Pirson (2015:2) states that social entrepreneurship attempts to make a positive difference in the world and use intellect to drive meaningful action. Choi and Majumdar (2014:372) regard social entrepreneurship as a cluster concept. This concept is illustrated in Figure 1 where the four smaller circles representing the social entrepreneur, the social entrepreneurial organisation, market orientation and social innovation are surrounded by the larger concept of social value. Choi and Majumdar (2014:372) regard these five fields as the cluster concept of social entrepreneurship. This concept forms the base of the literature review.

Kickul and Lyons (2012:19) refer to various definitions of social entrepreneurship. It is, however, important to recognise that social entrepreneurship is a continuous process. Any type of organisation should identify an innovation deficit (an area that requires new solutions to new or existing problems) to create social value by implementing the social process.

According to Newth and Woods (2014:1), Joseph A. Schumpeter identified the entrepreneur as an economic agent who applies change through innovation. Change is initiated by combining different disciplines and fields of study in order to create social value. Schumpeter (1934:3) identified social entrepreneurship as an academic field in the early 19th century.

According to Choi and Majumdar (2014:372), the academic field of social entrepreneurship is complex in nature as it comprises various sub-fields. As mentioned earlier, Choi and Majumdar (2014:372) identified the following five different sub-fields of social entrepreneurship:

The goal of these different sub-fields is set for academic purposes. This allows the researcher to state which sub-field(s) of social entrepreneurship are being researched.

As stated, this study focusses on the social enterprise as a contributor of social value and social innovation as a means to find new ways to existing challenges in the specific organisation, the DR Church.

Newth and Woods (2014:3) state that the academic community does not have consensus concerning the definition of social entrepreneurship. Thus, social entrepreneurship must rather be studied as a process in a specific sub-field. The various sub-fields of social entrepreneurship make it difficult to reach a unified definition of social entrepreneurship. Newth and Woods (2014:4) state that the contribution of Schumpeter (1934:3) to the academic field of social entrepreneurship as a process of combining different fields of study to create social value still forms the basis of social entrepreneurship today.

Zahra et al. (2009:519) attempted to define social entrepreneurship using Schumpeter’s explanation of 1934 as a basis: ‘The activities and processes undertaken to discover, define, and exploit opportunities in order to enhance social wealth by creating new ventures or managing existing organisations in an innovative manner’.

Phillips et al. (2015:442) state that social entrepreneurship identifies and attempts to resolve a social problem. Phillips et al. (2015:442) add that the social enterprise identifies its own social requirements that need to be met. These social requirements are usually communicated in the form of a social mission statement or an opportunity recognised in society.

Shaw and De Bruin (2013:741) argue that the debate regarding a definition of a social enterprise is now saturated. Thus, a social enterprise can be defined as an enterprise that engages in mainstream activities, processes and behaviour. This could include for-profit activities like trading and manufacturing. A social enterprise can be identified by recognising how surpluses are used.

Choi and Majumdar (2014:374) state that the social enterprise has many facets, including special funding, collaboration with various social role players, various laws regulating them, various organisational structures and various countries. The social enterprise is an integral part and a sub-field of study in social entrepreneurship. The social value creation process renders the social enterprise part of the cluster concept of social entrepreneurship. Thus, it would be impossible to research social entrepreneurship without analysing the social enterprise in the process.

Phillips et al. (2015:442) state that the traditional view of a social entrepreneur is a single person who wants to bring change to the world. This, however, is not the case. According to Kickul and Bacq (2012:58), social business planning has a multi-stakeholder approach. If a social entrepreneur wants to be effective, he or she must innovate. An integral part of innovation is to form partnerships or hire employees. Phillips et al. (2015:442) note that networking is important for the social innovative process.

The social entrepreneur and team must manage relationships with various stakeholders. Kickul and Bacq (2012:60) identified five stakeholder groups that the social entrepreneurial business must consider:

The continuous development of capabilities and resources within an organisation with the aim of exploring and exploiting new opportunities to meet social needs is defined as the innovation capacity of an organisation (Szeto 2000; Tsai & Liao 2017:3). Kirner, Kinkel and Jaeger (2009) regard innovation capacity as the same as formal research and development (R&D) activities of organisations. However, within small organisations, innovations are the result of daily activities such as member collaboration regarding the optimisation of processes rather than formal R&D (Hirsch-Kreinsen 2008). Innovation development is not the main objective of those involved in innovation capacity development, but rather the individuals who collaborate with members (Forsman 2011:740).

