This paper aims to evaluate how entrepreneurial well-being contributes to business-related outcomes in social enterprises. Yet, social entrepreneurship literature has limited discussion on well-being beyond the creation of social value in targeted communities. Addressing this research gap, this study explores ways in which social entrepreneurs’ and their managers’ lived experiences shape well-being.
The study focused on social enterprises in New Zealand. The authors collected data using semi-structured in-depth interviews from 21 individuals who are either social enterprise founders or managers. Interview data were then triangulated with secondary data and analysed using thematic coding techniques.
Social enterprise founders’ and managers’ lived experiences shaped their own well-being, and how they identified community issues and implemented well-being management strategies. The broader context also influenced the well-being issues, the founders’ and managers’ well-being and how they perceived and addressed the community’s well-being.
This study contributes to social entrepreneurship literature by showing that perceptions of community well-being needs are linked with the lived experiences of founders and managers. Drawing on the study’s findings, a conceptual framework was developed to better explain the well-being interlinks among social entrepreneurs, their management and their perceptions of community well-being needs and delivery. The originality of this study comes from illustrating the well-being of different groups in the social enterprise context and their interconnections. The conceptual framework illustrates that a balance is needed in managing well-being.
Introduction
Mission-driven social enterprises generate well-being for their target customers and beneficiaries in different communities. Extant literature argues that as social enterprises address social issues, they directly or indirectly enhance well-being (Deng et al., 2020; Gordon et al., 2018; Roy et al., 2014; Tedmanson and Guerin, 2011; Zainea et al., 2020). The social issues that social enterprises address include poverty, unemployment, lack of health outcomes, absence or lack of clean water or sanitation facilities, disempowerment of marginalised people and many more (Gordon et al., 2018; Ranabahu, 2020; Zainea et al., 2020). These enterprises make a difference in disadvantaged people’s quality of life by ensuring that they have resources, creating jobs, increasing their level of education, improving health access and improving the environments that they live in (Zainea et al., 2020). Activities of social enterprises enhance psychosocial well-being, as in rural Indigenous communities, by strengthening family networks, enhancing trust between stakeholders, increasing self-reliance and social esteem and promoting cultural safety (Tedmanson and Guerin, 2011). Hence, the primary focus of existing social entrepreneurship literature has so far been on how social enterprises generate well-being external to organisations.
The wider entrepreneurial literature, beyond social entrepreneurship, discusses the consequences of entrepreneur’s well-being (Ryff, 2019; Stephan, 2018; Torrès and Thurik, 2019; Wiklund et al., 2019). On the one hand, entrepreneurship provides a means for achieving psychological well-being in relation to autonomy, purpose of life, understanding and mastering the environment, building positive relations and personal growth (Ryff, 2019). On the other hand, business owners take risks, are often stressed, work long hours, manage multiple operations and constantly think of how to cover their costs and make the business viable (Torrès and Thurik, 2019; Williamson et al., 2021). Social entrepreneurs also experience this dual well-being effect. For example, while compassion encourages individual choice and venture creation leading to positive well-being outcomes (Miller et al., 2012), social entrepreneurs’ empathetic concerns would also lead to negative well-being outcomes (Shepherd et al., 2023). Thus, both factors, generic to all entrepreneurs and specific to social enterprises, contribute to social entrepreneurs’ well-being (Kummitha et al., 2025).
Based on these studies, we argue that overly simplified explanations of well-being, either by focusing on entrepreneurs or communities, do not highlight the complexities associated with well-being within social enterprises. Kummitha et al.'s (2025) literature review confirms this. Specifically, social entrepreneurs create well-being by reducing inequality or addressing social problems that create ‘illbeing’ (Gordon et al., 2018; Zainea et al., 2020). Social enterprise employees gain a sense of achievement through meaningful work (Bilbija and Rendall, 2021). In cases where employees and volunteers are from marginalised communities, youth or people with disabilities, social enterprises contribute to their capacity building and overall well-being (Joyce et al., 2022; Kilpatrick et al., 2022). Kummitha et al. (2025) call such well-being creation functions “other-oriented” well-being and argue for research that combines “other-oriented” well-being with social entrepreneurs’ well-being. Bort et al. (2020) and Stephan et al. (2022) also make similar points on extending well-being research into social entrepreneurship. By considering these research gaps, we sought to elaborate on the nuances of self- and other-oriented well-being practices in social enterprises.
This study combined social entrepreneurship with organisational well-being literature and focused on well-being within social enterprises. The study sought to answer: How do lived experiences of social entrepreneurs and social enterprise managers shape well-being within social enterprises and their communities? For clarity, we referred to visionaries who started social enterprises as social entrepreneurs/founders and well-being delivery as the generation of well-being for both internal employees and the community. We focused only on managers, under employee categories, as they are responsible for operations and have autonomy in decision-making. Our study was inductive, and we collected interview data from 21 individuals who are either founders or managers of social enterprises in New Zealand.
By combining different streams of social entrepreneurship and well-being literature and the lived experience of our participants, this study developed a conceptual framework on the nexus between founders’ and managers’ well-being and their perceived well-being delivery in communities. Our data-driven conceptual framework demonstrates that social enterprise founder well-being is closely interconnected with manager well-being. Different social enterprise factors influence founders’ and managers’ well-being. Using the framework, we contribute to extant literature on social entrepreneur well-being, outline ways to generalise the conceptual framework to other contexts and provide a foundation for developing theory, policy and practice.
Theory and literature review
Entrepreneurial well-being
Although well-being is a broader concept (Mick et al., 2012), entrepreneurial well-being literature often uses the terminology to indicate both hedonic and eudaimonic dimensions of the psychological well-being of a founder or a business owner. Wiklund et al.’s (2019, p. 578) widely used definition recognises entrepreneurial well-being as “the experience of satisfaction, positive affect, infrequent negative affect and psychological functioning in relation to developing, starting, growing and running an entrepreneurial venture”. This includes hedonic well-being components, such as happiness and job satisfaction (Wiklund et al., 2019), and eudaimonic well-being components such as autonomy, the purpose of life, understanding and mastering the environment, building positive relations and personal growth (Ryff, 1989, 2019).
