The Dark Side of Social Entrepreneurship: Uncovering the Unintended Consequences of Socially Impactful Business Practices
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.59890/ijaamr.v4i7.276Keywords:
Social Entrepreneurship, Dark Side, Mission Drift, Unintended Consequences, Hybrid OrganizationAbstract
Social entrepreneurship is widely celebrated as a hybrid model capable of solving societal problems while remaining financially sustainable, yet the literature has largely overlooked its potential negative effects. This paper adopts a qualitative conceptual approach, based on a narrative literature review of recent studies on the "dark side" of social entrepreneurship, to map the unintended consequences that may arise from social-impact business practices. The review synthesizes themes such as mission drift, exploitation of beneficiaries and employees, socialwashing, market crowding-out, and governance risk within hybrid organizations, and situates them within the Indonesian social enterprise context. The findings indicate that these dark sides emerge systematically from the structural tension between social mission and commercial logic rather than from isolated misconduct. The paper concludes with practical and policy implications for building more accountable and reflective social entrepreneurship practices.
References
Bacq, S., Janssen, F., Sabbatucci, A.-S., & Wuillaume, A. (2025). The dark side of doing good: A guiding framework for advancing research on the negative outcomes of social entrepreneurship. Small Business Economics. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11187-025-01094-3
Battilana, J., & Lee, M. (2014). Advancing research on hybrid organizing – Insights from the study of social enterprises. Academy of Management Annals, 8(1), 397–441. https://doi.org/10.5465/19416520.2014.893615
British Council, & PLUS Consulting. (2022). Understanding the state and profile of social enterprise in Indonesia. British Council Indonesia.
Dees, J. G. (1998). The meaning of social entrepreneurship. Center for the Advancement of Social Entrepreneurship, Duke University.
DiMaggio, P. J., & Powell, W. W. (1983). The iron cage revisited: Institutional isomorphism and collective rationality in organizational fields. American Sociological Review, 48(2), 147–160. https://doi.org/10.2307/2095101
Pache, A.-C., & Santos, F. (2013). Inside the hybrid organization: Selective coupling as a response to competing institutional logics. Academy of Management Journal, 56(4), 972–1001. https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2011.0405
Santos, F. M. (2012). A positive theory of social entrepreneurship. Journal of Business Ethics, 111(3), 335–351. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-012-1413-4
Ebrahim, A., Battilana, J., & Mair, J. (2014). The governance of social enterprises: Mission drift and accountability challenges in hybrid organizations. Research in Organizational Behavior, 34, 81–100. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.riob.2014.09.001
Islam, S. M. (2020). Unintended consequences of scaling social impact through ecosystem growth strategy in social enterprise and social entrepreneurship. Journal of Business Venturing Insights, 13, e00159. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbvi.2020.e00159
Molderez, I. (2023). Dark sides of social entrepreneurship: Contributions of systems thinking towards managing its effects. Business and Society Review. https://doi.org/10.1111/basr.12316
UKMIndonesia.id. (n.d.). Ketika wirausaha sosial belum punya payung hukum: Situasi, dampak, dan harapan. Retrieved July 15, 2026, from https://ukmindonesia.id/baca-deskripsi-posts/ketika-wirausaha-sosial-belum-punya-payung-hukum-situasi-dampak-dan-harapan
Downloads
Published
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2026 Mildayanti, Dwiyanti , Asriyani Amrullah

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.





