Content uploaded by Vanessa Ratten
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Vanessa Ratten on Jul 14, 2020
Content may be subject to copyright.
Coronavirus (covid-19) and social
value co-creation
Vanessa Ratten
La Trobe University, Melbourne, Australia
Abstract
Purpose –Society has changed forever as a result of coronavirus (covid-19) with the new normal referring to
lifestyle changes including social distancing and working from home. The purpose of this article is to
understand how covid-19 has resulted in increased levels of social value co-creation aimed at producing
innovative benefits to society.
Design/methodology/approach –A commentary is provided on crisis management from a social
entrepreneurship perspective with the goal of understanding the social benefits of collective action resulting
from the covid-19 pandemic. This approach offers a novel way to understand the social policy implications
derived from the covid-19 crisis.
Findings –The article highlights how there has been an increased emphasis on social policy focussing on
finding entrepreneurial ways to handle the covid-19 crisis that incorporates some degree of value co-creation.
Examples from seed plant initiatives and reducing homelessness in times of crisis are discussed as a way to
explain social value co-creation. Moreover, the different ways countries have responded to the covid-19 crisis
are stated as a way to understand contextual differences in global society.
Originality/value –This article is amongst the first to focus on the link between covid-19 and social
entrepreneurship from a value co-creation perspective thereby enabling a new way of thinking about the crisis
from a social policy perspective. This will provide a theoretical basis from which to understand social policy
differences regarding the covid-19 crisis.
Keywords Coronavirus, Covid-19, Crisis management, Entrepreneurship, Lifestyle entrepreneurship, Social
entrepreneurship, Social policy, Social value, Value co-creation
Paper type Viewpoint
Introduction
The world has changed as a result of the covid-19 pandemic with new social practices and
ways of living introduced (Alon et al., 2020). The usual way of life has forever changed with
non-pharmaceutical initiatives such as social distancing becoming the norm (Kraus et al.,
2020). Due to the relative recent nature of the covid-19 crisis, there is still much uncertainty as
to how entrepreneurship has developed as a result of social value creation. This is due to in
times of crisis there normally tends to be a knee-jerk reaction, particularly unforeseen ones
that have a dramatic effect on society (Ansell and Boin, 2019). Therefore, in order to adjust to
the new reality more entrepreneurship is required, particularly social forms that focus on
value co-creation. As the covid-19 crisis came with little prior warning or knowledge about
how to handle it, it is important to investigate ways of incorporating a social component to
entrepreneurship (Bacq et al., 2020). This enables a more effective use of entrepreneurial
passion aimed at alleviating social uncertainty caused by the crisis by highlighting the value
derived from collaboration.
Covid-19 has changed how life is conducted, which constitutes a social legacy that will
result in further social change (World Health Organization, 2020). What is more, in order to
cope with these changes, individuals are relying on more social initiatives and digital
communication for their daily activities. As a result, contactless services have become the
norm and meant a huge reduction in interpersonal interactions (Cortez and Johnston, 2020).
This has led to deterioration for many individuals in terms of their mental and physical well-
being, so a social response that incorporates some kind of value co-creation is required.
Future generations will be affected by these changes due to social distancing and personal
hygiene becoming more emphasised in society. In addition, social practices that focus on
Impact of
coronavirus
The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available on Emerald Insight at:
https://www.emerald.com/insight/0144-333X.htm
Received 8 June 2020
Revised 28 June 2020
Accepted 28 June 2020
International Journal of Sociology
and Social Policy
© Emerald Publishing Limited
0144-333X
DOI 10.1108/IJSSP-06-2020-0237
maintaining physical space between individuals in society will likely cause further emotional
and psychological effects. The emotional effects are derived from the isolationist principles
promoted by health authorities aimed at decreasing the spread of the disease. Whilst effective
as a non-pharmaceutical strategy, this means whilst people can communicate in digital forms,
there has been a reduction in physical forms of contact. As a result, the psychological effects
such as anxiety and stress from a lack of physical contact are likely to result. In addition, the
ongoing nature of covid-19 with no current cure or vaccine available has created further
uncertainty for many individuals. Hopefully despite the daunting experience of the crisis, the
lessons learnt from the covid-19 pandemic can be used in a positive way to help society. Thus,
more innovative thinking is required to meet sudden social change. In order to respond to the
fluid nature of the crisis, decision-makers need to break out of existing patterns by focussing
on social entrepreneurship. To do this means placing greater attention on innovation and
entrepreneurship that incorporates social value co-creation. The purpose of this article is to
discuss the ways to include a more social value co-creation and entrepreneurial approach to
crisis management. Examples from entrepreneurship research and other business areas are
used to illustrate the need for a more innovative, risk taking and proactive approach. The next
section will discuss in more detail the link between crisis and social impact.