Entrepreneurs achieve hedonic and eudaimonic well-being through operating businesses (Benz and Frey, 2008; Cardon and Patel, 2015; Wach et al., 2021). The freedom to pursue entrepreneurship by creating profit or socially focused businesses regardless of social status or background contributes to their happiness (Benz and Frey, 2008; Boudreaux et al., 2022). Entrepreneurs achieve eudaimonic well-being as self-employment allows exercising autonomy, task variety, independence, self-determination, self-regulation of behaviour and being in control of uncertainties and environmental contingencies (Bjørnskov and Foss, 2020; Ryff, 2019; Williamson et al., 2021). Similarly, a business allows an individual to have purpose and self-direction, choose and create warm and trusting relationships, exercise their agency and personal mastery, realise their potential and accelerate personal growth (Obschonka et al., 2023; Ryff, 1989). Although cognitive and emotional demands, such as stressful situations, uncertainty, work demands and business and employee concerns, create stressful situations (Cardon and Patel, 2015; Wach et al., 2021), work-related problem-solving and satisfaction can enhance one’s well-being (Wiklund et al., 2019). Thus, compared with employment, entrepreneurship provides avenues for both hedonic and eudaimonic well-being by generating higher levels of job and life satisfaction, greater overall happiness and life contentment, purposeful engagement with life, the realisation of personal talents and capabilities, better social inclusion and a work–life balance (Nikolaev et al., 2020; Pathak, 2021; Ramón-Llorens et al., 2016; Sánchez-García et al., 2018).
Entrepreneurial well-being is subjective (Yang et al., 2021). Therefore, subjective well-being measures are prominent in well-being studies (e.g. Johansson Sevä et al., 2016). Current entrepreneurial studies use scales of satisfaction with life and happiness or their adaptations in measuring well-being (Bort et al., 2020). The predominant focus of these scales is the “positive feeling” of respondents rather than the process leading up to the outcome; thus, some argue these reveal only temporary effects (Bort et al., 2020). Demonstrating the process of well-being creation, Nikolaev et al. (2020) show that personal and social psychological functioning is a critical process through which the relationship between entrepreneurship and subjective well-being unfolds.
Entrepreneurs manage their well-being using multiple strategies. For example, entrepreneurs detach themselves from well-being stressors using respite, reappraisal and regimen recovery strategies (Williamson et al., 2021). Entrepreneurs experience both positive and negative emotions during the business start-up and development process (Cardon et al., 2012; Stephan et al., 2022). As entrepreneurs cannot always cognitively and emotionally distance themselves from their businesses (Wach et al., 2021), they use mindfulness (Yang et al., 2021) as well as psychological resources, physical exercise and sleep, family support and work–life balancing strategies to recover and manage their well-being (Brieger et al., 2023; Neneh and Welsh, 2022; Obschonka et al., 2023; Wach et al., 2021; Williamson et al., 2021). Yet, the effectiveness of these can vary due to recovery-impeding experiences such as problem-solving pondering and work-related affective rumination (Wach et al., 2021).
Social enterprises and well-being
We define social enterprises as hybrid organisations within or across the nonprofit, business or government sectors that are innovative and engage in social value-creating activities (Austin et al., 2006). Compared with traditional profit-focused businesses, social enterprises are distinct due to their mission-driven approaches, which emphasise societal betterment over personal enrichment (Zahra et al., 2013). Although social enterprises can take different legal forms (e.g. cooperative societies, trusts, charities), the commonality across all different types of organisations is their social value creation in addition to being economically viable (Austin et al., 2006).
The fostering of community well-being in social enterprises is multifaceted and encompasses various dimensions of societal and stakeholder welfare and health benefits, transcending the narrow pursuit of personal enrichment (Roy et al., 2021, 2013). Social enterprises focus on generating financial, social and environmental wealth creation for vulnerable individuals and communities, leading to social inclusion, elimination of oppression, enhanced social connectedness and feelings of belonging, reduced feelings of loneliness and opportunities for engagement in meaningful social activity (Farmer et al., 2016; Gamble, 2012; Macaulay et al., 2018; McClean et al., 2021; Roy et al., 2013; Zahra et al., 2013). These activities are deeply intertwined and grounded in “social responsibility” and the principles of cooperation and trust (Gardziński, 2019; Ranabahu, 2020; Štrukelj et al., 2020). Social enterprises build social capital and support social well-being, build independence and interdependence, strengthen social bonds and foster cultural preservation and social esteem (Tedmanson and Guerin, 2011). These can contribute to the psychological well-being of the communities that social enterprises provide services to. By operating in ways that more effectively advance social welfare than conventional businesses, social enterprises play a pivotal role in shaping a “well-being economy” (Fioramonti et al., 2022). In an economy that works for people and the planet, social enterprises maximise well-being by addressing social, economic and even health needs of vulnerable individuals and communities (Roy, 2021). This paradigm challenges traditional indicators of economic success, such as gross domestic product and perpetual growth, which have been widely critiqued to have detrimental effects on society and the environment (Štrukelj et al., 2020).
Social enterprises integrate social responsibility into internal organisational culture and employee management practices. For example, complementary work practices, inter-organisational relationships and valuing “learning organisation” practices contributed to responsible innovation and social enterprise performance (Ranabahu, 2020; Štrukelj et al., 2020; Yaari et al., 2021). Social enterprise culture, structures and tasks contribute to meaningful work and a sense of achievement among employees or volunteers (Bilbija and Rendall, 2021). In cases where employees or volunteers come from disadvantaged backgrounds, life and work skills training programmes develop capabilities, enhancing their well-being (Joyce et al., 2022; Kilpatrick et al., 2022). Therefore, social enterprises directly influence the psychological, social and economic well-being of people engaged in them (Flint-Taylor and Cooper, 2014; Macaulay et al., 2018). Such responsible practices promote sustainable development, avoid internal tensions that lead to employee exit and foster a more holistic and ethical business environment (Afza and Rashid, 2009; Doering and Wry, 2018; Ranabahu, 2020).