Forsman (2011) studied the degree of innovation capacity of small organisations by examining their R&D investments, the degree of innovation capabilities and the external innovation input received through networking. Innovation capabilities were assessed by grading seven defined dimensions on a three-point scale. Lastly, external input was assessed based on whether the impact of networking was viewed as positive, negative or had no impact.

As mentioned, according to Forsman (2011:749), the capability to implement change is a key factor in measuring innovation capacity. This includes the capability to quickly implement change. Therefore, change management and transformational leadership constitute an integral part of social entrepreneurship.

According to Phillips et al. (2015:447), transformation of an existing framework is always part of the social innovative process. Kickul and Bacq (2012:114) explain that the fields of transformational leadership and social innovation overlap in many areas. Khalili (2016) reflects on empirical evidence that transformational leadership enhances creative thinking, innovation given a perceptual experience of a supportive climate for innovation. The findings of Jaiswal and Dhar (2015) confirm the latter by displaying a direct link between this leadership style and the existence of a climate for innovative behaviour. An even deeper investigation results in evidence that transformation leadership contributes more to team innovation than individual innovation (Li, Mitchell & Boyle 2016). The lens of this study relates to the social entrepreneurial organisation with much to learn from the latter findings in terms of specifically innovation and innovation management.

As stated, Schultz (2013:14) explains the social entrepreneurial process as a deliberate disruptive design process. This relates to the four elements of transformational leadership as stated by Kickul and Bacq (2012:114). Incremental innovation exists as opposed to deliberate disruptive design. According to Norman and Verganti (2014:4), incremental product innovation occurs when small changes in a product are made to meet new standards. This could include new technological advances to meet current needs. In social innovation, small changes in a current social offering can be incrementally made to meet new needs. The contextual nature of the unit of analysis, the DR Church, asks for innovative approaches to either survive or grow in line with the needs of their key stakeholders’ needs coupled with higher social impact. Innovation per se is a process that directly aligns value-to-member (user) requirements, new areas of development and also creates incremental or leapfrog offerings to enhance social change (e.g. new technological platforms to distribute the core offering of a church, with reference to new generations).

Mulgan (2006:147) identifies an innovation deficit as the gap between current provision and existing needs. The innovation deficits illustrate topics or areas where new ways must be found and implemented (innovation) to address global common needs (social needs).

According to Forsman (2011:749), innovation capacity can be measured using seven elements.

The following seven elements closely relate to the research questions used in this study to determine the degree of social innovation capacity in the DR Church:

Du Toit et al. (2002:3) state that the DR Church, as an institution, has changed considerably during the last quarter of the previous century. Du Toit et al. (2002:4) refer to the negative association of the DR Church with ‘separate development’ or ‘apartheid’ as a reason for less sympathy amongst the democratically elected politicians. With the ‘New South Africa’ being more open to freedom of religion, the government cannot have more sympathy for a specific group, church or religion.

The influence that this religious institution has in South African politics has thus been minimised since 1994. As a result, this has reduced the resources available for the DR Church to use for social impact.

The DR Church has a dynamic history of change. Du Toit et al. (2002:xvi) constructed a timeline and identified a few important events that have impacted the DR Church and how it responded to these events.

Examples of such events are the Cottesloe meeting in 1960 (held in Cottesloe in Johannesburg), which stated that the wealth of a country should be shared by all of its residents (Du Toit et al. 2002:56). In 1982, a document entitled ‘Kerk en Samelewing’ [Church and Society] stated that members of the DR Church could be of any race (Du Toit et al. 2002:83). In 1990, at a meeting in Rustenburg without any political influence, entitled ‘Die Rustenburgberaad’, labelled ‘separate development’ or ‘apartheid’ as a sin (Du Toit et al. 2002:105). Niemandt (2007:84) states that congregations should determine what their specific calling is in their society. The congregation should then plan and execute the identified community work.

Niemandt (2007:52) states that change starts with innovation. It is the innovator that innovates when he/she adapts to the everchanging environment. Innovation is a process that can occur in a complex environment (Schultz 2013:69). Mouton (2015:7) lists three different types of transformational leadership that are applicable in the DR Church, namely:

According to Daman (2006:137), transformational leadership is a Biblical imperative of any church. The church must engage the community at every level in order to bring change to that community. The purpose of any church is to transform its community within moral, social and spiritual frameworks. While the social benefits to the community can be monetised (Kickul & Lyons 2012:182), the moral and spiritual changes in a society can be assessed using only non-monetary methods (Schultz 2013:69). In this study, the three items mentioned by Forsman (2011:749) were used to measure the degree of innovation capacity.