Crisis and social impact
Crises represent an emergency of catastrophic consequences that normally occur in an
infrequent basis. A crisis can be broadly defined as an event that incorporates a degree of
danger with much uncertainty involved (Moerschell and Novak, 2020). A crisis can be a
specific event or be an ongoing occurrence depending on its origin, which means that a crisis
that has a prolonged nature can cause stress and anxiety in society. To manage a crisis, there
needs to be a continual flow of information that communicates new facts (Doern et al., 2019).
These messages enable individuals to acquire knowledge about the crisis in terms of how it is
unfolding. However, to mitigate a crisis there needs to be pre-emptive messages, which
enables instructions about required actions to be communicated in a direct manner (Liu
et al., 2017).
As crises tend to occur without warning, they have an unpredictable path that makes
them difficult to handle (Parker and Ameen, 2019). Therefore, normally a crisis has a big
effect on the individuals and regions it affects, which means there is a high level of complexity
involved in a crisis (Perrow, 1984). In order to respond effectively to a crisis there needs to be a
coordinated response involving individuals, governments and businesses (Shrivastava,
1993). Due to the uncertainty involved with the covid-19 crisis, an entrepreneurial approach
that incorporates creative solutions is needed. This can involve cross-institutional
partnerships that encourage information sharing between different levels of society.
Given the magnitude of the covid-19 crisis, it is important to think in entrepreneurial ways
in order to derive novel solutions. This provides new ways of dealing with the crisis that can
cater for the complexity of issues that have arisen. Cankurtaran and Beverland (2020) suggest
a three-stage innovation process that is useful to deal with the covid-19 crisis: (1) disrupt,
(2) define and develop and (3) transform. Disrupt refers to a change in the way things are
currently done. Covid-19 has resulted in major changes to society with individuals and
businesses having to adjust to the new normal. This means there needs to be constant
questioning about how things should be adjusted. To do this, thinking outside the box is
required in order to implement new processes. This involves interrogating problems in order
to understand the underlying cause (Williams et al., 2017). This is a complex process as it
takes time to understand the way things have evolved from covid-19. An efficient process
needs to be implemented that dissects problems in order to find effective solutions (Wenzel
et al., 2020). The covid-19 crisis significantly disrupted internationalisation processes due to
IJSSP
borders being closed and individuals in many locations required to stay at home. This is in
contrast to the open border policies that have been put in place for some time. As a result of
the decreased internationalisation levels and change in consumption patterns, companies like
General Motors and Ford Motor Company diverted their manufacturing to make plastic
shields and ventilators (Sheth, 2020). This diversion in capabilities from the crisis was both
market and socially orientated due to the need for specific health equipment. Companies that
did this included those who changed from manufacturing beer to hand sanitizer. As
businesses need to show their social responsibility this change had positive reputational
effects. In addition, the lockdown by governments resulted in a quick change in consumer
demand. This affected supply chains and resulted in a new normal in which specific products
such as pasta and tinned soup had an escalating demand. Thus, the heightened uncertainty
caused by the crisis led to an unprecedented demand and a rapid response required by supply
chains (Weick and Sutcliffe, 2011).
Contextual information is required in order to understand the environmental effects of a
crisis (Kraus et al., 2020). A locational specific understanding is required when examining the
context. This is due to regions having different policies in terms of how they are dealing with
covid-19. To do this properly, entrepreneurship will play an important role in helping society
deal with the changes derived from covid-19. This is due to the disruption caused by a crisis
presenting a continual threat to society. In order to deal with a crisis, there needs to be a risk or
threat assessment, which involves the likely impact of a crisis. Since the covid-19 pandemic
began, there has been a high level of uncertainty about how it will evolve (Parnell et al., 2020).
The quick disruption covid-19 caused to society was on an unprecedented scale, which was
due to the nature of covid-19 meaning that typical crisis response actions did not apply.