While social enterprises provide well-being benefits, building a health and well-being-focused social economy has challenges (Macaulay et al., 2018; Roy et al., 2021). In practice, hybrid organisations struggle to balance social and business objectives and often experience mission drift (Siebold et al., 2019). There are difficulties in measuring and quantifying social impact and well-being accurately beyond traditional economic indicators (Gamble, 2012; Ormiston and Seymour, 2011). Assessing social impact through a well-being lens can also yield contradictory outcomes where interventions aimed at empowering beneficiaries and fostering autonomous livelihoods may appear ineffective if those beneficiaries report feelings of unhappiness, dissatisfaction or discontent (Bort et al., 2020). Finding comprehensive measures that account for various aspects of well-being, including outcomes as diverse as financial status, social inclusion or the elimination of oppression, can also be complex and yield contradictory results (Gamble, 2012). Thus, social enterprises, rather than objectively measuring social impact, ensure that their processes can generate impact by careful planning and executing tasks. Connecting tasks with the social mission and intertwining them with economic activities also help in this regard (Siebold et al., 2019).
Beyond these, well-being within social enterprises is generally discussed in silos, where the focus is on community well-being and sometimes on founder or employee well-being. There is limited clarity on the interlinks between the “well-being” of different stakeholder groups or their interconnectedness to the wider economy or organisational setting (Roy et al., 2021). This is problematic, as well-being creation requires enhancing the social and material environment and enabling interactions between people and their social and material worlds, where attention needs to be paid to connecting, caring, helping each other to self-actualise and to feel secure (Roy et al., 2021). Thus, the fragmented social entrepreneurship literature provides limited clarity on how well-being can be effectively enhanced and how tensions and interdependencies between the well-being of different stakeholders are managed. From a scholarly perspective, this disconnected nature limits theory and policy development for advancing well-being and social entrepreneurship studies. We aim to address these research gaps by using data collected from New Zealand-based social enterprises.
Study context: social enterprise landscape in New Zealand
Quantifying the number of social enterprises in New Zealand is a challenge due to different legal forms (Akina, 2021). They are commonly known as “purpose-driven businesses that trade to deliver positive social and environmental outcomes” (Akina, 2026). On the one hand, in New Zealand, social enterprises are considered still in their infancy because of institutional weaknesses, limited social entrepreneurship education and low stakeholder awareness (Grant, 2008; Kartikasari et al., 2020). For example, there is no specific legal structure for social enterprises, and businesses use multiple forms of legal registrations (Akina, 2026; Moe, 2017). This limits social enterprises’ ability to get tax relief or attract investors (Kartikasari et al., 2020). On the other hand, social entrepreneurship is not considered a new phenomenon, but a new “buzz” word, as its underlying core values are embedded in the culture (McMeeking et al., 2017). For instance, the Te Ao Māori emphasises pursuing broader social or cultural goals beyond purely economic goals by mitigating the negative impacts of commercialism are implicit in Māori traditions (McMeeking et al., 2017). There are also B (benefit) Corporations, companies that meet certain social or environmental criteria, showing that they have a focus on more than just profits (Moe, 2017). Hence, there is no consensus on the maturity of the sector in the country.
Social enterprises also address a variety of social needs and conduct a range of “social” or “purpose-led” activities (Grant, 2008; Jeffs et al., 2017). Social and cultural influences govern the way business opportunities are formed, contributing to the emergence of a variety of business models (Grant, 2008, 2017). For example, New Zealanders’ global role and local socio-cultural embeddedness in terms of egalitarian values, informal interactions, Māori principles and values and reliance on volunteers shape how social enterprises operate (Grant, 2008). Neoliberal government reforms during the 1980s and the social welfare systems contributed to the emergence and growth of social enterprises (Jeffs et al., 2017). Furthermore, the establishment of the Waitangi Tribunal provided a way for historic and complex settlements related to cultural and economic redress, such as safeguarding access to Māori traditional food sources and control of sacred sites (Grant, 2008). Thus, it is not surprising that New Zealand-based social enterprises address various social issues such as mental health and well-being, needs of people with disabilities, capacity building and employment, Māori and Pacifica well-being and economic needs and youth and family services (Grant, 2008; Jeffs et al., 2017; McMeeking et al., 2017).
Furthermore, New Zealand-based social enterprises strongly focus on community well-being from “cultural” or societal connection perspectives. This is because social enterprises address social and cultural needs among ethnic groups in the New Zealand community (e.g. McMeeking et al., 2017; Moana Research, 2020). For example, the Ministry of Social Development and the Ministry for Pacific Peoples are developing a sustainable social enterprise model aligned with Pacific values (Moana Research, 2020). Similarly, Māori social enterprises address the social, cultural and economic needs of Māori communities by developing innovative community-led solutions (McMeeking et al., 2017). Among these ethnic groups, social enterprises are considered a way of maintaining cultural capital while generating and [re]distributing economic wealth (Ikihele et al., 2020). Yet, the use of the term “enterprise” is a point of dissonance for some founders as they consider it undermines their social impact mission (McMeeking et al., 2017).
In addition, New Zealand-based social enterprises provide emergency assistance and contribute to rebuilding community resilience post-disasters (Berno, 2017; Cloke and Conradson, 2018; Lewis, 2013). An example is the 2010–2011 Christchurch earthquakes where the Student Volunteer Army assisted in the cleanup (Lewis, 2013). Many social enterprises also emerged as a creative and experimental alternative to establish local food systems to build resilience or transitional organisations for rebuilding the city (Berno, 2017; Cloke and Conradson, 2018; Morrish and Jones, 2020). Beyond these, however, there is very limited exploration of social enterprises in the country, including social entrepreneurs’ well-being. We aim to address this gap by examining social entrepreneurs’ well-being by combining with contextual nuances of the New Zealand environment.
Methodology
Aligning with our research question, we grounded this study in the social constructivist paradigm, which assumes that meanings and experiences are shaped through social interactions and contextual influences (Creswell and Poth, 2018). In entrepreneurship research, entrepreneurial experiences, including well-being, are shaped by how entrepreneurs interpret and make sense of their activities in dynamic situations (Stephan, 2018). This aligns with what we were interested in exploring; that is, how our participants interpret and construct their well-being through their lived experiences within the organisational and community contexts of social enterprises. This required gaining in-depth insights into participants’ experiences and identifying patterns across their accounts. Accordingly, we adopted an inductive qualitative approach and collected data through semi-structured interviews.
