Abstract
As the slowdown of social enterprises caused an interruption of the economic structure of Thailand, this study was conducted to find ways to drive social enterprises to grow sustainably in the digital economy era. The data were collected from 33 experts and presented through descriptive dimensions of Percentage, Mean, Median, Mode, and interquartile ranges. One hundred indicators were found as guidelines for driving social enterprises. The sample group showed a unified opinion on all those 100 indicators. The indicators that gained the highest mean in each aspect were as follows: 1) Business Management: strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, and obstacles analyzed to review the vision, mission, and goals of operating social enterprises; 2) Organizational Transformation: vision and the spirit of social work, communicated for personnel in the organization; 3) Technology and innovation: innovations in products and services, developed to make them different from general products with an identity to create competitive advantages 4) Social Shared Values: balance between seeking business profits and solving social problems. The study makes recommendations at both policy and operation levels suggesting an increase in competitiveness by building added values and creating social enterprise innovation in the digital economy era or building incentives for private sectors in terms of employment, procurement, and investment to accommodate the growth of the social enterprise. Social enterprise should also plan strategies at the organization level, company level, and operation level to make them consistent with the new normal situation.
Keywords: Business management, Delphi technique, Digital economy, Organizational transformation, Social enterprise, Social shared value, Sustainably, Technology and innovation.
Received: 9 April 2022 / Revised: 24 June 2022 / Accepted: 11 July 2022/ Published: 25 July 2022
Contribution/ Originality
This study contributes to studying the guidelines to drive business organizations and social enterprises to grow sustainably in the digital economy era in order to sustain economic and social changes in Thailand. The study devised appropriate and innovative strategies and business models to create a competitive advantage in the context of Thailand.
1. INTRODUCTION
Thailand’s 20-year national strategy (2018-2037) has paved the way for the practices to help the country achieve the vision embedded in this statement: “Thailand has security, prosperity, and sustainability, to become a developed country based on the philosophy of sufficiency economy.” It provides a guideline, supporting private sectors and people to drive the country’s development by supporting and developing social enterprise. However, the economy, society, and environmental changes result in many problems, including poverty and social disparity.
Meanwhile, both private and government agencies, including non-profit organizations, have become aware of these problems associated with changes happening worldwide in natural resources. The United Nations (UN) aims for sustainable development with economic, social, and environmental integration while having “Social Enterprise” as a tool, encouraging 193-member countries, including Thailand, to sign for achieving sustainable development by 2030, leading to Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). In year 2021, Thailand was ranked 43rd and showed that the potential in mobilizing the tool for tracking the evaluation of sustainable development of the country had decreased (United Nation, 2021). According to the review information about mobilizing 17 sustainable development goals collected by the United Nations, Thailand faces a high challenge that should be improved. It means many plans should be driven and corrected to promote sustainable development.
In Europe, America, Latin America, and Southeast Asia, social enterprises bring about sustainable business economic development and use them as a framework to create value for the society (Poolsawat & Srimai, 2018). The Social Enterprise Report on Southeast Asia, Thailand shows the lowest percentage growth compared to Indonesia.
Figure 1 presents the percentage of sales growth in Indonesia, Philippines, Vietnam, Malaysia, and Thailand:
| Source: 2017-2020 (The British Council, 2021). |
The information indicates how each country addressed the goals and evaluated mobilization for sustainable development. Being the least achiever of social enterprises and sales growth, the Thai government should promote and support social enterprise for society and encourage private sectors to partake in developing community and environment sustainably. This can be achieved via building shared values among the business sector, culture, and the consumers in the form of social enterprise for society as the development following the philosophy of sufficiency economy by King Bhumibol Adulyadej. In this matter, the concept of social enterprise for society was introduced into the country around 2009-2010, when Thailand was severely affected by Hamburger Crisis. Many sectors had emphasized the idea of social enterprise at that time (Siripatsophon, 2015 cited in Prateeppornnarong, 2020).
However, there has never been a clear role in running and supporting social enterprises until the time when Act about social enterprise established a specific organization in 2016-2019. This triggered a movement in releasing a royal decree prescribing tax exemption in 2016 for the organizations regarded as social enterprises. This enabled the society to get exemption from taxation. During that time, Social Enterprise Promotion Act had been drafted. In 2017, the Rule of the Office of the Prime Minister vide social enterprise had been amended by launching the regulations and the application for social enterprise registration (Office of the National Economic and Social Development Council, 2015). However, it was not until 2019 that the Social Enterprise Promotion Act emerged, taking responsibility for driving social enterprise building for society by the government. A social enterprise policy was enacted by integrating works between network partners in all sectors, including the government sector, private sector, and civil society. Each sector was responsible for establishing the Office of Social Enterprise Promotion to promote, support, give assistance, and efficiently develop social enterprises for society and social enterprise groups (Prateeppornnarong, 2020).
