Intermediaries as external enablers in community-based social enterprises: case studies in China and Japan Open Access

To combat the multifaceted social problems in communities where public welfare is limited in efficacy, community-based social enterprises (CBSEs) represent a bottom-up approach to delivering social value by pursuing commercial activities in a localised or geographically defined area (Peredo and Chrisman, 2006; Valchovska and Watts, 2016). CBSEs often contribute to providing new or revived services, designing and managing community assets, bridging stakeholders, enabling the local market and participating in community governance and development alongside public actors (Kazami and Yamaguchi, 2009; Kleinhans et al., 2019; Li et al., 2023). As a subset of social enterprises (SEs) (Tuckerman et al., 2023), CBSEs achieve financial autonomy and sustainability through diverse sources of income and financial mechanisms, usually through fee-for-service models supplemented by public grants (Wallace, 2005). For example, a CBSE can operate a farm that hires residents with disabilities, while covering costs through agricultural sales. It may also operate a community space that offers elder-care and childcare services, sustained by service fees and public grants. Hence, CBSEs are a powerful tool to address socio-economic and spatial inequalities while maintaining financial sustainability (Peredo and Chrisman, 2006).

CBSEs have a strong place-based nature (Shrivastava and Kennelly, 2013), which generates a unique institutional logic, known as Community Logic, that guides their legitimacy and operation (Georgiou and Arenas, 2023; Poblete and Acuña, 2025; Tuckerman et al., 2023). Community logic refers to shared boundaries, where trust, reciprocity and commitment to community membership foster emotional bonds that sustain mutual support and collective practices (Thornton et al., 2012). This logic positions CBSEs as a distinct subset of SEs with locally grounded priorities, while exposing them to multifaceted challenges and risks of instability and displacement (Li et al., 2023; Peredo and Chrisman, 2006; Poblete and Acuña, 2025; Shrivastava and Kennelly, 2013). Unlike established organisations operating in fields where systems, resources and technologies are already in place and can be transferred into business capacity (Samama and Bidad, 2024), CBSEs generally have weak organisational capacity and primarily rely on community needs, local networks, and cultural systems. Thus, there is a need to understand their trajectories and how they can be better supported (Tuckerman et al., 2023; Wallace, 2005).

This research focuses on intermediaries who serve as external supporters and crucial stakeholders of SEs (Ho and Yoon, 2022; Jenner, 2016; Jin, 2022; Kerlin et al., 2021). Intermediaries are mission-driven organisations loyal to multiple stakeholders (Howells, 2006; Kerlin et al., 2021). They usually act as the “middleman” between diverse parties, facilitating transactions and interactions and delivering services to other organisations (Bals et al., 2023). They connect, influence, and mobilise various sectors, acting as systemic actors who facilitate initiatives across systems and boundaries (Hernández-Chea et al., 2021; Kivimaa et al., 2019). Existing knowledge emphasises that intermediaries enable the establishment, growth and long-term development of SEs by providing technical assistance (Ho and Yoon, 2022; Jenner, 2016), building networks (Kazami and Sasaki, 2020; Shanmugalingam et al., 2011 and serving as legitimising agents (Kerlin et al., 2021; Shi, 2023).

However, we identified two research gaps. First, intermediary literature often treats SEs as a homogeneous group, overlooking the organisational and institutional dynamics within different subsets, such as CBSEs. Community logic shapes CBSEs’ trajectories and operations (Tuckerman et al., 2023), which may also influence the support provided by intermediaries who commit loyalty to the organisations they assist (Bals et al., 2023; WeSocial, 2023). These nuances in intermediary intervention warrant deeper analysis. Second, mainstream research on intermediaries and CBSEs is predominantly based on Western contexts (Suriyankietkaew et al., 2022) and lacks international comparison. Regional discrepancies in institutions, socio-economic contexts and cultural norms may shape how CBSEs and intermediaries operate and are perceived (Jin, 2022). Thus, more empirical studies are needed to explore other national or local systems, particularly in Asian contexts (Defourny and Kim, 2011).

To fill these gaps, this research focuses on two Asian countries – China and Japan – both of which have witnessed the rapid growth of SEs driven by the shifts in economic models and welfare regimes, the market-oriented transformation of the non-profit sector and the influence of corporate social responsibility (Defourny and Kim, 2011; Deng et al., 2023; Jin, 2022). China is estimated to have the second largest number of SEs globally, with around 1.75 million entities (Schwab Foundation for Social Entrepreneurship, 2024). In comparison, a national survey estimated Japan had approximately 205,000 SEs – comparable to the figure in the UK (Laratta and Nakagawa, 2016). While China and Japan represent contrasting socio-economic and institutional environments, they both reflect a state-driven paradigm shaped by interactions with Western models in localising the SE landscape (Defourny and Kim, 2011; Shi, 2023). Moreover, they provide complementary contexts: China represents an emerging, locally driven model, while Japan illustrates a mature, institutionally embedded model (Deng et al., 2023; Jin, 2022; Tanimoto, 2006). Thus, by examining the role of intermediaries within a subset of SEs, this research can enrich the existing knowledge of SEs and their regional ecosystems. We pose two core research questions:

The definition of CBSEs varies across distinct contexts (Suriyankietkaew et al., 2022), where similar terms are simultaneously used, including community enterprises (Peredo and Chrisman, 2006; Valchovska and Watts, 2016), community ventures (Haugh, 2007; Vestrum and Rasmussen, 2013) and community businesses (Nakao, 2022; Tuckerman et al., 2023). Moreover, CBSEs can take the form of cooperatives, regional small and medium enterprises (SMEs), non-profit organisations (NPOs) and civil society organisations (Kazami and Yamaguchi, 2009; Shrivastava and Kennelly, 2013). While their fluid boundaries pose challenges for identification and for understanding how they can best be supported (Tuckerman et al., 2023), scholars (e.g. Peredo and Chrisman, 2006; Suriyankietkaew et al., 2022; Tanimoto, 2006; Valchovska and Watts, 2016) have recognised that these terms are largely interchangeable and fundamentally align with the international conceptualisation of SEs characterised by strong local embeddedness and priorities.