Our positionalities and backgrounds shaped how we approached and conducted this study. One author previously worked in a social enterprise in a South Asian country and now coordinates and teaches social entrepreneurship in their business school, whereas the other was instrumental in developing the course and had taught it for a few years. We both conduct social entrepreneurship research and have links with the social enterprises in New Zealand. In addition, our university operates a centre for entrepreneurship with links to social enterprises and supports emerging social entrepreneurs. We collaborate and work with the centre, and all these shaped our understanding and access to social enterprises in New Zealand.
Sample selection and recruitment
We used theoretical purposive sampling technique in this study. The project included interviews with social entrepreneurs or stakeholders, such as service providers, funders, trainers or volunteers, engaged in shaping social enterprises. We focused on these multiple groups as we wanted to explore well-being at the founder/manager, employee and community levels. Although we approached multiple stakeholders, our sample only comprised of social enterprise managers and founders, which resulted in our narrowed focus on this group.
The social enterprises operating in New Zealand were selected using publicly available data and personal and professional contacts. Emails were sent with relevant study information when recruiting study participants. In addition, the centre for entrepreneurship also helped in identifying and disseminating research recruitment information.
Data collection
We collected data from 21 individuals who are either founders or managers of social enterprises in New Zealand. We followed an agreed protocol, including briefing the participants about the study and getting written consent before conducting an interview. These social enterprises addressed social problems and issues such as ethical and sustainable consumption, health, skills and employment, disability, health and well-being, sustainable procurement and many other community issues. A summary of participant and enterprise profiles is contained in Table 1.
Summary of study participants and their SEs
| Participant pseudonym | Gender | Role | Type of services |
|---|---|---|---|
| Ann | Female | Founder | Physical health |
| Bree | Female | Founder | Ethical, fair trade and vegan products |
| Conon | Male | Founder | Responsible sourcing |
| David | Male | Operations manager | Environment conservation and capacity building of people with disabilities |
| Esther | Female | Founder | Responsible sourcing |
| Faith | Female | President of local branch | Volunteering |
| Gemma | Female | Founder | Responsible sourcing |
| Hank | Male | Finance and investment lead | Entrepreneurial ecosystem support |
| Ila | Female | Founder | Capacity building and training |
| Jade | Female | Operations manager | Employment for people with disabilities |
| Kayla | Female | Founder | Physical health |
| Lily | Female | General manager | Physical health |
| Maya | Female | Operations manager | Employment for people with disabilities |
| Nolan | Male | Founder | Environmental conservation |
| Oliver | Male | Founder | Physical activities |
| Paul | Male | General manager | Employment for people with disabilities |
| Quinn | Male | Founder | Responsible sourcing and fair trade |
| Rachel | Female | Founder | Youth employment and capacity building |
| Sophie | Female | Founder | Volunteering |
| Tayor | Female | Founder | Fair trade/clothing |
| Una | Female | Founder | Recycling/upcycling |
We collected data using semi-structured in-depth interviews and triangulated them with secondary data. The interview protocol included questions related to the interviewee’s background, their role and responsibilities, enterprise purpose and activities, start-up and development journey and opportunities and challenges they faced. Aligning with the ethical approval of this study, we collected background information related only to gender, social enterprise type and location, current role and responsibilities and past professional and work background. The interviews, lasting up to one hour, were conducted in English, audio recorded and then transcribed for data analysis.
The secondary data included website information, publicly available interviews with social enterprise founders, reports and news articles. These were used for two purposes. Firstly, secondary data were used before the interview to understand the organisation, customise interview questions to the particular social enterprise and probe deeper about certain activities when necessary. Next, we used the secondary data in triangulating some of our interview findings, such as themes related to social needs and impact.
Data analysis
We used NVivo to manage our qualitative data analysis. We were guided by Gioia et al.’s (2013) thematic analysis technique in generating first-order concepts, second-order themes and analytical dimensions (see coding tree in Table 2). During the initial data analysis, well-being concerns emerged inductively as key themes. This led us to review different theories of well-being among entrepreneurs and explore the social entrepreneurship literature on well-being; this reflects a more deductive process as we identified key concepts in the extant literature and examined whether they aligned with what we found from the inductive themes. Based on the literature, we then conducted a more nuanced and focused data analysis on well-being, leading us to refine our analysis and initial codes. When doing so, we also used secondary data to triangulate some of the codes, such as social needs and social impact. Thus, our theoretical framing and nuanced analysis emerged in an abductive manner.