Instead new response mechanisms mainly social distancing, hand washing and the use of
face masks were introduced. As the covid-19 crisis is still unfolding, there is still much to learn
about how it will affect entrepreneurship. This involves transforming the innovation by
mapping out its direction in terms of societal effects. This means restabilising existing
market patterns in order to implement innovations in an effective way. Due to the way covid-
19 has impacted society, a social value co-creation approach is needed.
Social value co-creation
In order to deal with the covid-19 crisis, a social value co-creation perspective can be used that
incorporates the interests of multiple entities including profit and non-profit organisations in
society. Social value creation provides a way to focus on how social objectives can be adopted
within business activity (Di Domenico et al., 2010), thereby providing a bridge between
traditional commercial entrepreneurship activities with those that take a more societal view
to profit creation. Goh et al. (2016) suggest that taking a social value creation approach can
reduce rural-urban health disparities in society. This means an emphasis on healthy
communities is utilised in policy discussions regarding social value. Furthermore, Kroeger
and Weber (2014) suggested that in order to create social value in society there needs to be an
emphasis on social objectives that are in line with current societal expectations. This provides
a way to incorporate more non-profit or altruistic aims into community policies regarding the
importance of social cohesion in society.
To understand the nature of value creation in social entrepreneurship, it is important to
align an organisation’s mission with how it measures impact (Ormiston and Seymour, 2011).
This enables non-profit objectives to be incorporated into discussions about financial
performance thus, providing a way for business models to include people, planet and profits
within market-based approaches to social value creation (Wilson and Post, 2013). To do this
properly a social entrepreneurship approach that focuses on collaborative learning is
required for social value creation (Smith et al., 2008). This enables different segments of
Impact of
coronavirus
society including citizens, businesses and the community to learn together about social value
creation.
There are a range of social value co-creation practices including commoditizing,
customizing, documenting, empathizing, evangelizing, governing, justifying and mile
stoning (Grohs et al., 2020). Commoditizing involves placing a market price on the
transaction, which can involve some form of social or financial gain for the recipients.
Customizing means modifying a product or service to suit a specific entities requirement that
is needed in times of crisis. This reflects a need to make special provisions for the way
innovations enter the marketplace. Documenting involves putting into words what has
actually occurred. This enables information to be transferred in an easier format.
Evangelizing refers to sharing through word of mouth positive experiences. This is done
in the attempt to inspire others to engage in certain kinds of behaviour that will help alleviate
social problems caused by covid-19. Governing refers to specifications about certain ways to
behave in society, which is useful in maintaining behavioural standards over a long period of
time (Santos, 2012), thereby enabling the community to have some form of continuity about
ways of behaving. Justifying refers to explaining why something is done. This helps the other
person to understand why a certain action has taken place and is useful when there is some
uncertainty about why things are occurring in a certain manner. Milestoning refers to
specifying specific events that occur in the marketplace. This helps to celebrate achievements
that have taken place.
Value can be evaluated based on cultural, hedonic, social, status and economic factors
(Grohs et al., 2020). Cultural value refers to knowledge acquired that has a historical or
societal significance. This means the knowledge refers to societal conditions that can take
some time to develop. Hedonic value refers to the emotional or physical pleasure derived from
an experience. This includes memorable experiences individuals have based on personal
interactions. Social value refers to the benefit a group of individuals receive from the
acquisition of knowledge (Sinkovics et al., 2014). This means recognising the importance of
social interaction for value creation purposes. Status value means receiving some form of
accolade from performing an action. This can be useful in developing a reputation in the
marketplace. Economic value refers to the financial gain received from performing an action.
This enables an individual to gain in a monetary way from their actions. All of these value
types can be useful in order to provide guidance on how to deal with the covid-19 crisis in an
effective manner.
Chesbrough (2020) advocates an opening up of the world economy based on social value
co-creation in order to recover faster from the effects of covid-19. This complements the view
of Munshi (2010), who suggests that in global economies there needs to be a combination of
value creation, social innovation and entrepreneurship. This will enable entrepreneurship to
be used as a way to enact social value creation in society (Korsgaard and Anderson, 2011). To
do this properly, Dohrmann et al. (2015) suggests to monetarise social value creation in order
to create a proper business model approach. This can include more relational coordination to
exist regarding social value creation amongst public-private institutions (Caldwell et al.,
2017). This view is highlighted by Chesbrough (2020, p. 1) who states “we need rapid parallel
experimentation, and it must be the test data that select our vaccine, not internal political or
bureaucratic processes”. This means that the race to create a vaccine or remedy for covid-19
has become a global race with the entity that makes the breakthrough having a tremendous
societal effect. In addition, there has been a need to mobilize scientific efforts to find a way to
treat covid-19. This has resulted in a large amount of information being circulated about
covid-19 some of it based on fact, but some also based on myths. To accelerate the level of
information shared on covid-19, publishers have made most material freely available as a
form of value. This deluge in information on covid-19 will hopefully spur more collaboration.