In China, there is a void in a unified definition and legal status of CBSEs. They are defined either narrowly as (1) community social enterprises (CSEs, shequshehuiqiye in Chinese), formal, fully community-owned organisations established and operated by the residents’ committees under established governmental regulations (Li et al., 2023; WeSocial, 2023); or broadly as (2) hybrid community organisations (shequhunhexingzuzhi in Chinese), which use market approaches to solve community issues with flexibility in legal form, ownership and governance (Liu, 2025). In Japan, the term community business (komyunitei bijinesu in Japanese) is widely used and often considered interchangeable with CBSEs (Tanimoto, 2006), referring to locally rooted, citizen-led ventures that address regional challenges through entrepreneurial activities (Kazami and Yamaguchi, 2009). Japanese CBSEs encompass diverse legal forms, including cooperatives, nonprofits and for-profit firms.

CBSEs stand out as a subset of SEs due to their community-based nature (Kleinhans et al., 2019; Suriyankietkaew et al., 2022). Recognised as place-based or indigenous organisations, CBSEs’ responsiveness to the “need of a geographically defined, and constrained, population” (Tuckerman et al., 2023) influences how they pursue social-business activities (WeSocial, 2023). This local rootedness, which is tightly aligned with community needs, expectations and values, sets boundaries and obligations in their trajectories (Georgiou and Arenas, 2023; Liu, 2025). With the lens of institutional logic theory (ILT), Tuckerman et al. (2023) elucidated how community logic shapes the evolutionary trajectories of CBSEs. Community logic is an institutional logic that underscores shared boundaries, where unity of will, trust, reciprocity and commitment to community membership foster emotional connections, which sustain mutual support and investment in community practices (Thornton et al., 2012). Functioning as “rules of the game” informed by locality, community logic adds dimension to social-business logic, collectively shaping CBSEs’ decision-making, strategies, structures and performance (Liu, 2025; Poblete and Acuña, 2025; Tuckerman et al., 2023). Despite the institutional logic perspective being endorsed by researchers to examine place-based organisations, few have extended it to understand their key stakeholders, such as intermediaries. As supportive, cross-sectoral organisations that must adapt to various logics rooted in the fields they operate (Hernández-Chea et al., 2021; Ho and Yoon, 2022); this research aims to advance existing literature by exploring how this logic influences these intermediaries.

In addition, the community-based nature also brings about challenges to CBSEs, making them vulnerable organisations subject to hardships in their trajectories, which have attracted scholarly attention worldwide (Kleinhans et al., 2019; Shrivastava and Kennelly, 2013; Suriyankietkaew et al., 2022; Wallace, 2005). First, CBSEs usually operate in an adverse and complex environment, such as disadvantaged communities with insufficient welfare provision, limited resource availability, depopulation and ageing populations, and low market vibrancy (Kazami and Yamaguchi, 2009; Vestrum and Rasmussen, 2013). These conditions pose structural challenges for CBSEs to build organisational capacity, maintain operations and overcome turbulence (Samama and Bidad, 2024). Second, CBSEs need to maintain accountability to plural stakeholders (Kleinhans et al., 2019), which drives them to move beyond firm-centred business to pursue additional objectives, such as community resilience-building and community development missions (Haugh, 2007; Li et al., 2023). This means CBSEs will “often have to adopt and project different identities and rhetoric depending on the audience they face” (Tuckerman et al., 2023), which poses difficulties in strategically balancing diverse, and sometimes conflicting, expectations from various stakeholders (Poblete and Acuña, 2025). Third, CBSEs confront more complex tensions than other SEs. Tuckerman et al. (2023) emphasised that welfare-market-community logic leads to situations where different logics collide or become incompatible, resulting in risks of mission drift, legitimisation obstacles and governance instability (Li et al., 2023; Liu, 2025). To address these challenges, while existing studies have proposed strategies from diverse perspectives, most focus on the managerial practices of CBSEs (Suriyankietkaew et al., 2022; Vestrum and Rasmussen, 2013); how peripheral actors or initiatives support CBSEs remains understudied.

Intermediaries are generally conceptualised as organisations whose primary purpose is to deliver services and support to other organisations (Dey et al., 2016). Although intermediaries are distinguished by their emergence, neutrality, goals, contexts and action levels (Kivimaa et al., 2019), the fundamental functions of intermediaries lie in mediating interaction and exchange between two or more parties to reduce transaction costs (Kerlin et al., 2021) or resolve communication problems arising from differences in cultures, interests, and capacity to absorb or exchange knowledge (Kivimaa et al., 2019). Characterised by their ability to mobilise actors and initiatives across boundaries in a neutral position, intermediaries not only function intrinsically at a single layer but often act systematically across various niches, systems and territories (Barraket, 2020; Kivimaa et al., 2019). For example, an intermediary can both deliver organisation-level initiatives (e.g. expertise and funds) and influence institutional-level structures (e.g. advising policy and pursuing certification).