An extract from the coding tree
| Interview extract | First-order concept | Second-order theme |
|---|---|---|
| Analytical dimension: entrepreneur’s well-being | ||
| I'd always wanted to be able to do something that was helping people as well. (Quinn) | Want to help people | Purpose in life |
| My level of happiness, which to me then defines my level of success. I think it's hard to say that you're like successful if you're really unhappy or unhealthy or, personally struggling. (Taylor) | Happiness | |
| Then like just me, it's such a common story of founder burnout […] I've only been back at work for about the last six months, and just slowly building back just like a few more hours, like each month. And yeah, that's been really eye opening, as well as to just like, where we're putting our energy as a business. (Ann) | Burnout | Loss of well-being |
| Analytical dimension: managers’ well-being | ||
| All the well-being and all the wellness initiatives, because it really is pitched as a wellness initiative, And, and it really resonated with me too. (Lily) | Mission resonating with employees | Purpose in life |
| It’s about purpose [..] I'm not motivated by making money for myself. I think it's just the way I'm wired, but I really get excited about making money that is for a purpose. (Paul) | Purpose of work | |
| Analytical dimension: internal social enterprise practices for well-being | ||
| It [HR] covers health and safety for manufacturing with people with disabilities the risks are high and we don't want any injuries on our watch zero harm absolutely critical. (Paul) | Maintain health and safety | Social enterprise internal well-being practices |
| We’re a living wage employer first and foremost, our suppliers have to be living wage employers, so you know like our cleaners are living wage employers, our printer in New Zealand is a living wage employer. (Maya) | Paying living wages | |
| We got to a point where we had $2.75 in a bank account. Oh. And wondering, how does this go on? You know? (David) | Financial stability | |
| Analytical dimension: perceived community well-being issues | ||
| We put out a survey and got 1000 responses back on 95% of those students. And from that, one out of every three menstruating students had skipped class at some point because of not having access to menstrual products. And that absolutely shocked us all. (Ann) | Lack of menstrual health | Status of physical and psychological well-being at communities |
| First was about mental health in New Zealand and, if I remember correctly, I think it was about one in 10 people were living with a mental health disorder in New Zealand ranging from depression, bipolar, suicidal thoughts. (Oliver) | Loss of mental health | |
| Analytical dimension: external social enterprise practices for community well-being | ||
| We work with an organisation called [XXX]. They employ adults who have hearing speaking and physical disabilities, giving them quality and safe employment. (Ila) | Selecting responsible suppliers | Indirectly creating well-being |
| That's been something that's really important to us from the get go, is actually working with people who are on the ground and their own communities. (Ann) | Partnering with people on the ground | |
The codes we generated reflected five analytical dimensions. These included, namely, social enterprise founders’ well-being; social enterprise managers’ well-being; internal organisational practices for well-being; community well-being issues identified by social enterprises and strategies used by social enterprises to address community well-being issues. Synthesising the five analytical dimensions led us to identify how each of these dimensions is linked to the other. This facilitated the development of our conceptual framework, allowing us to better explain the well-being of social entrepreneurs, social enterprise managers and how they perceive community well-being.
Findings
Social enterprise founders’ well-being
Social enterprise founders mentioned both hedonic and eudaimonic aspects of psychological well-being. They were positive (e.g. wanting to change people’s lives, passion, helping people) and negative (e.g. not being happy at their previous employment, burnout). Aligning with eudaimonic well-being, their personal mission provided a purpose in life. For example, Quinn, Rachel and Sophie started their business with the mission to help others (I’d always wanted to be able to do something that was helping people as well: Quinn) while Taylor mentioned she was in “kaitiakitanga” space (Māori word for guardianship of environmental resources). For Kayla, discovering the social enterprise sector aligned with her purpose:
I’d always felt this pressure that, as a public policy grad you could only go and bang your head against the concrete wall, the public sector, for 40 years or go work at one of the big four and work to death and never felt that there was an in between. So, hearing about this sector was just so enlightening to me.
Bree and Ila were “really unhappy in the work” and established businesses due to dissatisfaction with their employment. Their passion shaped purpose and made them alert and committed to business even in moments of doubt:
I guess sometimes you do get a bit exhausted and you think, God, why am I doing this? […] because it’s something that I’ve always wanted, I had to know that I’d gone for it a hundred per cent […] before I gave up. (Bree).
Founders’ hedonic and eudaimonic well-being were closely interconnected. For example, their personal mission was linked with their happiness:
My level of happiness, which to me then defines my level of success. I think it’s hard to say that you’re like successful if you’re really unhappy or unhealthy or personally struggling. (Taylor).
Bree further explained this interconnectedness by pointing out that the social enterprise allowed her to link financial security, personal goals and happiness while being content with life:
I need to earn some money. I think just putting out something that I’m proud of, that’s just a personal goal, and like being happy and content with my life.
Despite the passion and purpose, operating a business was a stressful task and affects founders’ psychological well-being. For Taylor, finding the right balance between “care” and action caused anxiety:
I just seem to care, and that can cause a lot of anxiety. when I was a bit younger, when I was at uni, when I was 21, not 31, I was very much thinking that I need to save the whole world, which is very overwhelming, you know, I care about environmental problems, I care about social problems, I really felt like I was like, Oh my gosh […].
Taylor realised, with maturity, that it was about “smaller and achievable” tasks. Another example was Ann’s long hours of work, leading to burnout:
Then, just like me, it’s such a common story of founder burnout. And I think that it’s something that’s becoming more normalised, but I still think that there’s this undercurrent of like, just go like, give it absolutely everything you can and you’re gonna be fine.
In Ann’s case, the demands of running a business became overwhelming, prompting her to take a complete break. This pause allowed her to evaluate and redefine the direction of the business while prioritising energy and well-being. The core idea was that without investing in personal well-being, it was impossible to manage a business effectively:
I need to save and support myself and but also to in order to grow, you need to invest in yourself. So I feel like, that’s been the trickiest thing. But I’m trying to, like invest in myself by getting lessons.
Taylor also highlighted the importance of prioritising their own health and happiness, noting that without personal well-being, they could not effectively support those around them. This reinforced their connection between individual well-being recovery, founder well-being and the community-level initiatives.
Social enterprise managers’ well-being
Becoming part of a social enterprise infused managers with a profound sense of purpose, an opportunity to do good, learn new things and expand on their own development. This experience, deeply eudaimonic in nature, was echoed by Faith, Hank, Maya and Paul. They expressed emotional connection and inspiration derived from the social enterprise’s ethos using phrases such as “attached to my heart”, “resonated with me”, “motivates me”, “enjoyed it” and “I’d fallen in love with the whole philosophy”:
It’s about purpose [.] I’m not motivated by making money for myself. I think it’s just the way I’m wired, but I really get excited about making money that is for a purpose. (Paul).
Their personal mission was closely linked with learning and personal growth:
We were dealing with people who were unemployed, long-term unemployed or people with intellectual, physical, or social disabilities. It was like a whole new learning curve […] but attached to my heart. (David).
The experience of what social enterprises did and how they addressed community well-being needs motivated them to join these organisations. Faith, explaining her experience with the disaster recovery work of a social enterprise, stated that it led her to get involved and continue addressing community issues:
I was 11 and 12 when the earthquakes happened, so I wasn’t around then at XXX. But I do remember seeing the students on TV and thinking that what they were doing was pretty cool. So when I came to XXX, I was pretty keen on getting involved.
Linking with hedonic well-being, such experiences made Hank “much happier” and led him to continue “helping the world in some way”. Thus, the social enterprise’s mission motivated them, inspired a sense of fulfilment, meaning and purpose in the workplace.