IJSSP
In addition, data analytics has been used to map the spread of the virus. This has also resulted
in mobile apps being promoted by governments as a way to monitor the virus.
Due to the impact that covid-19 has had on society it is crucial that timely and up to date
information is available in order to lead to social value creation. This means cultivating a
culture of openness that thinks more about societal benefits rather than financial profit. As
the virus has caused both economic and cultural effects it is important to facilitate an open
policy in disseminating information. This will enable the collective use of human intelligence
to solve or help alleviate a pressing global social concern (Kuckertz et al., 2020). Whilst the
concept of open innovation should be used to deal with the current covid-19 crisis, there has
also been competition amongst governments for the acquisition of needed medical supplies.
This has created a paradox of wanting to collaborate but also safeguard one’s own interest.
Thus, entities in the current social conditions need to navigate between wanting to help
society and also protecting their own interests.
There have been some positive effects resulting from the covid-19 crisis in terms of
social entrepreneurship. Examples include the sharing of resources and helping vulnerable
groups of society. The seed savers network in Australia gained popularity during the
covid-19 crisis due to a lack of available commercial seedlings and also a need for
individuals to grow their own food. The seed savers network has a library of seeds that can
be used to grow new plants. Their mission is to preserve open-pollinated and heritage
varieties that are not commonly available in commercial forms. This means they have seeds
that are suitable for particular conditions that encourage individuals to be self-sufficient.
Due to decreased income levels and more individuals at home the seedlings help reduce food
costs, whilst providing a leisure pursuit. This is useful as during the crisis individuals are
focussing on how to be more self-sufficient and to save money. Another example of social
value co-creation has been the decreased levels of homelessness in society due to a strategy
of rehousing individuals. This is due to the societal effects of covid-19 meaning that hotels
and apartments previously used for tourism have been utilised by social welfare policy
makers to house homeless people. This strategy was not available before due to most short
forms of accommodation being utilised for profit creation activities. Due to international
borders being closed and often mandatory geographic requirements being used by
governments as a way to lower the infections rate of the virus, this has opened up the
possibility of hotel and other short-term accommodation places being used for social
causes. Therefore, whilst the covid-19 crisis has created negative effects, it has also opened
up the possibility of positive spillovers in terms of social policy initiatives. This is due to an
entrepreneurial approach being used in social policy.
Social entrepreneurship
Social entrepreneurship can be described as “a social value creation process in which
resources are combined in new ways to meet social needs, stimulate social change or create
new organisations”(Lumpkin et al., 2013, p. 762). The main difference between social and
commercial entrepreneurship is in the way social entrepreneurs try to contribute to society
by aggregating social utility (Alvord et al., 2004). This means that instead of focussing on
stakeholder value there is an emphasis on contribution to the community. This enables
more emphasis on how social value is needed to help alleviate societal problems. (Dacin
et al., 2011)
The main stages in creating a social enterprise involve (1) identifying an opportunity,
(2) articulating an idea, (3) ownership of the idea, (4) mobilizing stakeholders, (5) exploiting an
opportunity and (6) reflection by stakeholders (Haugh, 2007). Each of these stages will differ
when the additional element of cultural or lifestyle pursuits becomes apparent in the social
entrepreneurship context. This means that social entrepreneurs need to mobilize different
Impact of
coronavirus
kinds of resources depending on their business idea (Nicholls, 2008). By solving social
problems, these entrepreneurs can target certain areas of the economy that are undervalued
by society (Santos, 2012).