In addition, social business in Thailand was boosted by the British Council with the support of the Hong Kong Bank and Shanghai Banking Corporation Limited. It also received cooperation from United Nations Economic and Social Commission for Asia and the Pacific (ESCAP), Social Enterprise U.K., Thailand Development Research Institute (TDRI) and Social Business Association (SBA, Thailand). In 2021, top three obstacles to social enterprise for society in Thailand included cash-flow problem seen in the accessibility to the capital for both borrowing money and investment; lack of understanding from the public and the consumers about social enterprise; and lack of specific laws and systematic supports. As a result, the operation had become inconsistent.
A social enterprise is also limited to capital and the source of funds, especially it is true of network and community organizations, public benefit organizations and new entrepreneurs. Additionally, the lack of expertise in business operation and management, coupled with vague definition, too, results in the obstruction of the development and expansion of social enterprises. Hence, to have social enterprise play an essential role and yield results contributing to society, it was necessary to study the guidelines to drive social enterprise in Thailand and grow sustainably digital economy era by selling products and services with awareness of addressing the problems and developing community, society, and environment. including developing guidelines for promoting social enterprises to be beneficial to the public in terms of sustainable occupation of the community in Thailand.
2. LITERATURE REVIEW
2.1 Social Enterprise in Context
Prateeppornnarong (2020) summarized that social enterprise is an operation to promote social and environmental development and solve social and environmental problems. It relies on generating revenue through trading activities and providing services for future operations without the aim of sharing profits or earnings with shareholders. Furthermore, the owner of the enterprise is the ultimate goal. For this reason, social enterprises in some countries are classified as so-called organizations (non-for-profit) because the operation of the business is aimed at seeking profits and profits for survival. However, the pursuit of profit is not considered the ultimate goal, making social enterprises different from enterprises. Non-profit organizations traditionally rely on donations or membership fees to run their organization activities.
Spreckley (cited in Ridley-Duff and Bull (2016)) defined social enterprises as organizations where people work. It is owned and supervised by following social and commercial objectives and goals and is operated as a cooperative. It was also added that social enterprise differed from other social enterprises in that it did not focus on “Profit” but emphasized the importance of three elements: personal benefits, environmental benefits, and social benefits.
2.2. Technology and innovation in the Digital Economy Era
Tidd and Bessant (2009, cited in Triphopsakul and Phichayangkoon (2020)) mentioned that innovation is a process to describe what kind of opportunities exist to create something that differentiates and seeks value. Any place where innovation is essentially a matter of chance has four dimensions: The first dimension of product innovation is a new product development and product improvement to be more efficient. The second dimension is Process Innovation, which develops new operational processes for maximum efficiency. The third dimension is position Innovation, a change in the presentation of a product or service, introducing a different environment for changes related to the presentation style. The fourth dimension is of the difference in organizational culture or the organization's basic conceptual model, working for changes associated with the mental model and paradigm of the personnel.
Jabłoński and Jabłoński (2019) observed that the market and the dynamic changes allow for company business models’ intense focus on social factors. It is related, among others, to create both economic and social values. Accordingly, it influences the search for such attributes or components that will make a unique method of its construction and operationalization toward high organizational performance. It also refers, among other things, to the concept of digital trust, especially in creating social business models for the digital economy. The social aspects of the digital economy, with a focus on digital social innovations, are described in this study. Attention is also paid to the management of sustainable value from the perspective of business models.
2.3. Sustainability
Sustainable development and sustainability concepts move together and are often addressed jointly. However, these two concepts must be distinguished. While sustainability fundamentally covers environmental degradation and pollution issues, the focus of sustainable development is essentially on the planned and participatory development of a new economic and civilizing organization that ensures the future of future generations (Blewitt, 2017) (cited Almeida and Amoedo (2020)).
Wiriyaphan (2018) pointed out that the definition of sustainable development responds to the needs of the present generation without harming the needs of the new era in the future. Meeting the current generation’s needs must have the destruction of natural resources and the environment, which will harm much sustainable development. It is therefore an idea to solve these problems by conserving nature in a collective or macro way. This affects the quality of the environment in one place as well as enhance the quality of the environment elsewhere to compensate in the macro sense for the quality of the background to be sustained.
3. METHODOLOGY
3.1. Research Model
The research design of this study is based on the organizational structure and operations of social enterprises for sustainable growth in the digital economy era. The research aimed to develop guidelines for promoting social enterprises to be beneficial to the public in terms of sustainable occupation of the community in Thailand. This research adopted the qualitative research technique to analyze the data by using the Delphi techniques, which required to obtain consensus from the experts
3.2. Research Population
The purposive sampling technique was used for this study which, according to experts, is an ideal technique for studies using the Delphi techniques (Silpcharu, 2020). In this matter, the experts were categorized into three groups as follows.