Intermediaries that support SEs are identified, verbalised and categorised variously as incubators, accelerators, programmes, mediators, facilitators and brokers (Ho and Yoon, 2022; Howells, 2006; Kazami and Sasaki, 2020; Kerlin et al., 2021). They are generally conceptualised as SE intermediaries that commit to mediating processes and initiatives to expedite SE emergence and development (Bals et al., 2023; Jenner, 2016). Like other intermediaries, SE intermediaries operate at the intersection of multiple players, sectors and institutions relevant to SEs, but they are responsive to the hybrid nature of SEs (Ho and Yoon, 2022). For example, SE intermediaries facilitate both charitable and market initiatives, playing a more complex and ambiguous role than intermediaries supporting logic-dominant organisations (Ho and Yoon, 2022; Slitine et al., 2024). The practices of SE intermediaries have been documented globally, and their supportive, ecosystemic roles are often seen as vital in shaping SE landscapes. For instance, Jenner (2016) reported that intermediaries in Australia and Scotland facilitate SE sustainability through financing, advisory, networking and training; Kerlin et al. (2021) illustrated that SE intermediaries in China and India act as legitimising agents, mediating the influence of external institutions to support the legitimisation and institutionalisation of SEs. In addition, substantial literature from South Korea has explicated the government-led intermediary, Korea Social Enterprise Promotion Agency, in materialising the government-driven SE landscape (Ho and Yoon, 2022; Jin, 2022).

However, although researchers have elucidated the positive role of intermediaries in SEs, few have explicitly distinguished CBSEs as a unique subcategory of SEs. How intermediaries operate territorially (Slitine et al., 2024) and accommodate their support for grassroots ventures operating under community logic and local complexities remains largely unknown. In addition, most publications focused on the practices in Western countries, leaving gaps in other national and local systems (Howells, 2006; Jenner, 2016). China and Japan represent desirable avenues for enriching existing knowledge, where intermediaries play a vital role in enabling the development of CBSEs (Jin, 2022; Kazami and Yamaguchi, 2009; WeSocial, 2023) under distinct yet complementary institutional and socio-economic settings (Defourny and Kim, 2011). These gaps warrant a study to examine and compare intermediaries operating to support a subset of SEs across different regions.

We integrate two theories as conceptual foundations of our study: the ecological system theory (EST) and the ILT. Together, they complement each other in forming a holistic understanding of intermediaries’ functions while clarifying the nuances of intermediaries’ behaviour.

Most literature examines intermediaries in for-profit businesses, technology innovation, social entrepreneurship, sustainability transitions and nonprofits (Bals et al., 2023; Ho and Yoon, 2022; Howells, 2006; Kivimaa et al., 2019), leaving limited frameworks for analysing CBSE and SE intermediaries (Barraket, 2020). Moreover, SE intermediary literature still lacks “ready-to-wear” frameworks for examining intermediaries (Howells, 2006; Kivimaa et al., 2019). Considering their systematic roles, we first mobilise the EST, which underscores that human development is shaped by interactions within multiple layers of the environment, encompassing the microsystem, mesosystem, exosystem, macrosystem and chronosystem (Bronfenbrenner, 1994). The environment is interpreted as “a nested arrangement of structures, each contained within the next” (Bronfenbrenner, 1994), indicating a perspective that examines the forces surrounding individuals and their interdependent relations (Neal and Neal, 2013). Since the birth of EST in the 1970s, this setting-level theory has been applied across various disciplines, including biology, human development and social science (Crawford, 2020). Through this lens, intermediaries are viewed as multi-layered, systemic actors operating across multiple dimensions that surround and shape CBSEs.

First, the microsystem refers to the immediate environment where direct interactions occur (Bronfenbrenner, 1994) (e.g. entrepreneurs and a single CBSE). Intermediaries can influence individual intentions, actions, and capabilities, such as through advocacy, education and capacity-building programmes for entrepreneurs (Dey et al., 2016; Ho and Yoon, 2022). Intermediaries also transfer organisational knowledge and strategies to SEs (Barraket, 2020; Ho and Yoon, 2022; Jenner, 2016; Shanmugalingam et al., 2011). Second, the mesosystem refers to the interconnections of microsystems (Bronfenbrenner, 1994) (e.g. CBSEs and their investors), where intermediaries can serve as cross-sectoral brokers, liaisons, and agents to facilitate communications, build networks and mobilise resource flows between CBSEs and other parties (Shanmugalingam et al., 2011). Third, the exosystem and macrosystem capture the external and broader structural systems (Bronfenbrenner, 1994) that influence CBSEs, including policy, socio-economic underpinnings, values and culture. Intermediaries are recognised as subsystems or shapers of ecosystems that influence the contexts to which CBSEs must respond (Bals et al., 2023). For example, intermediaries often play a crucial role in policymaking and implementation (WeSocial, 2023) or act as legitimising agents to accredit and supervise SEs (Kerlin et al., 2021; Li et al., 2023).