Bjarsholm (2017) suggests there are three main schools of thought in social
entrepreneurship: social innovation, social enterprise and the emergence of social
enterprises in Europe. The social innovation school of thought focuses on new activities
that have a social purpose. This means the emphasis is on the use of innovation to solve social
problems. By focussing on the use of resources for social innovation, it enables value co-
creation to exist between the social innovator and their surrounding environment (Mair and
Marti, 2006). This means a clear commitment to social goals is needed by the social
entrepreneur. This enables social enterprise to find ways of providing a social impact. The
social enterprise school of thought focuses more on the development of business ventures
that have a social purpose. This means the emphasis is on carrying out social activities
through a business structure. The social enterprise is started due to a need to prioritize social
goals in its strategy (Peredo and McLean, 2006). This means unlike non-profits who also focus
on social issues, in social enterprises there is a mix of profit and social goals. This means
social business strategies are utilised in the marketplace. This enables income generating
activities to occur that lead to societal well-being. The emergence of social enterprise in
Europe school of thought emphasises the need for collective action around social endeavours.
This emphasises the need for collective action by incorporating social goals into daily
activities. This means the government is also part of the process of social entrepreneurship.
Unlike the other two schools of thought, this theory suggests that social democracy is needed
in society. Thus, the government plays a central role in fostering social entrepreneurship
through rules and regulations that aim to create social value. The covid-19 crisis has an
impact on and constrains social entrepreneurship. This constrainment can have a positive or
negative effect depending on how social entrepreneurs view the change and how they utilise
knowledge that is spilled over from other sources. To fully consider the impact, opportunities
for social entrepreneurs in terms of filling new market needs need to be highlighted.
Moreover, social entrepreneurs are needed to overcome challenges resulting from a crisis by
providing strategic leadership.
The main types of social enterprise initiatives are (1) knowledge development, (2) service
or product development, (3) capacity enhancement, (4) behavioural change, (5) system
development and (6) policy implementations (Kickul et al.,2018). The first type involves
discovering new knowledge sources that can help to solve social problems derived from
covid-19. This means interpreting information in a creative way in order to derive
unexpected solutions. To do this requires the sharing of knowledge in a way that
contributes to a collaborative learning process about how covid-19 is affecting society. The
second type refers to delivering products or services in a way that is currently not being
conducted. This includes fulfilling unmet needs of society in order to lessen poverty
resulting from employment changes which resulted from covid-19. The third type refers to
developing new skillsets that help entities solve social problems. To do this an emphasis on
ways of enhancing social capabilities in times of the covid-19 crisis is required. The fourth
type refers to changing behaviours in order to develop more socially aware services. This
includes assisting individuals with problems in order to promote better societal well-being.
The fifth type involves developing infrastructure that assists in facilitating a social
community of practice regarding covid-19. This enables social change by providing
networking opportunities that facilitates collaboration. The sixth type refers to
implementing policy about social issues. This includes changing current management
practices by incorporating more of a social entrepreneurial spirit that focuses on value co-
creation. Each of these different policy types haveimplicationsforhowentitiesdealwith
the covid-19 crisis.
IJSSP
Policy implications
Countries have had differing policy responses to the covid-19 crisis. Initially when covid-19
was declared as a health pandemic of global consequence there was initial uncertainty as to
how to handle the crisis (Kirk and Rifkin, 2020). This led to some countries notably Sweden
and the UK addressing the crisis by proposing a herd mentality that once a percentage of the
population was infected by the disease then others would gain immunity. This policy did not
work for these countries, as the level of fatalities from the disease substantially increased that
caused pressure on the health system and other areas of society (Kuckertz et al., 2020). Due to
the high-economic costs associated with instigating other policy initiatives notably social
distancing and a lockdown, policy makers needed to balance societal concerns with financial
implications. Countries such as New Zealand that locked down their society early have had
positive outcomes in a low level of deaths from the disease compared to other countries. New
Zealand due to it being comprised of islands and not in a regional trading bloc such as the
European Union could implement a lock down strategy more easily than other countries.
Moreover, the political situation in New Zealand and also Australia meant a bipartisan
approach that focused on collaboration, which meant greater societal benefit. This contrasts
to other countries such as the US not having the same kind of political system that encourages
collaboration between competing political parties. In addition, the power authority of the
federal government compared to state governments created some confusion with regards to
health policy. This meant concurrent and sometimes conflicting policies were made
particularly in the US that further impeded effective health advice. This has made it difficult
and complex for health policy makers to implement effect strategies to handle the covid-19
crisis.