Internal social enterprise practices for well-being
Social enterprises implemented practices that meet the diverse needs of their employees. David, Maya and Jade addressed the lack of employment for people with disabilities and adopted disability-friendly work practices. They ensured a suitable work environment for all their employees:
The first step was developing our value and culture system and work environment, and workspace that were suitable for the people we were employing (Maya).
In addition, three participants prioritised safe work practices. Jade and Maya obtained volunteer support for the tasks that people with disabilities need assistance with. They relied on volunteers’ passion for doing good when finding volunteers. Having a clear and proven mission which volunteers could resonate with helped in this regard.
Furthermore, Jade and Paul implemented disability-friendly maximum work hours. Jade explained that employees can work only limited hours due to their physical abilities, while Paul linked this practice with workplace safety:
It [HR] covers health and safety for manufacturing with people with disabilities the risks are high and we don’t want any injuries on our watch zero harm, absolutely critical.
Another key practice that led to positive well-being outcomes was paying living wages to their staff:
We’re a living wage employer first and foremost, our suppliers have to be living wage employers, so you know, like our cleaners are living wage employers, our printer in New Zealand is a living wage employer. (Maya).
This approach extended to the founders, ensuring they too received a fair wage:
Building the brand in an ethical way means that I had to make sure that I was living up to the values that I was professing. So, I would need to ensure that anybody working for me would be getting a living wage or above. Like, just getting paid reasonably for their time, and that includes me. (Bree).
Maya and Quinn emphasised that offering a living wage inevitably impacted product pricing, making them a bit expensive. As a result, social enterprises focused on mindful, conscious customers who prioritised sustainable practices and fair treatment of employees.
Social enterprises also placed importance on financial stability as it contributed to their longevity, paying a living wage and investing in employee development. David and Paul explained financial situations which prompted them to rethink their business model:
We got to a point where we had $2.75 in a bank account. Oh. And wondering, how does this go on? (David).
We were going downhill very quickly, so knowing that it was like, wow, you know, we may not actually even exist anymore. (Paul).
Without financial stability, social enterprises would be unable to offer employment, employee development programmes or additional services. Achieving financial security enabled them to provide services like trauma counselling for employees in a culturally responsive way:
The people that we work with have obviously been through significant trauma, so like often there’s no hope […] Karma is a massive thing in Indian culture, so it’s like I’ve done something bad in a past life so that’s come back and that’s why I am here. We are trying to break some of those cycles. (Quinn).
Quinn, who had suppliers in India, also provided free masks and food parcels to their workers due to COVID restrictions and a lack of a welfare system for their offshore workforce.
Perspectives of founders and managers on community well-being
At the community level, “well-being” is reflected in improved environments where individuals can enhance their overall physical, psychological, economic and social well-being. Summing up this philosophy, Ann remarked:
Everything in business comes down to the people. It’s the people who create it. It’s the people that we’re working for, even in environmental endeavours, that always come back to affect the people as well.
The people-centred philosophy, the founders’ experience of different social issues, and their ability to identify social needs, shaped what, why and how social enterprises addressed community well-being. Ann, Kayla and Lily talked about inequalities affecting women’s health. They used terms like “we’re on a mission to create period equity” and “one out of every three menstruating students had skipped class” to elaborate on the gravity of the women’s health and wellness issues. They emphasised the urgent need for “change the conversation”.
Similarly, Oliver’s experience in his previous workplaces of “grinding me hard, profit, profit, profit” left him “emotionally drained”. This experience was the catalyst for Oliver to start his social enterprise. By exploring the outdoors, he uncovered mental health statistics in the community, recognised the limited opportunities for physical activities and made the connection between outdoor activities and improved well-being:
First was about mental health in New Zealand and, if I remember correctly, I think it was about one in 10 people were living with a mental health disorder in New Zealand, ranging from depression, bipolar, and suicidal thoughts. We had, of course, one of the highest rates of youth suicide in the world, and we had really high rates of sedentary-based illnesses as diabetes, obesity, basically everything’s linked to obesity.
Jade, Maya, Rachel and Paul provided employment and conducted capacity-building programmes for people in need. Paul noted that the provision of employment leads to a sense of dignity, achievement and empowerment for people with disabilities, leading to better economic and mental well-being. Our founders provided further examples of how their experiences shaped the identification of community needs and addressing them. Maya was attuned to the inequalities in numbers:
I also think that there’s a huge disparity between the Pacific Island or Māori representation in social enterprise compared to New Zealand European representation and that, for me, is also a form of a lack of inclusivity across the social enterprise space that is a result of what our society is like, so I would like to see more representation for all New Zealanders.
Explaining further, Taylor and Quinn had travelled to different countries and had seen “poverty first hand”, while Una was always concerned about the environmental issues: “I’ve always done sustainable stuff, with chickens and worm farm”. Esther conducted fair trade “according to principles from World Fair Trade Organisation,” and responsible sourcing was a way to “educate New Zealand about the causes of poverty, specifically around trade”.
Social enterprise practices for community well-being
We found that social enterprises used three key strategies to bring their internal philosophy into practice, often combining these approaches to promote well-being. Firstly, they provided services directly, such as distributing products, offering training sessions and employing individuals with disabilities. Oliver made a conscious decision only to provide direct services, as it was “quite hard to trust other people to do things the way that you would do them”.
Secondly, social enterprises carefully selected suppliers whose practices aligned with their social mission. Ila selected suppliers who provided opportunities for disadvantaged communities, upheld principles such as fair and equitable wages, and responsibly sourced materials: We work with an organisation called [XXX]. They employ adults who have hearing speaking and physical disabilities, giving them quality and safe employment. Quinn and Una perceived that suppliers who embraced fair trade and recycling practices contribute to the environmental and economic well-being of communities: […] just seeing the difference that fair trade model and the organic ways of practising agriculture and farming have helped people (Quinn).