Developed by later EST theorists, instead of being seen as “nested” or overlapped, one layer is “networked” with and directly or indirectly connected to the others (Neal and Neal, 2013). Hence, interactions among layers are also crucial for understanding the transformative, dynamic, and multifaceted roles of intermediaries across different systems (Kivimaa et al., 2019; Slitine et al., 2024) of CBSEs. This study also examines how intermediaries facilitate the interrelations and interactions among different systems.

As neutral organisations engage with various systems of the organisations they support, intermediaries integrate different logics, norms and disciplines (Bals et al., 2023; Kivimaa et al., 2019). For this study, we use ILT to understand how intermediaries that support CBSEs may differ from those supporting SEs more broadly. ILT refers to the taken-for-granted understandings, values, beliefs, rules and assumptions that guide individual and collective behaviour, create social order and determine ways of organising (Thornton et al., 2012). It provides a framework to understand why organisations and individuals behave differently depending on the dominant “logic” of their institutional environment (Poblete and Acuña, 2025).

To target a meaningful theoretical contribution, this study centres on community logic – one of the institutional logics at various societal levels (e.g. state, corporation, family, religion, market and profession) (Georgiou and Arenas, 2023; Thornton et al., 2012). As discussed earlier, community logic shapes CBSEs and offers a theoretical lens to examine how intermediaries adapt their support behaviours in line with shared values, practices and pursuits, fostering trust, reciprocity and moral responsibility within community contexts (Thornton et al., 2012). As a consequence, it filters the influence of other logics and endorses intermediaries that are committed to the community (Georgiou and Arenas, 2023).

While CBSE literature originates in Western economies, Asian countries, such as China and Japan, have witnessed or are witnessing a spurt of CBSEs (Kazami and Yamaguchi, 2009; Li et al., 2023). In China, the CBSE landscape is shaped by policy initiatives promoting social innovation for community economy and governance, as well as the rapid growth and institutionalisation of the SE sector (Deng et al., 2023; Li et al., 2023; Liu, 2025). According to survey data by Shi (2023), 10.27% of certified SEs in China focus on community development, ranking third among all categories. In addition, 19% are embedded in community economic networks.

In Japan, CBSEs, also known as community businesses, are catalysed by civic practices and socio-political initiatives related to disaster recovery, the NPO movement and sustainable community development (Kazami and Yamaguchi, 2009; Tanimoto, 2006). Although official statistics on community businesses are lacking, a 2014 national survey estimated that Japan had approximately 205,000 SEs (Jin, 2022; Laratta and Nakagawa, 2016), of which 36% operated in areas aligned with community businesses (Kazami and Yamaguchi, 2009). Meanwhile, intermediaries play a key role in shaping the context alongside the government in both countries, with various types of intermediaries being commissioned as government-linked agents for regulation, certification and service delivery (Kazami and Sasaki, 2020; Kazami and Yamaguchi, 2009; Kerlin et al., 2021; Shi, 2023).

While the models, policy frameworks and socio-economic positioning of SE differ significantly due to variations in institutional structures, historical trajectories and cultural contexts, two countries have shared contexts, including:

• the central place of the state;

• an emerging civil society;

• the crisis in 1990s; and

• the localisation of the Western SE models (Defourny and Kim, 2011; Jin, 2022).

In the context of CBSEs, the two countries represent complementary contexts. Chinese CBSE landscape reflects an emerging, locally driven model characterised by localised policy steering and experimentation since 2018 (Li et al., 2023). Although CBSEs have gained momentum in some provinces, national-level policy remains absent, and public awareness is limited (Liu, 2025; WeSocial, 2023). In contrast, CBSEs in Japan operate within a mature, institutionally embedded model, with community businesses institutionalised and actively promoted by the state since the late 1990s (Kazami and Yamaguchi, 2009; Tanimoto, 2006). Examining intermediaries can enrich the existing knowledge of CBSE practice in East Asia, as they offer a view that depicts the reality and evolution of SE sector.

To scope down our investigation, we selected Sichuan Province (China) and Miyagi Prefecture (Japan). While we acknowledge their structural differences in economic scale and population size, they share significant contexts of disaster recovery, notable growth in SEs, and community development initiatives (Kazami and Yamaguchi, 2009; Liu, 2025). In 2008, the Wenchuan Earthquake struck Sichuan Province, causing widespread devastation. The disaster stimulated volunteerism and a growing number of charitable organisations, laying a social foundation for SEs (Deng et al., 2023; Shi, 2023). In recent years, Sichuan has been considered a showcase for indigenous SE development and ecosystem building. Archived data reveal that Chengdu, the capital of Sichuan, accounts for the largest share of certified SEs in China, comprising approximately 20.2% as of 2023 (Deng et al., 2023). This prominence is achieved by proactive municipal-level government intervention in cultivating, certifying and supervising SE (Feng and Nishide, 2024). Chengdu has a notable political foundation in tackling community governance disorders through public initiatives and cross-sectoral collaboration, making Chengdu the first city to regulate CSE as a new identity for community development organisations (Deng et al., 2023; Li et al., 2023). In Sichuan, several professional SE intermediaries are recognised nationwide, including Social Innovation Star, Social Enterprise Planet and Chengdu Social Enterprise Service Centre (Deng et al., 2023).