Practical implications
Covid-19 has had a quick but significant effect on society that whilst resulting in sad and
disturbing effects will also result in innovation. The rapid mobilization of health authorities,
scientists, educators and entrepreneurs to deal with the virus resulted in global collaboration
on an unprecedented scale. Moreover, the effects of the virus were most evident in developed
countries including the UK, Spain and the US. However, more recently Brazil has seen a high
level of mortality from the virus. This meant that due to the lack of existing medical science to
treat the virus new approaches are needed that incorporate social value creation. This
requires defining and developing innovative solutions with regards to covid-19. This means
matching capabilities in order to facilitate more effective solutions. Time is an important
consideration of this stage, as problems need to be addressed in an appropriate way. To do
this properly resource considerations in terms of financial and human capital need to be
balanced with the chance of success. Part of this involves developing solutions that can be
implemented in a timely manner considering the available resources. Due to production
restrictions because of covid-19 some innovative thinking may be needed to source
appropriate materials.
The sudden and unexpected nature of covid-19 meant there was a great deal of
uncertainty about how to handle it. This is due to the covid-19 crisis being not an isolated
event as it effects other areas of society. This means the crisis is not contained to one event but
rather it results in other unforeseen effects. Therefore, the covid-19 crisis threatens the
current status quo due to its unexpected nature. This means the changes resulting from the
crisis have profound implications for society particularly in terms of social value creation.
The covid-19 crisis has redefined society by requiring new behaviour and due to its ongoing
nature, we have only just begun to understand its effects. This means the covid-19 crisis
needs to be analysed from a social value creation approach that considers an entrepreneurial
perspective.
Impact of
coronavirus
Conclusion
The covid-19 pandemic has resulted in tumultuous times evident by major social challenges.
This is due to covid-19 being a traumatic event that has demonstrated the need to think both
locally and globally. Given the huge strides in internationalisation, the reversion back to local
regions has had significant social policy implications. How this will affect society in the future
is still unknown, due to the ongoing nature of covid-19. What is known is that society will
never be the same as it was before. This means policy makers need to be innovative and
incorporate social value co-creation initiatives in how they deal with the effects of covid-19,
whilst supporting existing policies. To do this will be difficult due to the way borders were
closed and geographic areas reverted back to looking after entities in their own locations. In
addition, unlike other crisis, covid-19 affected developed countries with many developing
countries offering help. This is also a change in social policy, and this is indicated in the
interlinkages evident in global society. To advance society we need to learn from the past by
looking to the future. The way policy makers do this will be interesting given the strategic
priority areas particularly in terms of manufacturing. Whether the globalisation strategy of
the past is still emphasised is yet to be seen or how these changes will occur will be interesting
to watch. What is known is that a social entrepreneurship and value co-creation strategy
needs to be used to alleviate the problems caused by covid-19 in order to bring about positive
change.
References
Alon, I., Farrell, M. and Li, S. (2020), “Regime type and COVID-19 response”,FIIB Business Review,
pp. 1-9, doi: 10.1177/2319714520928884.
Alvord, S.H., Brown, L.D. and Letts, C.W. (2004), “Social entrepreneurship and societal transformation:
an exploratory study”,The Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, Vol. 40 No. 3, pp. 260-282.
Ansell, C. and Boin, A. (2019), “Taming deep uncertainty: the potential of pragmatist principles for
understanding and improving strategic crisis management”,Administration and Society,
Vol. 51 No. 7, pp. 1079-1112.
Bacq, S., Geoghegan, W., Josefy, M., Stevenson, R. and Williams, T. (2020), “The COVID-19 virtual idea
blitz: marshalling social entrepreneurship to rapidly respond to urgent grand challenges”,
Business Horizons, In Press, doi: 10.1016/j.bushor.2020.05.002.
Bjarsholm, D. (2017), “Sport and social entrepreneurship: a review of a concept in progress”,Journal of
Sport Management, Vol. 31, pp. 191-206.
Caldwell, N.D., Roehrich, J.K. and George, G. (2017), “Social value creation and relational coordination
in public-private collaborations”,Journal of Management Studies, Vol. 54 No. 6, pp. 906-928.
Cankurtaran, P. and Beverland, M. (2020), “Using design thinking to respond to crises: B2B lessons
from the 2020 covid-19 pandemic”,Industrial Marketing Management, Vol. 88, pp. 255-260.