Thirdly, beyond working with suppliers, social enterprises formed important partnerships with communities, schools and workplaces. Such partnerships were essential as they leveraged the expertise of local partners who understood the needs of target groups and could deliver tailored services effectively. Ann identified that working with people who are on the ground and in their own communities was something important to them right from the outset. Thus, social enterprises created community well-being using a combination of multiple strategies, which were shaped by the founders’ and their managers’ lived experiences.
All these practices were also about scale. By combining diverse strategies, social enterprises cultivated community well-being on a larger scale but at different rates. For example, Kayla focused on partnerships to ensure growth innovatively:
So, it’s being to really look at innovative ways that we can actually continue for XXX to grow, and part of that was looking at other impact revenue streams, which was creating online gifting as well as working with some of our other businesses and some of the unusual businesses we didn’t really think would come on board.
In contrast, Ann relied on “organic growth”. Scale was also linked with impact challenges and measurements. Maya pointed out, “We try to have a very comprehensive impact, not just on, economic or social side of it, the environmental side of it is quite strong as well, and that comes with its challenges”. These were associated with packaging, the use of environmentally friendly materials, and upcycling practices. Social enterprises measuring impact in regular intervals helped in this regard: “We would do like monthly impact in terms of how many people we were making their lives better. And were there any people we were making their lives worse, and really looking at both sides of it” (Taylor). Further, “good impact reporting” and being “one of the first B Corp’s in New Zealand” had led Taylor to “report and measure your success”. These quotes indicate that founders/managers’ higher perception of community impact influenced their well-being.
Discussion
This study explored the research question of: How do lived experiences of social entrepreneurs and social enterprise managers shape well-being within social enterprises and their communities? Our analysis of 21 interviews indicates that well-being perspectives differ between social enterprise founders and managers.
We found both hedonic and eudaimonic well-being among social enterprise founders. Supporting extant literature (e.g. Benz and Frey, 2008; Cardon and Patel, 2015; Wach et al., 2021), social enterprise founders talked of happiness, passion, purpose and personal mission. Founders’ hedonic and eudaimonic well-being are interconnected, such as between happiness and purpose of life, or among personal goals, being content with life, and happiness. Moreover, founders’ burnout and anxiety diminished their well-being. Therefore, founders used well-being recovery strategies by taking complete breaks, postponing business tasks, acknowledging their limitations to accommodate or solve every social issue and prioritising self-care. These strategies reflect Williamson et al.’s (2021) respite, reappraisal and regimen well-being recovery strategies.
Our findings generally align with other entrepreneur groups. Similar to other entrepreneurs, our findings demonstrate both hedonic and eudaimonic well-being and well-being recovery strategies. The marked difference in our findings is the prominence of eudaimonic well-being among social enterprise founders. Their higher focus on eudaimonic well-being made them mindful of the closer interconnections between factors that can affect their purpose in life, contentment and goals, such as living wages, financial security, burnout and social needs. Similarly, we show how lived experiences influenced social entrepreneurs’ perception of their own and other-oriented well-being. Thus, we address Kummitha et al.’s (2025) calls for combining “other-oriented” well-being with social entrepreneurs’ well-being.
Similarly, managers’ well-being explanations were mainly eudaimonic. They focused on purpose, personal mission/mission alignment and doing good. Aligning with extant literature (Joyce et al., 2022; Kilpatrick et al., 2022), meaningful work, opportunities for skill development and contributing to a wider social purpose influenced their well-being. We attribute this to the managers in our sample having the authority and autonomy to shape their roles and responsibilities. Notably, unlike social enterprise founders, managers did not report burnout experience. This may be because, whereas founders are often deeply emotionally invested in their ventures, managers can maintain greater professional detachment and, if necessary, seek alternative employment to avoid burnout. However, we acknowledge that this may not be the case more broadly for social enterprise managers in other contexts.
Contributing to existing social entrepreneurship literature (Deng et al., 2020; Gordon et al., 2018; Roy et al., 2014; Tedmanson and Guerin, 2011; Zainea et al., 2020), our findings confirm that social enterprises play a vital role in addressing social problems. Aligning with Grant’s (2008, 2017) work, founders perceived community well-being as addressing social issues within New Zealand. For example, providing equitable access to services or addressing the lack of employment options for marginalised groups reflects founders’ lived experiences and their egalitarian values. Their awareness of historical, cultural and social inequalities was reflected by references to Māori and Pacific representation in social enterprises. Their commitment to safeguarding environmental resources was centred on “people” and their well-being. Furthermore, social enterprises’ disaster recovery efforts reflect the close intertwining between lived experience and the place-based community needs. This aligns with social enterprises addressing multidimensional well-being issues that relate to physical, emotional or psychological, cognitive, social, economic, cultural and environmental aspects (Mick et al., 2012). These examples also resonate with broader social, cultural, economic and historical contexts in New Zealand, shaping community well-being needs and the way social enterprises address them.
Our findings highlight well-being associated with multiple groups within the social enterprise context, i.e. managers’ well-being, the personal well-being of founders themselves and how managers and founders perceive community well-being. Although the term “well-being” is used, we show that what well-being means to each of these groups is different. At the same time, as our findings indicate, multidimensional well-being creation requires a careful balance across different forms of well-being, underscoring the complexity and interconnected nature of this process. We illustrate this as a framework in Figure 1.
The conceptual framework depicts Manager s well being and Founder s well being connected within internal social enterprise practices for well being including safe work environment, paying living wage, and financial stability, where inputs such as purpose in life, opportunity to do good, personal development, personal mission alignment, passion, happiness, and avoiding burnout feed into each, both linked to perceived community well being issues addressing health, social, or economic concerns, with balancing well being interconnections and feedback loops shown between organisational and community levels.Social enterprise well-being delivery framework
The conceptual framework depicts Manager s well being and Founder s well being connected within internal social enterprise practices for well being including safe work environment, paying living wage, and financial stability, where inputs such as purpose in life, opportunity to do good, personal development, personal mission alignment, passion, happiness, and avoiding burnout feed into each, both linked to perceived community well being issues addressing health, social, or economic concerns, with balancing well being interconnections and feedback loops shown between organisational and community levels.Social enterprise well-being delivery framework
As Figure 1 indicates, addressing community issues necessitates changes in organisational settings and operations that influence managers’ and founders’ well-being. Similarly, individual well-being concerns and employee needs lead to more learning and conducting capacity building and other support. Thus, we conclude that perceived well-being needs in the community and founders’ and managers’ well-being are distinct yet interconnected dimensions within a social enterprise, albeit at diverse levels. These dimensions influence and shape one another. Maintaining social entrepreneurs’ well-being requires carefully balancing these dimensions, which can vary based on individual circumstances, organisational dynamics and the surrounding business environment.