Miyagi prefecture, in the northeast of Japan, was the primary victim of the Great East Japan Earthquake on 11 March 2011 (Samuels, 2013; Shaw, 2015). The disaster profoundly shocked the local economy and environment while severely disrupting social life, further exacerbating local communities’ long-term structural decline (Samuels, 2013). Driven by the need for reconstruction, a spurt of civic initiatives emerged, including social entrepreneurship, civic participation and non-profit activities (Nakao, 2022; Saito, 2020; Tanimoto, 2006). CBSEs can drive community revitalisation in local businesses, welfare, employment, tourism and education, which has attracted the focus of domestic scholars, practitioners, and policymakers (Kazami and Yamaguchi, 2009; Shaw, 2015). This positioned Miyagi as a hub for researching post-disaster construction through civic and collaborative approaches (Kazami and Sasaki, 2020), where intermediaries are essential in facilitating these initiatives and processes (Samuels, 2013). In Sendai, the capital of Miyagi, the municipal government has been working closely with intermediaries since the disaster. With some of these intermediaries gaining national recognition, such as Miyagi Collaborative Reconstruction Centre, INTILAQ and Sendai Civic Activity Support Centre. Moreover, Sendai government has positioned intermediaries as key actors in materialising the concept of Kyodo (meaning “collaboration” in Japanese), which emphasises multi-actor co-creation to enhance social governance (Kazami and Sasaki, 2020; Saito, 2020).

A qualitative case study approach was applied, which “involves the study of a case within a real-life, contemporary context or setting” (Yin, 2009), allowing researchers to develop richer and deeper insights into the phenomenon (Creswell and Poth, 2018). Case studies involve in-depth data collection through multiple sources of information and report case descriptions and themes (Creswell and Poth, 2018). This method facilitates a rich understanding of intermediaries’ concepts, incorporations, structures, behaviours and outcomes through real-life practices, fostering an in-depth qualitative inquiry of various dimensions informed by the proposed framework. We mixed multiple data collection approaches, including semi-structured interviews, field observations and secondary data collection, to enhance data credibility and triangulation (Yin, 2009).

We adopted purposive sampling, a non-probability sampling method (Creswell and Poth, 2018), to select case intermediaries for analysis. This method strategically samples the cases with specific characteristics, knowledge or experiences relevant to the posed research questions (Bryman, 2016). As outlined in Table 1, our investigations were conducted from July 2023 to September 2024, including eight locally representative intermediaries. We acknowledge the asymmetry in case numbers, which reflects the uneven development of the SE sector between the two countries. In China, where the sector emerged later than in Japan, the number of identifiable intermediaries remains limited (Jin, 2022). Nevertheless, this study confirms the representativeness of the cases based on three criteria that establish them as leading intermediaries in each area:

1. scale of influence: whether the case is recognised as representative and impactful by practitioners and researchers;

2. functional eligibility: whether the case incorporates specialised and sustained support to CBSEs; and

3. longevity: whether the case operates for at least three years and maintains activity.

Data were mainly collected through semi-structured interviews conducted by the first and second authors, involving 12 interviews (lasting between one and three hours) with founders, leaders and executives of intermediaries. We focused our inquiry on their organisational information, support schemes, showcases and outcomes. We also asked for their perspectives on socio-economic environment, policy, community development, challenges and prospects, to better understand their contexts ( Appendix 1 shows an interview guide for Case 4). Furthermore, supplementary data were collected from various sources, including:

• documentary data (e.g. archive data, reports and social media posts);

• participatory observation (e.g. site visits with field notes and photographs documenting dialogues, observations and key information); and

• supplementary interviews (e.g. data drawn from the authors’ other research projects on CBSEs supported by case intermediaries).

All interviews and supplementary materials relevant to this study were transcribed verbatim and translated by native speakers. The first and third authors are native Chinese speakers, and the second and fourth authors are native Japanese speakers; all possess high proficiency in English. We also shared the original transcripts with the interviewees and invited them to review and revise their responses to enhance data validity and credibility.

We analysed the data using thematic analysis (TA) with ATLAS.ti 23, a qualitative data analysis software. TA is a method for developing, analysing and interpreting patterns across a qualitative data set, which involves systematic processes of data set familiarisation, data coding, theme generation and development, theme refining and naming, and data visualisation and results (Braun and Clarke, 2022). We integrated deductive and inductive reasoning for analysis, involving two data sets – one from China and the other from Japan. As shown in Tables 2 and 3, we first openly coded the interview transcripts and selectively coded the secondary data. Second, we set microsystem, mesosystem, exosystem and macrosystem as code groups and deductively categorised codes according to the system they correspond to. Then, we developed first- and second-order themes to illustrate the common functions of intermediaries (an example of TA is demonstrated in  Appendix 2). We did not employ the chronosystem, as it encompasses long-term historical and life-course changes (Crawford, 2020), whereas we focus on more temporary issues. Third, we inductively developed themes informed by ILT to capture community logic embodied by intermediaries, as reflected in how they adapt their supporting behaviours to the values, norms and culture specific to the community they intervene in. Fourth, we initiated a comparative analysis by addressing shared and distinct codes that emerged in two data sets. Finally, we cross-validated our results with secondary data, including reports, archival data and field notes, to validate our themes.

The findings draw on analysis from eight case intermediaries – three from China and five from Japan. They function as incubators, educators, network builders and legitimising agents, and show diverse institutional forms, including NPOs, social projects, university-affiliated centres and for-profit companies. Although most of them are based in urban areas, the CBSEs they support operate in both rural and urban regions (detailed case descriptions are provided in  Appendix 3).

Informed by EST and ILT, two overarching themes emerged: “multi-system facilitation and intermediation” and “strategic adaptation to community logic”. We present the findings by integrating these two themes.