Chesbrough, H. (2020), “To recover faster from covid-19, open up: managerial implications from an
open innovation perspective”,Industrial Marketing Management, In Press, doi: 10.1016/j.
indmarman.2020.04.010.
Cortez, R. and Johnston, W. (2020), “The coronavirus crisis in B2B settings: crisis uniqueness and
managerial implications based on social exchange theory”,Industrial Marketing Management,
In Press, doi: 10.1016/j.indmarman.2020.05.004.
Dacin, M.T., Dacin, P.A. and Tracey, P. (2011), “Social entrepreneurship: a critique and future
directions”,Organization Science, Vol. 22 No. 5, pp. 1203-1213.
Di Domenico, M., Haugh, H. and Tracey, P. (2010), “Social bricolage: theorizing social value creation in
social enterprises”,Entrepreneurship: Theory and Practice, Vol. 34 No. 4, pp. 681-703.
IJSSP
Doern, R., Williams, N. and Vorley, T. (2019), “Special issue on entrepreneurship and crises: business
as usual? An introduction and review of the literature”,Entrepreneurship and Regional
Development, Vol. 31 Nos 5-6, pp. 400-412.
Dohrmann, S., Raith, M. and Siebold, N. (2015), “Monetizing social value creation–a business model
approach”,Entrepreneurship Research Journal, Vol. 5 No. 2, pp. 127-154.
Goh, J.M., Gao, G. and Agarwal, R. (2016), “The creation of social value: can an online health
community reduce rural–urban health disparities?”,MIS Quarterly, Vol. 40 No. 1, pp. 247-263.
Grohs, R., Wieser, V. and Pristach, M. (2020), “Value co-creation at sport events”,European Sport
Management Quarterly, Vol. 20 No. 1, pp. 69-87.
Haugh, H. (2007), “Community-led social venture creation”,Entrepreneurship: Theory and Practice,
Vol. 31, pp. 161-182.
Kickul, J., Gundry, L., Mitra, P. and Bercot, L. (2018), “Designing with purpose: advocating innovation,
impact, sustainability, and scale in social entrepreneurship education”,Entrepreneurship
Education and Pedagogy, Vol. 1 No. 2, pp. 205-221.
Kirk, C.P. and Rifkin, L.S. (2020), “I’ll trade you diamonds for toilet paper: consumer reacting,
coping and adapting behaviors in the COVID-19 pandemic”,Journal of Business Research,In
Press, doi: 10.1016/j.jbusres.2020.05.028.
Korsgaard, S. and Anderson, A.R. (2011), “Enacting entrepreneurship as social value creation”,
International Small Business Journal, Vol. 29 No. 2, pp. 135-151.
Kraus, S., Clauss, T., Breier, M., Gast, J., Zardini, A. and Tiberius, V. (2020), “The economics of COVID-
19: initial empirical evidence on how family firms in five European countries cope with the
corona crisis”,International Journal of Entrepreneurial Behavior and Research, In Press, doi: 10.
1108/IJEBR-04-2020-0214.
Kroeger, A. and Weber, C. (2014), “Developing a conceptual framework for comparing social value
creation”,Academy of Management Review, Vol. 39 No. 4, pp. 513-540.
Kuckertz, A., Br€
andle, L., Gaudig, A., Hinderer, S., Reyes, C.A.M., Prochotta, A. and Berger, E.S. (2020),
“Startups in times of crisis–A rapid response to the COVID-19 pandemic”,Journal of Business
Venturing Insights, In Press, doi: 10.1016/j.jbvi.2020.e00169.
Liu, Y., Shankar, V. and Yun, W. (2017), “Crisis management strategies and the long-term effects of
product recalls on firm value”,Journal of Marketing, Vol. 81, September, pp. 30-48.
Lumpkin, G., Moss, T., Gras, D., Kato, S. and Amezcua, A. (2013), “Entrepreneurial processes in social
contexts: how are they different if at all?”,Small Business Economics, Vol. 40, pp. 761-783.
Mair, J. and Marti, I. (2006), “Social entrepreneurship research: a source of explanation, prediction, and
delight”,Journal of World Business, Vol. 41 No. 1, pp. 36-44.
Moerschell, L. and Novak, S. (2020), “Managing crisis in a university setting: the challenge of
alignment”,Journal of Contingencies and Crisis Management, Vol. 28, pp. 30-40.