- Organization group related to social enterprise, totaling fifteen individuals.
- Government and agencies groups related to social enterprise, totaling nine individuals.
- Academician group related to social enterprise, totaling nine individuals.
3.3. Selection Criteria or Conditions
The selection criteria of all 33 experts included their having experience and responsibilities in public enterprise; they should be able to show opinions freely and screen their opinions carefully; they ought to be guided by reliable and transparent information. Accordingly, it offered an error reduction of 0.44-0.43 and a net change of data used for summarizing research results with the lowest value of 0.01.
3.4. Research Tools
The tools used for qualitative research using Delphi techniques included interview forms and questionnaires in three rounds.
3.5. Data Analysis
Data analysis included some mixed research design components such as Content Analysis, Mode, Interquartile Range, Average, and Median, in line with considering the consistency of opinions of a group of experts for the guidelines about driving public enterprise to grow sustainably. The interquartile range was less than or equivalent to 1.5 which shows that the experts have consistent opinions about that item (Wantanakomol & Silpcharu, 2020). Table 1 summarizes each item’s level of prediction and trend as observed from the content analysis. The content opinion shows the number of times an expert referred to a specific guideline related to Business Management, Organizational Transformation, Technology and Innovation or Social Shared Values. This is a clear indication of experts’ opinions about the guidelines that could drive social enterprises to grow sustainably in a digital economy era.
Table 1. Numbers and percentage of overall opinions of a group of experts towards the guideline to drive social enterprises to grow sustainably in Thailand. |
Overall, in each aspect |
Guidelines to drive social enterprises to grow sustainably in a digital economy era | Content opinion of experts |
Percentage |
1 |
Business Management | 611 |
26.67 |
2 |
Organizational Transformation | 544 |
23.75 |
3 |
Technology and Innovation | 538 |
23.48 |
4 |
Social Shared Values | 598 |
26.10 |
| Total | 100.00 |
||
4. RESEARCH FINDINGS
4.1. Overall Opinions of Experts in Each Aspect Results
The content analysis of the data collected from the experiment revealed “overall” opinions of a group of experts towards guidelines that could drive social enterprises to grow sustainably in Thailand. According to Table 1, it was found that a group of experts had opinions on the policies in driving social enterprise to grow sustainably in a digital economy era in the aspect of Business Management accounted for 26.67% while having their views on the element of Organizational Transformation 23.75%, Innovation and Technology 23.48%, Social Shared Values 26.10%. While analyzing each aspect in detail, it was found that:
1) Business Management: The data revealed that the guideline to drive social enterprise to grow sustainably in the digital economy era had 25 indicators. When arranging the top 3 orders, the first order was to prepare a financial statement correctly with transparency that can be proven, based on good governance, and accounting for 100.00. The second-order was to calculate the cost of goods and services to determine prices at an optimal level, accounting for 100.00%. The third-order was to track and evaluate financial and accounting operation regularly, accounting for 96.97%.
2) Organizational Transformation: The results show that the guideline to drive social enterprise to grow sustainably in a digital economy era had 25 indicators. When arranging the top 3 orders, the first order was to implant personnel with determination to the success of the social enterprise to form organizational culture, which accounted for 100.00%; the second-order was to build a work environment for the personnel to make them have a feeling of co-ownership in social enterprise, accounted for 100.00%; and the third-order was to encourage the person to take part in determining the policies and direction of the organization to promote cooperation and have the same goals, accounted for 94.97%
3) Technology and Innovation: It was found that the guideline to drive social enterprise to grow sustainably in digital economy era had 25 indicators. When arranging the top 3 orders, the first order was to use communication technology within the organization, such as electronic documents and online conferences, which accounted for 100.00%; the second-order was to use packaged programs appropriate for administration within the organization, such as an accounting-recording system, which accounted for 96.97%; and the third-order was to organize training, seminar, and the study of innovation and technology for the personnel within organization, accounting for 93.94%
4) Social Shared Values: It turned out that the guideline to drive social enterprise to grow sustainably in digital economy era had 25 indicators. When arranging the top 3 orders, the first order was to determine organizational policies focusing on business ethics to form corporate culture, which accounted for 100.00%. The second order was to have the stakeholders show their opinions on the organization’s work process, which accounted for 100.00%. The third order considered the balance between seeking profits in business and addressing social problems, which accounted for 95.91%.