CBSEs confront “constrained settings” in the exosystem and macrosystem, driving intermediaries to build an enabling ecosystem to overcome these constraints, such as resource scarcity and legitimacy challenges. This ecosystem serves as a functional infrastructure that coalesces multiple actors, elements, institutions and networks, shaping a context in which CBSEs can operate sustainably:

Intermediaries first stimulate cross-sectoral collaboration and interaction through events, programmes and open platforms or channels. The dialogue between CBSEs and external actors enables information exchange and collective actions. For example, to link CBSEs with local SEs, firms, authorities, voluntary organisations, universities and financial institutions, Case 2, 3 and 6 organise salons, seminars, workshops, conferences and meetings. Collaboration is often formed through social capital accumulated from real-life interactions, wherein CBSEs can develop value co-creation by engaging with stakeholders who are less accessible to them. Such collaboration not only expands networks around shared goals, such as “social innovation” and “rural revitalisation”, but also accelerates resource mobilisation and configuration. Intermediaries bridge diverse resource providers, nurturing external viability of CBSEs by directing financial resources, human resources, technical solutions and beyond. For example, Case 6 is a national university subsector with the capability to mobilise resources in academia and industries:

Second, the legal void of SE and CBSE challenges the formation of legitimacy, behavioural norms and public consensus. Intermediaries contribute to the institutionalisation by pursuing certifications (Case 1, 2), formulating operational standards (Case 1, 2), advising policymaking (Case 2, 3, 6, 7), conducting social impact evaluation (Case 2, 7) and supervising certificated CBSEs (Case 2, 3). Notably, Case 2 has been the primary driver of policymaking towards CSE in Sichuan since 2021, as they cited most of the policies related to social enterprises introduced in China are closely related to us. Case 2 has contributed to the launch of an official system and platform for CSE certification, cultivation and supervision. In addition, awareness-building activities and consensus facilitation reinforce these actions by extending the impact of practices and concepts. For instance, Case 1 and 2 operate online repositories and create social media content to disseminate the practices of CBSEs; Case 7 published a social impact report in 2023 to present their projects and case studies on CBSEs.

Community logic in context-shaping is reflected in how intermediaries treat community as relational guidelines to mediate transactions and interactions in locally embedded ways. Intermediaries engage in local social interactions, as Case 2 cited, we have spent substantial time building deep relationships with community secretaries and local governments. This enables them to leverage their connections with local entities to facilitate communications and alignment between CBSEs and community stakeholders. Some intermediaries (e.g. Case 3 and 4) “keep the gate” of the mutual interests of a specific community, which means they play a significant role in the decision-making processes of community development. They can create dialogue, facilitate negotiation, and accelerate integration. For example, Case 4 serves as a community hub that coordinates the entry of external social projects. By nurturing “collective impacts” across sectors, it has been deeply involved in reconstruction along with local authorities since the disaster. The intrinsic bond with the community strengthened their accountability and capacity to navigate community development. Their signature initiative, the Sogyouhonki (Motivated Entrepreneurship) Programme, invites entrepreneurs to live temporarily while receiving support to establish businesses. Through this trial residency, they experience local life, learn the culture, and interact with diverse actors. This programme lowers entry barriers by fostering community-oriented learning and alignment.

In the meso- and microsystem, CBSEs often lack sufficient expertise and key resources to achieve longevity. Intermediaries deliver ad hoc knowledge and resources to support their establishment and development.

First, intermediaries assist nascent CBSEs in planning and articulating their social commitment and value creation approaches. Case 4 and 7 noted that the social commitment needs to be integrated towards a specific direction and exhibited in an appropriate and eye-catching way. Intermediaries’ expertise in charitable operations, such as experience applying public subsidies, enables them to offer CBSEs guidance and rhetorical skills to frame a resonant social mission statement.

Second, intermediaries provide resources to grow CBSEs’ commercial capability and lower the operational costs, including funds and monetary investment (Case 3), free or low-cost venue and workspace (Case 3, 4, 7), human resources (Case 3 and 5) and market information (All cases). Intermediaries also deliver holistic commercial expertise, including business conceptualisation and planning, team building and construction, legal registration and grant application, accounting and taxation, marketing and product strategy, team management and financial reporting. The knowledge is delivered in multiple ways; Cases 1 and 2 primarily focus on consulting services, recruiting business experts and SE practitioners as consultants who can offer professional advice and networking opportunities; Case 4, 6 and 8 offer short-term training courses on business skills; Case 3 uses expertise and human resources from its technology start-up incubator to support CBSEs:

We found that community logic shapes localised capabilities, knowledge and performance, essential for CBSEs, requiring them to move beyond conventional social-business frameworks to navigate place-based operations and manage interactions with local stakeholders. In China, Case 1 and 2 cited that a reciprocal relationship between the CBSE founders and Community Resident Committees and Party Committees determines the success of CBSEs. CBSEs are responsible for pursuing community services and community development in collaboration with community authorities, which requires additional knowledge in community governance, public-private partnerships, relationship building and resident mobilisation. In Japan, this capability is demonstrated by strategically aligning social-business models with local history, culture, natural resources and recovery narratives. The success of CBSEs often needs identifying and commercialising “what they have” in their community (Case 8).

