. Please note that Cell Press, The Lancet and some society-owned have different preprint policies.
Information on these policies is available on the journal homepage.
Accepted Author Manuscripts: An accepted author manuscript is the manuscript of an article that has been accepted for
publication and which typically includes authorin corporated changes suggested during submission, peer review and editor-author
communications.
Authors can share their accepted author manuscript:
immediately via their non-commercial person homepage or blog
by updating a preprint in arXiv or RePEc with the accepted manuscript
via their research institute or institutional repository for internal institutional uses or as part of an invitation-only research
collaboration work-group directly by providing copies to their students or to research collaborators for their personal use
for private scholarly sharing as part of an invitation-only work group on
commercial sites with which Elsevier has an agreement
After the embargo period via non-commercial hosting platforms such as their institutional repository via commercial sites with
which Elsevier has an agreement
In all cases accepted manuscripts should:
link to the formal publication via its DOI bear a CC-BY-NC-ND license - this is easy to do if aggregated with other manuscripts,
for example in a repository or other site, be shared in alignment with our hosting policy not be added to or enhanced in any way
to appear more like, or to substitute for, the published journal article.
Published journal article (JPA): A published journal article (PJA) is the definitive final record of published research that appears
or will appear in the journal and embodies all value-adding publishing activities including peer review co-ordination, copy-
editing, formatting, (if relevant) pagination and online enrichment.
Policies for sharing publishing journal articles differ for subscription and gold open access articles:
Subscription Articles: If you are an author, please share a link to your article rather than the full-text. Millions of researchers have
access to the formal publications on ScienceDirect, and so links will help your users to find, access, cite, and use the best
available version.
Theses and dissertations which contain embedded PJAs as part of the formal submission can be posted publicly by the awarding
institution with DOI links back to the formal publications on ScienceDirect.
If you are affiliated with a library that subscribes to ScienceDirect you have additional private sharing rights for others' research
accessed under that agreement. This includes use for classroom teaching and internal training at the institution (including use in
course packs and courseware programs), and inclusion of the article for grant funding purposes.
Gold Open Access Articles: May be shared according to the author-selected end-user license and should contain a CrossMark
logo, the end user license, and a DOI link to the formal publication on ScienceDirect.
Please refer to Elsevier's posting policy for further information.
18. For book authors the following clauses are applicable in addition to the above: Authors are permitted to place a brief
summary of their work online only. You are not allowed to download and post the published electronic version of your chapter,
nor may you scan the printed edition to create an electronic version. Posting to a repository: Authors are permitted to post a
summary of their chapter only in their institution's repository.
19. Thesis/Dissertation: If your license is for use in a thesis/dissertation your thesis may be submitted to your institution in
either print or electronic form. Should your thesis be published commercially, please reapply for permission. These requirements
include permission for the Library and Archives of Canada to supply single copies, on demand, of the complete thesis and
include permission for Proquest/UMI to supply single copies, on demand, of the complete thesis. Should your thesis be published
commercially, please reapply for permission. Theses and dissertations which contain embedded PJAs as part of the formal
submission can be posted publicly by the awarding institution with DOI links back to the formal publications on ScienceDirect.
Elsevier Open Access Terms and Conditions
You can publish open access with Elsevier in hundreds of open access journals or in nearly 2000 established subscription
journals that support open access publishing. Permitted third party re-use of these open access articles is defined by the author's
choice of Creative Commons user license. See our open access license policy for more information.
OVERCOMING BARRIERS TO SOCIAL INTRAPRENEURSHIP 185

Terms & Conditions applicable to all Open Access articles published with Elsevier:
Any reuse of the article must not represent the author as endorsing the adaptation of the article nor should the article be modified
in such a way as to damage the author's honour or reputation. If any changes have been made, such changes must be clearly
indicated.
The author(s) must be appropriately credited and we ask that you include the end user license and a DOI link to the formal
publication on ScienceDirect.
If any part of the material to be used (for example, figures) has appeared in our publication with credit or acknowledgement to
another source it is the responsibility of the user to ensure their reuse complies with the terms and conditions determined by the
rights holder.
Additional Terms & Conditions applicable to each Creative Commons user license:
CC BY: The CC-BY license allows users to copy, to create extracts, abstracts and new works from the Article, to alter and revise
the Article and to make commercial use of the Article (including reuse and/or resale of the Article by commercial entities),
provided the user gives appropriate credit (with a link to the formal publication through the relevant DOI), provides a link to the
license, indicates if changes were made and the licensor is not represented as endorsing the use made of the work. The full details
of the license are available at http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0.
CC BY NC SA: The CC BY-NC-SA license allows users to copy, to create extracts, abstracts and new works from the Article, to
alter and revise the Article, provided this is not done for commercial purposes, and that the user gives appropriate credit (with a
link to the formal publication through the relevant DOI), provides a link to the license, indicates if changes were made and the
licensor is not represented as endorsing the use made of the work. Further, any new works must be made available on the same
conditions. The full details of the license are available at http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/4.0.
CC BY NC ND: The CC BY-NC-ND license allows users to copy and distribute the Article, provided this is not done for
commercial purposes and further does not permit distribution of the Article if it is changed or edited in any way, and provided the
user gives appropriate credit (with a link to the formal publication through the relevant DOI), provides a link to the license, and
that the licensor is not represented as endorsing the use made of the work. The full details of the license are available at
http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0. Any commercial reuse of Open Access articles published with a CC BY NC
SA or CC BY NC ND license requires permission from Elsevier and will be subject to a fee.
Commercial reuse includes:
Associating advertising with the full text of the Article
Charging fees for document delivery or access
Article aggregation
Systematic distribution via e-mail lists or share buttons
Posting or linking by commercial companies for use by customers of those companies.
20. Other Conditions:
v1.10
OVERCOMING BARRIERS TO SOCIAL INTRAPRENEURSHIP 186