4.2. Results of Median and Interquartile Range Analysis
The result of analysis of median and interquartile range of guidelines to drive social enterprise to grow sustainably in a digital economy era had the following means for each of the four aspects:
- Business Management: In the field of Business management, it was found that the guideline to drive social enterprise to grow sustainably in digital economy era had top 3 indicators. The first indicator was the analysis of strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, and threats to review visions, missions, and objectives in operating social enterprises with the experts. They had the opinions at the highest level (
= 4.67, Median = 5.00, Mode = 5); moreover, 32 experts showed their opinions in the interquartile range 4.00-5.00, while only one expert showed opinions lower than the interquartile range. Meanwhile, the second indicator was financial statements prepared correctly. It was transparent and could be examined following sound governance principles. A group of experts showed their opinions at a high-level (
- Organizational Transformation: It was discovered that the organizational transformation guidelines to drive social enterprise to grow sustainably in the digital economy era had top 3 indicators. The first indicator was communicating the vision and spirit to operate for social through employees in social enterprise to have the same direction. In this regard, a group of experts showed their opinions at a high-level (
- Technology and Innovation.; In the field of technology and innovation, it turned out that the guideline to drive social enterprise to grow sustainably in digital economy era had the top 3 indicators. The first indicator was the development of products and services, differentiating them from other goods to promote identity and competitive advantages. In this condition, experts expressed their opinions at the highest level (
- Social Shared Value: In the field of social shared value, the guideline to drive social enterprise to grow sustainably in a digital economic era had top 3 indicators. The first indicator was a balance between seeking business profits and solving social problems in this matter. In this aspect, a group of experts showed their opinions at a high-level (
4.3. Experts’ Opinions Confirmation Results
This section examines the analysis of the opinions of experts towards guidelines to drive social enterprises to grow sustainably in a digital economy era. These are the reviews collected through a valuation scale and an open-ended questionnaire, where experts expressed their opinions on all four aspects. Table 2, Table 3, Table 4 and Table 5 present the results of data analysis involving median and interquartile ranges for the guidelines in the four fields under study.
| Ranking Indicators |
Indicators | |
S. D | Median | Mode | Interquartile |
| Business Management | ||||||
| 1 | The analysis of strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, and threats to review visions, missions, and objectives in operating a social enterprise | 4.73 | 0.452 | 5.00 | 5 | Range equal to 1 (less than 1.5). |
| Opinion of experts: marketing environment of high importance, together with clear visions and social missions. | ||||||
| 2 | The financial statements are prepared correctly. They are transparent and can be examined following sound governance principles. | 4.64 | 0.489 | 5.00 | 5 | Range equal to 1 (less than 1.5). |
| Opinion of experts: essential to ensure accuracy and transparency while social enterprise registered must be required to report financial statements. | ||||||
| 3 | Managed cash flow for the turnover of social enterprises to be flexible. | 4.55 | 0.666 | 5.00 | 5 | Range equal to 1 (less than 1.5). |
| Opinion of experts: the changing situation requires more emphasis on cash flow, which is a prerequisite for social enterprises. However, if having good trade alliances, negotiating various trade credits is a good solution or managing the entire credit system accordingly. | ||||||
The expert opinion in the Business Management aspect drew attention to the approaches to drive social enterprises to grow sustainably in digital economy era, which had top 3 indicators. The first indicator was the analysis of strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, and threats to review visions, missions, and objectives in operating a social enterprise. As shown in Table 2, a group of experts had their opinions at the highest level by being ranked in the first order ( = 4.73, S.D. = 0.452, Median = 5.00, Mode = 5), together with having an interquartile range equal to 1 (less than 1.5). Therefore, it can be concluded that the experts had unified opinions. However, they expressed other opinions as to the analysis of the marketing environment of high importance, together with clear visions and social missions. The second indicator was that the financial statements were prepared correctly. They were transparent and could be examined following sound governance principles. Experts held the highest level of opinion; a group of experts has their opinions at the highest level (
= 4.64, S.D. = 0.489, Median = 5.00, Mode = 5), together with an interquartile range equal to 1 (less than 1.5). Hence, it could be concluded that the experts had a unified opinion. Nevertheless, they showed different opinions: essential to ensure accuracy and transparency that social enterprise registered must be required to report financial statements. Furthermore, the third indicator was related to managing cash flow for the turnover of social enterprises to be flexible. In this aspect, a group of experts had their opinions at a high-level (
= 4.55, S.D. = 0.666, Median = 5.00, Mode = 5) with an interquartile range equal to 1 (less than 1.5). Accordingly, it can be concluded that the experts had consistent opinions; however, they gave other opinions as follows; 1) The changing situation requires more emphasis on cash flow. 2) Cash flow is a prerequisite for social enterprises. However, it was opined that having good trade alliances and negotiating various trade credits were good solutions to manage the entire credit system accordingly.