Therefore, intermediaries treat community as knowledge guidelines, translating “the role of games” in local contexts and tailoring knowledge. In particular, the rhetorical skills for social mission are aligned with the local consensus and discourse. For example, “town building” in Japan and “community social service provision” in China are public presumptions on the ideal image of community ventures. In addition, Case 2 established an incubation centre named the “Community Social Enterprise Governance College”. The courses deliver management expertise informed by community logic, such as “Four Models in Embedding in the Community” and “Relationship Building with Neighbours”. Case 8 tailors its training courses to the scenario of operating small businesses in disaster-stricken areas, including promotion strategies using local media and tour guidebooks, branding strategies relevant to recovery narratives, and market campaign through local pop-up markets.

Local communities often lack motivated individuals to establish or support CBSEs. Intermediaries contribute to cultivating the capacities of CBSE leaders, managers and supporters, which affects the microsystem.

First, intermediaries coach experts and consultants by initiating training programmes for individuals committed to supporting CBSEs. This role helps cultivate specialists who can provide CBSEs with resources, expertise and professional networks. For example, Case 1 and 2 aim to foster “certified SE advisors” to assist the organisations’ transition to CBSEs or organisations that want to enter the community (Case 1). Case 6 launched the “Regional Innovation Advisory School”, a training programme designed for executives in local financial institutions (e.g. cooperative banks and regional banks) and intermediaries who intend to support local businesses.

Second, intermediaries mobilise individuals to tackle community issues and gain momentum to commercialise innovative ideas. In China, community secretaries are the key initiators of CSEs; as Case 2 stated, the willingness of community secretaries is the key to establishing CSEs. This requires them to manage dual identities as both public servants and legal representatives, which can hinder their motivations and lead to leadership tensions. First, moving beyond traditional community development approaches demands a spirit of challenge and continuous learning. Second, their public servant identity entails risks, such as sanctions for mismanagement or losses of state-owned assets. To encourage communities to establish CBSEs, intermediaries disseminate policies related to CBSE and community development, advocating for the benefits of operating CBSEs, evaluating feasibility and introducing support programmes. In Miyagi, a dearth of entrepreneurs and the conservative local culture impedes local entrepreneurship (Case 5). Intermediaries encourage youth to lead social innovation and establish social ventures. This function is pursued by immersive, interactive and experiential programmes on social innovation and entrepreneurship education. Meanwhile, intermediaries build the capacity for entrepreneurs through tutor-matching and one-on-one support (Case 3 and 4), as solving the specific problems and accompanied support has reached a consensus (mentioned by Case 1, 2, 4, 6):

In these processes, community logic serves as value guidelines. Rather than engaging with broad social issues (e.g. global warming), intermediaries remain locally oriented, emphasising priority towards indigenous value and the fulfilment of local needs. For example, Case 7 organises social entrepreneurship camps for university and high school students, engaging them in addressing local issues such as “Recovery and Development”, “Future of the Youth” and “Child-Raising Environment”. By fostering a sense of community belonging and responsibility, the camps encourage participants to address issues surrounding them and form social commitments from where they live (Case 7).

The functions of intermediaries in various systems are often interrelated and mutually reinforcing. We identified two primary types of interactions across systems.

From the bottom up, intermediaries amplify the needs, practices, and challenges of local actors, who often lack visibility in upper-level systems, which can hinder the allocation of resources, recognition and policy attention. Intermediaries acquire grassroots “messages” and disseminate them upward to policymakers, investors, supporters and other stakeholders. This requires gaining first-hand practices and experiences through interaction with actors in microsystems. For example, Case 1 and 2 both highlighted the importance of working at the grassroots level; they cultivate strong informal ties with CBSE leaders and practitioners while translating and advocating their needs to policymakers.

From the top down, intermediaries are ideal actors for diffusing and channelling upper-level initiatives to lower-level systems. Their proximity to authorities often leads to their assignment as agencies tasked with implementing, disseminating, interpreting and piloting policies. Meanwhile, intermediaries also accelerate the downward diffusion of knowledge, resources and information. These top-down interactions require intermediaries to engage with and be trusted by actors in both systems, acting as significant coordinators to reconcile institutional logics, mediate conflicts and ensure the adaptation of policies and initiatives. For example, Case 6 avoids training entrepreneurs and supporters separately; instead, it fosters joint learning and intimate interactions that bridge actors from two systems:

Through a comparative analysis of the codes that emerged in the two datasets. We addressed two themes that exhibit different practices of intermediaries, which are mainly associated with the distinct macro- and exosystems of CBSEs in two countries.

In Sichuan, CBSEs are witnessing emerging institutionalisation initiatives driven by the local government. There is an urgent need to develop regulations and standards, construct the ecosystem and promote localisation and professionalisation. Many intermediaries are driven by higher-level logics, acting as legitimising agents, policy contributors and gap-fillers. While supporting CBSEs is part of their activities, their commitment strongly aligns with SE-related discourse, as Case 1 has cited; our ultimate goal is to make this earth a planet where one-third of the organisations are social enterprises. Moreover, CBSEs emphasise higher relevance to urban communities, reflecting the growing discourses on grassroots innovation and SE’s involvement in urban community governance.