Munshi, N.V. (2010), “Value creation, social innovation, and entrepreneurship in global economies”,
Journal of Asia-Pacific Business, Vol. 11 No. 3, pp. 160-165.
Nicholls, A. (Ed.) (2008), Social Entrepreneurship: New Models of Sustainable Social Change, OUP,
Oxford.
Ormiston, J. and Seymour, R. (2011), “Understanding value creation in social entrepreneurship: the
importance of aligning mission, strategy and impact measurement”,Journal of Social
Entrepreneurship, Vol. 2 No. 2, pp. 125-150.
Parker, H. and Ameen, K. (2018), “The role of resilience capabilities in shaping how firms respond to
disruption”,Journal of Business Research, Vol. 88, pp. 535-541.
Parnell, D., Widdop, P., Bond, A. and Wilson, R. (2020), “Covid-19, networks and sport”,Managing
Sport and Leisure, In Press, doi: 10.1080/23750472.2020.1750100.
Impact of
coronavirus
Peredo, A.M. and McLean, M. (2006), “Social entrepreneurship: a critical review of the concept”,
Journal of World Business, Vol. 41 No. 1, pp. 56-65.
Perrow, C. (1984), Complexity, Coupling and Catastrophe,Normal Accidents, pp. 62-100.
Santos, F.M. (2012), “A positive theory of social entrepreneurship”,Journal of Business Ethics, Vol. 111
No. 3, pp. 335-351.
Sheth, J. (2020), “Business of business is more than business: managing during the covid crisis”,
Industrial Marketing Management, Vol. 88, pp. 261-264.
Shrivastava, P. (1993), “Crisis theory/practice: towards a sustainable future”,Industrial and
Environmental Crisis Quarterly, Vol. 7 No. 1, pp. 23-42.
Sinkovics, N., Sinkovics, R.R. and Yamin, M. (2014), “The role of social value creation in business
model formulation at the bottom of the pyramid–implications for MNEs?”,International
Business Review, Vol. 23 No. 4, pp. 692-707.
Smith, B.R., Barr, T.F., Barbosa, S.D. and Kickul, J.R. (2008), “Social entrepreneurship: a grounded
learning approach to social value creation”,Journal of Enterprising Culture, Vol. 16 No. 04,
pp. 339-362.
Weick, K.E. and Sutcliffe, K.M. (2011), Managing the Unexpected: Resilient Performance in an Age of
Uncertainty, Vol. 8, John Wiley & Sons, San Francisco.
Wenzel, M., Stanske, S. and Lieberman, M. (2020), “Strategic responses to crisis”,Strategic
Management Journal, In Press, doi: 10.1002/smj.3161.
Williams, T.A., Gruber, D.A., Sutcliffe, K.M., Shepherd, D.A. and Zhao, E.Y. (2017), “Organizational
response to adversity: fusing crisis management and resilience research streams”,The
Academy of Management Annals, Vol. 11 No. 2, pp. 733-769.
Wilson, F. and Post, J.E. (2013), “Business models for people, planet (& profits): exploring the
phenomena of social business, a market-based approach to social value creation”,Small
Business Economics, Vol. 40 No. 3, pp. 715-737.
World Health Organisation (2020) Who, coronavirus disease (COVID-19) outbreak, available at: https:
www.who.int/emergencies/diseases/novel-coronavirus-2019.
Further reading
Altinay, L., Sigala, M. and Waligo, V. (2016), “Social value creation through tourism enterprise”,
Tourism Management, Vol. 54, pp. 404-417.
He, H. and Harris, L. (2020), “The impact of covid-19 pandemic on corporate social responsibility and
marketing philosophy”,Journal of Business Research, Vol. 116, pp. 176-182.
Heyden, M., Wilden, R. and Wise, C. (2020), “Navigating crisis from the backseat? How top managers
can support radical change initiatives by middle managers”,Industrial Marketing Management,
Vol. 88, pp. 305-313.
Yu, M., Li, Z., Yu, Z., He, J. and Zhou, J. (2020), “Communication related health crisis on social media: a
case of covid-19 outbreak”,Current Issues in Tourism, In Press.
Corresponding author
Vanessa Ratten can be contacted at: v.ratten@latrobe.edu.au
For instructions on how to order reprints of this article, please visit our website:
www.emeraldgrouppublishing.com/licensing/reprints.htm
Or contact us for further details: permissions@emeraldinsight.com
IJSSP
