The Landscape of Russian Social Entrepreneurship: Areas of Activity, Target Groups, and the Intensity of Social Mission

The article examines the landscape of Russian social entrepreneurship in the context of its institutionalization following the 2019 amendments to Federal Law No. 209-FZ “On the Development of Small and Medium-Sized Enterprises in the Russian Federation.” The aim is to analyze the actual structure of social entrepreneurship in Russia. Using data from the Unified Register of Small and Medium-Sized Enterprises and requests to regional authorities (N=4010 social enterprises from 10 leading regions), the study considers the distribution of enterprises across the four legally defined categories, their fields of activity, target groups, and the extent of their social mission.

Findings indicate that across all regions, Category 4 (pursuit of socially beneficial goals and addressing social problems) dominates, with a concentration in education, leisure, and household services. Category 3 (provision of goods and services for vulnerable groups) includes healthcare, care, rehabilitation, and the production of assistive technologies. Category 2 (sale of goods and services produced by vulnerable groups) remains very small due to resource and institutional barriers. Category 1 (employment of vulnerable groups) primarily secures jobs for pensioners and persons with disabilities, leaving other groups largely beyond its reach.

The analysis highlights a gap between the regulatory framework and the sector’s actual content: formal criteria for status do not ensure genuine social additionality. The conclusion outlines potential adjustments to the model, including refining the criteria for Category 4, developing an ecosystem for Category 2 enterprises, supporting innovative practices in Category 3, and expanding inclusive employment opportunities in Category 1.

1. Arend R. J. Modelling Social Entrepreneurship: Consideration of the Reacting Forces. Journal of Social Entrepreneurship, 2020, vol. 12, no. 3, pp. 399–416. DOI 10.1080/19420676.2020.1718744

2. Austin J., Stevenson H., Wei-Skillern J. Social and Commercial Entrepreneurship: Same, Different, or Both? Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 2006, vol. 30, no 1, pp. 1–22. DOI 10.1590/S0080-21072012000300003

3. Battilana J., Lee M. Advancing Research on Hybrid Organizing – Insights from the Study of Social Enterprises. The Academy of Management Annals, 2014, vol. 8, no 1, pp. 397–441. DOI: 10.1080/19416520.2014.893615

4. Dees J. G. The Meaning of “Social Entrepreneurship”. The Kauffman Center for Entre-preneurial Leadership. Kansas City, MO and Palo Alto, CA. 1998.

5. Drayton W. The citizen sector: Becoming as entrepreneurial as business. California Management Review, 2002, vol. 44, no 3, pp. 120–132. DOI 10.2307/41166136

6. Hill T. L., Kothari T. H., Shea M. Patterns of Meaning in the Social Entrepreneurship Literature: A Research Platform. Journal of Social Entrepreneurship, 2010, vol. 1, no 1, pp. 5–31. DOI 10.1080/19420670903442079

7. Kamaludin M. F., Xavier J. A., Amin M. Social Entrepreneurship and Sustainabil ity: A Conceptual Framework. Journal of Social Entrepreneurship, 2024, vol. 15, pp. 26–49. DOI 10.1080/19420676.2021.1900339

8. Shaw E. Marketing in the social enterprise context: is it entrepreneurial? Qualitative Marketing Research: an International Journal, 2004, vol. 7, no 3, pp. 194–205. DOI 10.1108/13522750410540209

9. Sonina Yu., Kolosnitsyna M. Pensioners on the Russian labour market: trends of economic activity in pension age. Demographic Review, 2015, vol. 2, no 2, pp. 37–53. DOI 10.17323/demreview.v2i2.1781. (in Russ.)

10. Zahra S. A., Gedajlovic E., Neubaum D. O., Shulman J. M. A typology of social entrepreneurs: Motives, search processes and ethical challenges. Journal of Business Venturing, 2009, vol. 24, no 5, pp. 519–532. DOI 10.1016/j.jbusvent.2008.04.007