However, in Miyagi, CBSEs operate within established institutional framework, encompassing laws, policy design and governmental engagement. However, their boundaries are fluid and often overlap with other mainstream concepts, such as local economic autonomy, social responsibility of SMEs and collaborative governance. A strong social discourse on disaster recovery has formed in Miyagi, further shaping the existing community logic. Thus, Japanese intermediaries are less legitimising-driven and adopt multiple conceptualising approaches to interpret CBSEs while connecting them with disaster recovery. Intermediaries have less fixed boundaries and identities, emphasising broader socio-economic engagements. For instance, Case 5 also supports local companies in recruitment by facilitating interactions between employers and university students. Case 6 provides support to all local business practitioners, not just limited to CBSEs.

In Sichuan, intermediaries are relatively nascent, with support schemes that remain informal and experimental. Only a limited number have systematised their knowledge and practical experience through courses or training programmes. Instead, there is a stronger emphasis on participatory learning activities rather than systematic trainings, such as intensive site visits to exemplary CBSEs (Case 1, 2). In contrast, Japanese intermediaries have experienced the organisational-level intervention in supporting nonprofits, social businesses and community development since the 1990s. The historical precedence nurtured a more mature ecosystem and institution. Intermediaries are relatively experienced in providing expertise, mobilising resource flow and facilitating cross-sectoral collaboration. Thus, they have developed structured, transferable and diverse support schemes. For example, the Pro-bono model offered by Case 5 and the training school model offered by Case 6 and 8. The models of Case 7 have started operating in towns and cities outside of Sendai (e.g. Minamisanriku and Ishinomaki), emphasising their high transferability despite the nuanced community logic.

Through eight qualitative case studies in two East Asian regions characterised by complementary contexts of SE (Chandra et al., 2021; Deng et al., 2023), following TA guided by two theories, this paper contributes to understanding how intermediaries systematically enable CBSEs and how community logic shapes intermediaries’ support. Moreover, we emphasised the differences in intermediaries in two countries, offering insights into the distinct socio-economic landscape and the practices of intermediaries. This section revisits our theoretical underpinnings to discuss the contributions of this paper.

First, intermediaries that support CBSEs perform partially overlapping functions to those supporting other types of SEs, highlighting that CBSEs share developmental needs and characteristics with other SE subcategories. This commonality indicates that intermediaries’ support is transferable amongst organisations. Some of the findings align with those described in existing literature, including ecosystem shaping (Hazenberg et al., 2016; Hernández-Chea et al., 2021), institutionalisation (Feng and Nishide, 2024; Kerlin et al., 2021), network-building and resource configuration (Bals et al., 2023; Jenner, 2016), cross-sectoral intermediation (Jin, 2022), organisational capacity-building (Ho and Yoon, 2022) and social entrepreneurship and innovation facilitation (Barraket, 2020; Howells, 2006). However, by applying ILT, particularly the community logic, we revealed how intermediaries adapt to the “guidelines” informed by communities and deliver context-specific support to CBSEs. This makes the sustainable initiatives for CBSEs unique, as general strategies need to be adjusted and tailored to the locality where they operate. In each ecological system, intermediaries that support CBSEs must incorporate community needs, norms and values into their strategic pursuits to secure alignment between local reality and organisational growth. Therefore, we contribute to advancing the notion of community logic, showing that it not only shapes the evolution of CBSEs (Georgiou and Arenas, 2023; Poblete and Acuña, 2025; Tuckerman et al., 2023) but also their stakeholders. While we only outlined positive aspects, the constraints of community logic also warrant scholarly attention. For instance, intermediaries with long-standing community embeddedness may exert gatekeeping power over which organisations can participate, potentially leading to monopolistic tendencies and local dominance. This further informs studies on territoriality of intermediaries (Howells, 2006; Slitine et al., 2024).

Second, by using EST, we thoroughly analysed how intermediaries enable CBSEs across four systems, which fills the research gap of insufficient Asia-based studies on intermediaries (Ho and Yoon, 2022; Kerlin et al., 2021). Empirically, intermediaries’ compliance with locality makes them indicators of the socio-economic and socio-political landscapes of CBSEs. In particular, drawing on data from one emerging and one mature context, we revealed how intermediaries in East Asia operate under strong government interventions that shape the field of hybrid organisations (Defourny and Kim, 2011; Jin, 2022; Shi, 2023). The co-creation of the CBSE landscape delineates the roles of intermediaries in facilitating key elements, actors, processes and institutions (Kivimaa et al., 2019; Slitine et al., 2024). Thus, intermediaries can serve as an entry point to understanding SE ecosystems. Theoretically, while EST has long been used interdisciplinarily (Crawford, 2020), few have applied it to examine intermediaries and intermediations. This research leverages its multi-layered, comprehensive essence to analyse organisational behaviours that affect other organisations and their environment. Moreover, we emphasised how different systems are connected and networked (Neal and Neal, 2013) by showing that intermediaries’ intervention within one system often requires bottom-up or top-down interactions with other systems. Hence, this paper examines the theoretical nuances of EST and advances its application within organisational studies, thereby enabling structural comparisons and ecosystem-based analyses of SEs.

First, while the two regions exhibit substantial records of intermediary activities, intermediaries are characterised by their diverse scales, identities and activities. Such heterogeneity may limit the applicability and generalisability of the findings to regions with less developed or distinct SE landscapes. We encourage future research to undertake case studies across diverse local contexts and involving different types of intermediaries. Second, our analysis is largely descriptive, leaving gaps in examining the effectiveness of intermediaries’ functions on CBSEs’ performance and sustainability. We call for future research to collect data from CBSEs or employ quantitative methods to assess the impact of external support, particularly the existing or potential problems of intermediaries’ intervention.