| Ranking Indicators |
Indicators | |
S.D | Median | Mode | Interquartile |
| Organizational Transformation | ||||||
| 1 | Communicating the vision and spirit to operate for social through an employee in social enterprise to have the same direction. | 4.73 | 0.452 | 5.00 | 5 | Range equal to 1 (less than 1.5). |
| Opinion of experts: it can be inferred that the experts had consistent opinions; nonetheless, they gave different opinions as follows: Entrepreneurs must communicate together in an organization to cooperate and execute social enterprise. | ||||||
| 2 | Entrepreneurs must communicate understanding in an organization to cooperate and execute social enterprise. | 4.67 | 0.595 | 5.00 | 5 | Range equal to 1 (less than 1.5). |
| Opinion of experts: gave other opinions in that it is an important qualification for entrepreneurs in social enterprise. | ||||||
| 3 | To implant personnel with determination for the success of the social enterprise to form organizational culture. | 4.64 | 0.489 | 5.00 | 5 | Range equal to 1 (less than 1.5). |
| Opinion of experts: different opinions build conscience and value personnel with the determination to execute work and reduce the turnover rate of social enterprises. | ||||||
Table 3 shows the aspect of Organizational Transformation, revealing the guideline to drive social enterprise to grow sustainably in the digital economy era, having top 3 indicators. The first indicator was communicating the vision and spirit to operate for social through an employee in social enterprise to have the same direction. In this matter, a group of experts had their opinions at high level ( = 4.73, S.D. = 0.452, Median = 5.00, Mode = 5), with interquartile range equal to 1 (less than 1.5). Accordingly, it can be inferred that the experts had consistent opinion and unanimity; nonetheless, they gave different opinions as follows: Entrepreneurs must communicate understanding together in an organization to cooperate and execute social enterprise. The second indicator was that entrepreneurs must communicate understanding in an organization to cooperate and execute social enterprise. In this regard, a group of experts had their opinions at a high-level (
= 4.67, S.D. = 0.595, Median = 5.00, Mode = 5), with an interquartile range equal to 1 (less than 1.5). Thereby, it can be concluded that the experts had consistent opinions. However, they gave other opinions that it was an important qualification for entrepreneurs in social enterprise. Meanwhile, the third indicator was to implant personnel with determination for the success of the social enterprise to form organizational culture. In this aspect, a group of experts had their opinions at a high-level (
= 4.64, S.D. = 0.489, Median = 5.00, Mode = 5) with an interquartile range equal to 1 (less than 1.5). It can be concluded that the experts had unified opinions. However, their different opinion dealt with building conscience value personnel with the determination to execute work to reduce the turnover rate of social enterprises.
| Ranking Indicators |
Indicators | |
S. D | Median | Mode | interquartile |
| Technology and Innovation | ||||||
| 1 | Development of products and services to differentiate them from other ordinary products and have an identity so that comparative advantage can be built. | 4.52 | 0.566 | 5.00 | 5 | Range equal to 1 (less than 1.5). |
| Opinion of experts: The development of innovation possibly depends on the characteristics of products and services and production methods so that each business can place importance on this matter differently. | ||||||
| 2 | To apply community wisdom to develop products and services that meet customer demands. | 4.24 | 0.751 | 4.00 | 4 | Range equal to 1 (less than 1.5). |
| Opinion of experts: they gave another opinion that it is necessary to develop and extend community wisdom further. | ||||||
| 3 | Has electronic payment systems that can be used instead of cash. | 4.21 | 0.740 | 4.00 | 4 | Range equal to 1 (less than 1.5). |
| Opinion of experts: it is convenient for consumers. | ||||||
Table 4 shows the aspect of Technology and Innovation and manifested that guidelines to drive social enterprises to grow sustainably in digital economy era had top 3 indicators. The first indicator was the development of products and services to differentiate them from other ordinary products having an identity so that comparative advantage can be built. In this matter, experts had their opinions high by being ranked as the first order ( = 4.52, SD = 0.566, Median = 5.00, Mode = 5) with an interquartile range equal to 1 (less than 1.5). Thereby, it can be concluded that the experts had consistent opinions unity. However, they gave different opinions. The development of innovation possibly depends on the characteristics of products and services and production methods so that each business can place importance on this matter differently. The second indicator was to apply community wisdom to develop products and services that meet customer demands. In this condition, a group of experts had their opinions at high- level (
= 4.24, S.D. = 0.751, Median = 4.00, Mode = 4) with interquartile range equal to 1 (less than 1.5). Therefore, it can be concluded that the experts had consistent opinions unity. Nonetheless, they gave another opinion that it was necessary to develop and extend community wisdom further. In the meantime, the third indicator dealt with electronic payment systems that can be used instead of cash. In this concern, experts had their opinions at a high level (
= 4.21, S.D. = 0.740, Median = 4.00, Mode = 4) with an interquartile range equal to 1 (less than 1.5). On this ground, it can be concluded that the experts had consistent opinions. Nonetheless, they gave another opinion that it was convenient for consumers.