Table I2

Summary of Four Social Innovation Engagement Platforms and Their Characteristics

OVERCOMING BARRIERS TO SOCIAL INTRAPRENEURSHIP 187

Note. Reprinted with permission from: Mirvis, P., & Googins, B. (2018). Engaging employees as social innovators. California
Management Review, 60(4), 25-50. https://doi.org/10.1177/0008125618779062. Copyright permission attached.
OVERCOMING BARRIERS TO SOCIAL INTRAPRENEURSHIP 188

SAGE PUBLICATIONS LICENSE TERMS AND CONDITIONS

Aug 26, 2024

This Agreement between Michael F. Corbett ("You") and SAGE Publications ("SAGE Publications") consists of your license details
and the terms and conditions provided by SAGE Publications and Copyright Clearance Center.
License Number 5856740802491
License date Aug 26, 2024
Licensed Content
SAGE Publica ons
Publisher
Licensed Content
California Management Review
Publica on
Licensed Content Title Engaging Employees as Social Innovators
Licensed Content Author Philip Mirvis, Bradley Googins
Licensed Content Date Aug 1, 2018
Licensed Content Volume 60
Licensed Content Issue 4
Licensed Content Pages 26
Type of Use Dissertation/Thesis
Requestor type I am NOT the author of the requested article

Format Print and electronic

Por on Figure/table
Number of figures/tables 1
Will you be transla ng? No, only English
Circula on 100
A SYSTEMATIC REVIEW: EXPLORING HOW
Title of new work CORPORATIONS CAN DEVELOP MANAGEMENT
STRATEGIES TO OVERCOME BARRIERS TO SOCIAL
OVERCOMING BARRIERS TO SOCIAL INTRAPRENEURSHIP 189

INTRAPRENEURSHIP
Ins tu on name UMGC
Expected presenta on
Dec 2024
date
Order reference number 1
Por ons Table 1
The Reques ng Person /
Organiza on to Appear onMichael F. Corbe
the License
Requestor Loca on Mike Corbe
5142 Tildens Grove Blvd
WINDERMERE, FL 34786
United States
A n: Mike
Billing Type Invoice
Mike Corbe
Billing Address
5142 Tildens Grove Blvd
WINDERMERE, FL 34786
United States
Attn: Mike
Total 0.00 USD
Terms and Conditions
Sage Terms and Conditions for Permissions Administered Through RightsLink
You, the Requestor, are requesting to use the material specified in the permission request (the "Work"). Your agreement to the terms
and conditions herein and completion of a permission request constitutes a Permission Request. You are in no way required to use the
Work; however, should you decide not to use the Work after you complete this request, you agree to cancel your order through this
website. Under the above conditions, and the following terms and conditions, permission to use Work ("Permission") is granted solely
to you:
1. Sage reserves the right to revoke any Permission, at Sage's sole discretion, within two (2) business days of the request.
2. The number of copies ("Copies") for print use is defined as the total number of copies made for distribution or for repurposing,
and the number of copies ("Copies") for electronic use is defined as the total number of viewers of the Work, recipients of copies of
OVERCOMING BARRIERS TO SOCIAL INTRAPRENEURSHIP 190