Contributions and implications
We make several theoretical and practical contributions to social entrepreneurship literature. Theoretically, we contribute by developing a framework (Figure 1) that explains the well-being of different groups associated with social enterprises. Our framework demonstrates the links among perceived community well-being and founder and managers’ well-being and contributes by connecting the literature so far considered in silos. The social enterprise literature synonymously associates community well-being with addressing social or environmental needs (e.g. Deng et al., 2020; Gordon et al., 2018; Roy et al., 2014) while the founder’s well-being is often explained using psychological well-being of hedonic and eudaimonic aspects (e.g. Ryff, 2019; Stephan, 2018). Furthermore, managerial-level employees’ well-being is rarely considered in social enterprises, although they make most of the operational decisions that affect community well-being. We emphasise the need to separate managers’ and founders’ well-being, as there are nuanced differences between the two. Our discussion points out that managers have the autonomy of decision-making, and their level of emotional investment in social enterprises can influence their and other-oriented well-being. By doing so, we address calls to bring employee and surrounding community well-being into the entrepreneurial well-being discussions (Bort et al., 2020; Wiklund et al., 2019). We emphasise the need for clarity in defining what type of well-being is referred to in social enterprise theory, policy and practice to avoid any confusion.
We contribute to extant social entrepreneurship and well-being literature by illustrating the interlinks among the different groups in Figure 1. The identification and addressing of community well-being needs are linked with the lived experiences of founders and managers. In particular, factors associated with hedonic and eudaimonic well-being shape social enterprise founders’ and managers’ well-being and their decisions. Specifically, we contend that, unlike in other types of enterprises, the perceived well-being needs and delivery in communities and managers and founders’ experience of well-being cannot be considered in isolation, as these dimensions are inherently interconnected.
We also outline the need for a balance between the well-being of managers and founders in Figure 1. If the balance is not met, there would be compromises, such as founder anxiety and burnout. However, depending on the type of social enterprise, we propose that the nature of “balance” could vary. For example, delegating tasks to managers could help relieve founder anxiety and burnout. Yet, that can increase the managerial employees’ well-being concerns. If the management team and founders do not work in tandem, that can affect conducting community well-being initiatives. Although we did not verify this, the lack of balance can be identified in future studies through founder burnout, management leaving the organisation or through satisfaction/pulse surveys. Therefore, the balance we propose in Figure 1 does not mean that it is a symmetrical and static state; rather, it is a dynamic balance which is social-enterprise-dependent.
We also contribute to the emerging literature on different types of entrepreneurs (e.g. women or technology entrepreneurs) and their well-being experiences (Bort et al., 2020; Brieger et al., 2023; Love et al., 2023; Neneh and Welsh, 2022). Similar to other groups of entrepreneurs, social entrepreneurs also aim for both psychological and physical well-being. However, unlike other groups of entrepreneurs, we argue that social entrepreneurs’ well-being is distinct due to their stronger emphasis on eudaimonic dimensions. In their case, hedonic and eudaimonic aspects are closely intertwined, intersecting and reinforcing one another to shape overall well-being.
Practically, we provide details on what socially conscious entrepreneurs and their managers need to be aware of to ensure the well-being of multiple groups. Our findings show that social entrepreneurs also experience stress and burnout despite addressing social issues, giving them a sense of purpose, happiness and passion. Hence, social entrepreneurs also need to be aware of these and should use strategies to manage their own well-being while simultaneously looking after employee and community well-being. Strategies such as family support, mindfulness, detachment and taking a break can help in this regard (Brieger et al., 2023; Neneh and Welsh, 2022; Obschonka et al., 2023; Wach et al., 2021; Williamson et al., 2021). Furthermore, we invite management-level staff to consider community and founder-related factors that contribute to enhancing or reducing well-being in social enterprises. Managers need to take these into account when making operational decisions.
Limitations and future research
This study is not without its limitations. Firstly, we acknowledge that New Zealand social enterprises may be somewhat different from those in other countries. In mature and global social enterprises, visionary founders often transition to governance roles such as board chairpersons, with minimal involvement in day-to-day operations. In these cases, founders’ well-being concerns differ significantly. Likewise, instead of a single founder, some start-ups are initiated by a team of visionaries who can support one another in managing their well-being. In such situations, although elements of our framework can be applied, we presume both managers’ and founders’ well-being elements will be different. Thus, for wider generalisability, the framework needs further scrutiny. We invite future researchers to use our conceptual framework as a foundation to test and verify its applicability in other contexts.
There are several other fruitful future research areas emerging from our study. Because of the diverse nature of social enterprises, we did not differentiate our respondents according to legal forms or the social issues they address. In addition, our participating organisations each focused on different aspects of community well-being. We also did not independently verify the community well-being claims of the founders. Studying organisations with the same legal form that conduct similar community well-being initiatives and verifying well-being claims at the community level can provide a more nuanced understanding. Next, we only established the links between the founders’ and managers’ well-being and their perceived community well-being. We did not study other employee groups, such as volunteers and staff members of any associated community agencies who do not have autonomy and decision-making authority. The well-being of these groups could be different from that of founders and senior managers. We invite researchers to explore these nuances and ways of navigating well-being by using multimodal data and multiple techniques of data collection, such as surveys, diary studies and ethnographic accounts.
Conclusion
We demonstrate that social entrepreneurship well-being is complex and results from balancing founders’ and managers’ well-being with their perceptions of whether the social enterprise is creating community well-being. We propose a framework for social enterprises that combines and links these well-being dimensions. These well-being dimensions are both internal and external to social enterprises. The links between these dimensions help in managing and navigating social entrepreneurs’ well-being concerns and provide a conceptual foundation for further theory development, policy and practice.