Table 5 shows the aspect of Social Shared Values indicating guidelines to drive social enterprises to grow sustainably in digital economy era, having top 3 indicators. The first indicator was a balance between business profits and solving social problems. In this matter, a group of experts had their opinions at a high-level ( = 4.76, S.D. = 0.435, Median = 5.00, Mode = 5) with an interquartile range equal to 1 (less than 1.5). Accordingly, it can be concluded that the experts had consistent opinions. However, their other opinion was that the operation should be concerned solve social and community including the environment. The second indicator was providing quality products and services that help solve social, community, and environmental problems. In this regard, a group of experts had their opinions at a high-level (
= 4.67, S.D. = 0.540, Median = 5.00, Mode = 5) with an interquartile range equal to 1 (less than 1.5). Hence, it can be concluded that the experts had consistent opinions. However, their other opinion emphasized developing products and services to solve problem of social community and environment. The third indicator was to serve customers with honesty and ethics. In this regard, a group of experts had their opinions high by being ranked as the first order (
= 4.67, SD = 0.540, Median = 5.00, Mode = 5) with an interquartile range equal to 1 (less than 1.5). Therefore, it can be concluded that the experts had consistent opinions. Nevertheless, their other opinion was to consider ethical conduct in social enterprise.
| Ranking Indicators |
Indicators | |
S. D | Median | Mode | interquartile |
| Social Shared Values | ||||||
| 1 | There is a balance between business profits and solving social problems. | 4.76 | 0.435 | 5.00 | 5 | Range equal to 1 (less than 1.5). |
| Opinion of experts: the operation should be concerned to solve social and community including the environment. | ||||||
| 2 | Providing quality products and services that help solve social, community, and environmental problems. | 4.67 | 0.540 | 5.00 | 5 | Range equal to 1 (less than 1.5). |
| Opinion of experts: develop products and services to solve problem of social community and environment | ||||||
| 3 | To serve customers with honesty and ethics. | 4.67 | 0.540 | 5.00 | 5 | Range equal to 1 (less than 1.5). |
| Opinion of experts: to consider ethical conduct in social enterprise. | ||||||
5. DISCUSSION
The experts’ opinions on the guideline to drive social enterprise to grow sustainably in digital economy era concerning Business Management were found consistent. They prioritized the indicator of strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, and threats to review visions, missions, and objectives in operating a social enterprise. This is in line with Aguilar (1967), who stated that while analyzing external factors an organization cannot control and figure out defensive approaches nor can increase opportunities for business organizations. Significantly, this analysis could help business organizations understand the market situation. The study by Krogerus, Tschappeler, and Piening (2012) found that the analysis of capacity in business operation successfully from the strength of the organization together with analyzing the organization’s weakness resulted in a competitive disadvantage.
Meanwhile, it was evident that uncontrollable external factors affected building competitive advantage for a business organization, while opportunity helped to increase the chances for an organization. However, the threats could adversely affect business operations which was unavoidable. Therefore, this threat posed a menace to the process of the organization. In addition, conducting a SWOT analysis could help an organization see its potential. Considering the organization's strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, and threats and analyzing its operation, one could be responsible for planning and building strategies to operate a business efficiently and make it suitable for the organization’s current condition the most. This claim is consistent with Nakudom and Jitpakdee (2018) research. They found that social enterprise needs to strengthen the sustainable competitiveness of the organization by connecting to the external and internal environment via the analysis of strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, and threats so that the organization can survive.
Concerning Organizational Transformation, it was also found essential to prioritize indicators indicating visions, spirits, and operations for society to manage personnel within an organization in the same direction. The study by Chaimuang and Kanboonruang (2018) found that strategic management of social enterprise heading to Thailand 4.0 needed to have management philosophy as a management concept, creating social enterprise aiming at sustainable development. It comprised four components, namely: to use conservative financial images; to remain vigilant with the change in the environment, be harmonious and place importance on building identity; to have a high tolerance for new ideas; and to get the strategic management process. Strategic management involves systematically determining visions, missions, objectives, strategies, and policies and following and evaluating social enterprise. This idea is significantly consistent with Jituea, Kittisaknawin, and Deesawadi (2017) who stated that leadership was essential for managing organizations, mainly social enterprises, and placed importance on addressing the problems of society, community, and environment.