the Work, and individuals or entities who may have access to the Work. The Copies must not exceed the Copies as stated in the
Permission Request.
3. Requests to post a full article on a website, internet, intranet, or any publicly accessible site must be submitted to the Publisher
through the Sage Permissions Portal (https://sage-cloud.atlassian.net/servicedesk/customer/portal/10).
4. Permission is granted only for the type of use specified in the Permission Request. If any information pertaining to your
Permission Request changes, you must cancel this request and resubmit a new request with the correct and current permission request
information. Sage may exercise its right to revoke Permission, if Sage finds, in Sage's sole opinion, that the context in which you have
used or repurposed the Work is considered libelous, in violation of any right of privacy, or otherwise unlawful; infringement or in
violation of any copyright or other proprietary right of others; or can be construed to possibly cause harm or injury. You agree that use
of Work will be professional, in the context of fact-based and generally acceptable professional practices.
5. Permission does not include the use within Custom Publishing Programs, and all use within such programs is explicitly
prohibited.
6. Permission does not include use of the material within Massive Open Online Courses (MOOC's). For permission to include
material in a MOOC, please contact Sage directly through the Sage Permissions Portal
(https://sagecloud.atlassian.net/servicedesk/customer/portal/10).
7. If your Permission Request includes the right to translate the Work, you agree that the translation of the material shall be made
faithfully and accurately, and that abbreviations and/or alterations in the text and/or title of the Work shall be made only with Sage's
prior the written consent. Requestor shall not own or acquire any copyright or other proprietary rights in the Work or any other
material furnished by Sage, including without limitation translations or transcriptions thereof, all of which rights shall be owned by
and/or are hereby assigned to Sage. Requestor shall indemnify Sage against any and all claims, including without limitation attorneys'
fees and legal costs, that concern or relate to (a) inaccurate translation or transcription of the Work, (b) infringement claims arising out
of the inclusion of material not furnished by Sage or (c) infringement or other claims asserted by anyone retained by Requestor to
translate the Work. Requestor agrees that the name of the Author (s), Copyright Holder, and Publisher shall appear in due prominence
on the title page of every copy of the translation and in all advertisements for the translation, and that the translation shall include: (1)
the Work's original copyright notice and original American title, both in English, and (2) notice in granted translated language in
identifying the Sage Publications as the original publisher and stating the translation is published by arrangement with Sage. The
rights licensed to Requestor are not transferrable. The translated article reprint must include the following disclaimer in English and in
the language of the reprint: "While every effort has been made to ensure that the contents of this publication are factually correct,
neither the authors nor the publisher accepts, and they hereby expressly exclude to the fullest extent permissible under applicable law,
any and all liability arising from the contents published in this Article, including, without limitation, from any errors, omissions,
inaccuracies in original or following translation, or for any consequences arising therefrom. Nothing in this notice shall exclude
liability which may not be excluded by law. Approved product information should be reviewed before prescribing any subject
medications."
OVERCOMING BARRIERS TO SOCIAL INTRAPRENEURSHIP 191

8. Permission is granted for prospective use only, and does not apply to any use that has occurred prior to the date of the
Permission Request.
9. Permission does not apply to any material (reprints, illustrations, figures, tables, etc.) not controlled by Sage. Requests for
permission to re-use third-party material should be submitted to the original copyright holder, as indicated in the credit line for the
materials.
10. Full acknowledgment of your source must appear in every copy of your work as follows:
Author(s), Book/Journal Title (Journal Volume Number and Issue Number) pp. xx-xx. Copyright © YEAR by (Copyright Holder).
Reprinted by Permission of Sage Publications
11. Unless specified in the request or by prior arrangement with Sage, payment is due from you within sixty (60) days after the
completion of Permission.
12. It is assumed that the Requester is using the selection in question, and is subject to billing and collections procedures, unless
otherwise noted.
13. Permission Requests for reuse of text excerpts shall not exceed 50% of a journal article's content.
14. No more than 20% of any one Sage book or journal issue may be reused at one time.
Other Terms and Conditions:
v4.06
Questions? [email protected].
OVERCOMING BARRIERS TO SOCIAL INTRAPRENEURSHIP 192

Table I3

Dimensions, Factors, and Items Comprising the Validated Scale Assessing Corporate Socially

Responsible Entrepreneurs’ Traits (CSRE‑s)

OVERCOMING BARRIERS TO SOCIAL INTRAPRENEURSHIP 193
OVERCOMING BARRIERS TO SOCIAL INTRAPRENEURSHIP 194

Note. Reprinted from: Gallardo-Vázquez, D., Herrador-Alcaide, T. C. & de la Cruz Sánchez-

Domínguez, J. (2024). Developing a measurement scale of corporate socially responsible
entrepreneurship in sustainable management. Review of Management Science, 18, 1377–1426.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11846-023-00658-5. Copyright permission attached.
OVERCOMING BARRIERS TO SOCIAL INTRAPRENEURSHIP 195

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits
use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate
credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if
changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative
Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the
article’s Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the
permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence,
visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
 ProQuest Number: 31768024

INFORMATION TO ALL USERS

The quality and completeness of this reproduction is dependent on the quality
and completeness of the copy made available to ProQuest.

Distributed by
ProQuest LLC a part of Clarivate ( 2025 ).
Copyright of the Dissertation is held by the Author unless otherwise noted.

This work is protected against unauthorized copying under Title 17,

United States Code and other applicable copyright laws.

This work may be used in accordance with the terms of the Creative Commons license
or other rights statement, as indicated in the copyright statement or in the metadata
associated with this work. Unless otherwise specified in the copyright statement
or the metadata, all rights are reserved by the copyright holder.

ProQuest LLC
789 East Eisenhower Parkway
Ann Arbor, MI 48108 USA