Meanwhile, Dees, Emerson, and Economy (2002) as cited in Prateeppornnarong (2020) explained the qualification of social entrepreneurs with social missions for addressing problems and developing the environment so that people in the society can improve their quality of life. Examples of critical social tasks that social entrepreneurship influences are education, public health, cultural promotion, administrative management, the environment, a solution to poverty, and social innovation. Therefore, social entrepreneurship gave maximum benefits when applying innovation to solve the problems of society and the environment. This innovation embraced materials, devices, concepts, measures, policies, and new guidelines that propose the ideas for social change and put importance on building innovation for solving the problem of social change to build values for society.
Concerning the aspect of Innovation Technology, it placed a great importance on the indicators responsible for developing innovation of products and services to differentiate them from other ordinary products while having an identity to build comparative advantage. This is related with Michale (1980), who clarified that business organizations could create competitive advantage via the process of building innovation by using innovation in a broad definition, such as using new technology and new approaches. Concurrently, Tidd and Bessant (2014) stated that innovation is essential for entrepreneurs and the nation’s development since business operations have changed sales, marketing, and distribution while experiencing volatile situations. It was also mentioned that innovation is about changes with four dimensions: product innovation, process innovation, location innovation, and conceptual innovation. This is consistent with Asim, Li, and Makhdoom (2019) who found the impact of technology opportunism on business sustainability, and it also showed a complete mediation between top management advocacy and business sustainability.
About the aspect of Social Shared Values, it prioritized the indicators with high-quality products and services, helping to address the problems of society, community, and the environment. This idea is in line with the concept of Ridley-Duff and Bull (2016), who stated that social enterprise is a business activity designed for social objectives helping to alleviate social problems of the failure of the market and building values for society while operating with financial disciplines, innovation, and commitment to the characteristic of the private business sector. Meanwhile, Sawasdee and Masae (2020) stated that social enterprise is the organization that focuses on three critical outcomes as profits/economy, people/society, and the world or environment synchronously. This claim is in accordance with Austin, Stevenson, and Wei–Skillern (2006) who cited that social enterprise aimed to address social problems. In addition, this claim is consistent with the research by Silpcharu and Wantanakomol (2017) who found that the acceptable guideline was to expand business step by step; it has a reason for applying digital technology to marketing and has immunity as setting the objectives or clear indicator. Additionally, it is essential to know about sharing or passing down new technology to the members thoroughly and ethics as giving services to the customers with honesty.
6. RECOMMENDATIONS
6.1. Policy Level
1) The government sector should support an increase in competitiveness by building added values and creating social enterprise innovation in the digital economy era.
2) The government sector should build incentives for private sectors in terms of employment, procurement, and investment to accommodate the growth of the social enterprise.
3) The government sector should prepare infrastructures, such as technology, to support social enterprise operations more efficiently.
4) The government sector should support the accessibility to the source of funds and the markets while placing incentive measures for other relevant sectors to support social enterprise to become solid and self-reliant continually.
5) The government sector increasingly should provide human resources to social enterprise by buttressing academics, curriculum, knowledge, and understanding in academic institutions from early childhood education, primary education, secondary education, vocational education, and university.
6.2. Operation Level
1) Social enterprise should plan the strategies at the organization level, company level, and operation level to make them consistent with the new normal situation; accordingly, these strategies can be adjusted to overtake the current event, such as the condition of COVID-19 spreading that encouraged social enterprise as hospitality sector to have technology applied to services for consumers.
2) Social enterprises should manage cost, cash flow, and financial statements in short term, middle term, and a long term to cope up with the risks of political and economic situations and market trends.
3) Social enterprises must determine marketing strategies that study the target consumers’ behaviors while using marketing communication tools appropriately and efficiently, relevant to the target social enterprise groups.
4) Social enterprises must develop human resources to promote understanding and spirit of social enterprise, causing good organizational culture, and improving human resource training for changing and enhancing skills to increase work efficiency.
5) Social enterprises find it necessary to have technology and innovation in the digital economy era applied to the operation and raise cooperation in researching and developing products and services with the government sector, private sector, and academic institutions.
6) Social enterprise should be adapted to volatility in management within an organization, such as applying communication technology or production technology to meeting various consumer demands, such as technology responsible for recording consumer base and marketing communication via the digital channel.
7) Social enterprises should emphasize addressing the problems of society, community, and environment and operating based on ethics and code of conduct while considering the shareholders as the employees, community, ordinary people, and environment.
Funding: This study received no specific financial support. |
Competing Interests: The authors declare that they have no competing interests. |
Authors’ Contributions: All authors contributed equally to the conception and design of the study. |
REFERENCES
Aguilar, F. J. (1967). Scanning the business environment. New York: Macmillan Co.
Almeida, F., & Amoedo, N. (2020). Contemporary paradigm of sustainable development in the European Union. International Journal of Management and Sustainability, 9(4), 207-217.Available at: https://doi.org/10.18488/journal.11.2020.94.207.217.
Asim, S., Li, C., & Makhdoom, H. U. R. (2019). Role of top management advocacy in S.M.E.’s business sustainability: A mediation through technology opportunism. International Journal of Management and Sustainability, 8(4), 196–214.Available at: https://doi.org/10.18488/journal.11.2019.84.196.214.
Austin, J., Stevenson, H., & Wei–Skillern, J. (2006). Social and commercial entrepreneurship: Same, different, or both? Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 30(1), 1-22.Available at: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-6520.2006.00107.x.
Blewitt, J. (2017). Understanding sustainable development (3rd ed.). Abingdon, U.K: Routledge.
Chaimuang, N., & Kanboonruang, C. (2018). Strategic management of social enterprises to Thailand 4.0. Payap University Journal, 28(1), 2-18.Available at: https://doi.org/10.14456/pyuj.2018.1.
Dees, J. G., Emerson, J., & Economy, P. (2002). Enterprise nonprofits: A toolkit for social entrepreneurs. New York: Wiley.
Jabłoński, A., & Jabłoński, M. (2019). Social business models in the digital economy —a new look at the social aspects of new entrepreneurship. Social Business Models in the Digital Economy, 89–118.Available at: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-29732-9_4.
Jituea, N., Kittisaknawin, C., & Deesawadi, N. (2017). The role of leadership in organization development to the learning organization. Veridian E-Journal Silpakorn University, 10(2), 1738-1754.
Krogerus, M., Tschappeler, R., & Piening, J. (2012). The decision book: Fifty models for strategic thinking. New York: W.W. Norton & Co.
Michale, E. P. (1980). Competitive strategy. New York: Macmillan Publishing Co., Inc.
Nakudom, S., & Jitpakdee, R. (2018). Competitiveness of social enterprise in Thailand. Journal of Business, Economics and Communications, 13(12), 111-120.
Office of the National Economic and Social Development Council. (2015). Millennium development goals; 2558=MDGs Thailand 2015. Bangkok: I.D. All Digital Printing.
Poolsawat, P., & Srimai, S. (2018). Social enterprise and sustainable social development: Lessons learned from foreign countries and development in Thailand. Journal of Business, Economics and Communications, 13(3), 15-33.
Prateeppornnarong, D. (2020). Sustainable development with social enterprises (1st ed.). Bangkok: Rattanatri Printing.
Ridley-Duff, R., & Bull, M. (2016). Understanding the social enterprise. London: Sage.
Sawasdee, W., & Masae, A. (2020). Potentiality development of tourism social enterprises in Thailand. Journal of Social Development, 22(2), 1-22.
Silpcharu, T. (2020). Research and statistical analysis with SPSS and AMOS (18th ed.). Bangkok: Business R & D Printing.
Silpcharu, T., & Wantanakomol, S. (2017). A structure equation modeling of guidelines for sustainable OTOP production management, using sufficiency economy theory. International Journal of Applied Business and Economic Research, 15(22), 863-872.
Siripatsophon, S. (2015). A study of concepts for the development of social enterprises in Thailand. Journal of the Research Association, 20(2), 30-35.
The British Council. (2021). State of social enterprise in Southeast Asia. Retrieved from https://www.britishcouncil.org/sites/default/files/the_state_of_social_enterprise_in_south_east_asia_0.pdf . [Accessed 12 July 2021].
Tidd, J., & Bessant, J. (2014). Management innovation (5th ed.). West Sussex: John Wiley & Sons.
Triphopsakul, S., & Phichayangkoon, C. (2020). Innovation management (1st ed. Vol. 800). Bangkok: Chulalongkorn Publishing House.
United Nation. (2021). The sustainable development report. [w.w.w. Document]. Retrieved from https://unstats.un.org/sdgs/report/2021/The-Sustainable-Development-Goals-Report-2021.pdf.
Wantanakomol, S., & Silpcharu, T. (2020). Strategy for preventing corruptions in industrial business organizations with Delphi Technique. Academy of Strategic Management Journal, 19(3), 1-7.
Wiriyaphan, T. (2018). Sustainable business development. Bangkok: C.M.S. Digital Print.
Views and opinions expressed in this article are the views and opinions of the author(s), Humanities and Social Sciences Letters shall not be responsible or answerable for any loss, damage or liability etc. caused in relation to/arising out of the use of the content. |