The participants of the organisation displayed capabilities to not only recognise new opportunities but also to seize and develop them. Most of the participants said that opportunity recognition is a slow process in the organisation but that it does still exist. The participants referred to many opportunities in the region that were identified and seized. Examples of this include practical outreach programmes such as education programmes and giving handouts/education to those living on the streets in the area. Local townships are also the destinations for many outreach programmes. This usually includes reaching out to those who are poor. Many participants said that listening to the needs of those living in the townships is important as they are not open to receiving handouts. Many of the participants referred to a book entitled: When Helping Hurts: How to Alleviate Poverty Without Hurting the Poor and Yourself (Corbett & Fikkert 2014), mentioning that a community must be open to receiving help before helping can exert a positive impact.

The participants of the organisation displayed developmental capabilities. They mentioned growth and cell groups that stimulate personal and member growth in the organisation. Other social events contribute to more people coming to the organisation, which might include dances (sokkies) and other events for the younger members. The organisation is experiencing personal and member growth with a family ministry, which includes groups for mothers, babies and married couples. Where resistance exists (in any form), the members and board members meet to talk, listen and reduce the friction caused by the resistance. The organisation is very sensitive to criticism.

Many of the participants indicated the importance of the music ministry. All of the participants have modernised their music in one way or another to fit their specific style. Modern songs can be stylised in a classical fashion in order to adapt to the style of a specific congregation.

The participants of the organisation displayed strong capabilities to recognise, exploit and internalise new knowledge from external sources. The organisation believes that external knowledge is important. The participants referred to the training of ministers at an academic institution (university faculty) rather than a seminary. They also have philosophical and medical knowledge from the academic institution. The academic knowledge is then used in sermons and talks to reduce friction (exploited and internalised).

Participants also referred to popular sources such as magazines and the Internet as possible sources of external knowledge to be internalised. Many participants referred to their own census research before an outreach, as the local census of the government might be less reliable for the specific outreach programmes (external data used in programmes). Many participants referred to external books and programmes as external knowledge. Examples of the external programmes used are the Alpha and Strength Finder courses.

External technical knowledge is also identified and exploited internally, for example, the newest financial software, data projectors, websites and social media. The participants referred to ministers and board members who are keen to learn from other disciplines and experts. For example, many participants displayed an intent to learn more from the field of psychology. Members of the organisation are skilled in various disciplines; the organisation exploits and internalises these skills of these members very well.

Internalised skills of members are in the realms of finance, music, psychology, real-estate and information technology.

The participants of the organisation displayed strong capabilities to network. Participants referred to the different networks between academic fields. Theology is the primary field of study for the organisation, but other fields of study are incorporated with their experts in appropriate scientific conversation.

All participants were in favour of organisational (church) unity and stated that networking with other institutions is important. In a healthy situation, there are always first voices crying out against social injustices. The organisation listens to these voices and supports them in many cases. Examples of such cases include the organisation when it listened to voices crying out against the social injustices of apartheid. The organisation eventually joined forces with those who cried out. The participants mentioned that the organisation supports the voices crying out against the socio-economic injustices of the current government of South Africa. The organisation also participates in local (Pretoria area) social action such as the fees-must-fall movement. Participants reported that racism is a major issue, and that the organisation attempts to help the various parties not to increase the distance between races, but to rather build an understanding of one another.

Many participants said that it is the responsibility of the organisation to listen to the leaders from other organisations (churches) to simply attempt to understand their living context and to build relationships.

Leaders of the organisation displayed a need not to ‘work for’ other organisations (churches) but to ‘work with’ them. Certain participants said that reform celebrations cannot begin without respecting their brothers and sisters from other organisations (churches). This includes helping them with the resources that they do not have.

Participants referred to their own and other church denominations, saying that their relationship with the government is difficult, as the government regards the larger church community as a provider of unnecessary criticism.

Currently, there are limited to no existing networking capabilities within the government across this domain.

Abilities for risk-taking and assessment: Most of the participants said that the denomination sometimes misses possible opportunities, because it is too scared of the risk attached to certain opportunities. The ministers and board members also realise that they make decisions on behalf of the denomination and its members, resulting in decision-makers being more risk-minded.

All the participants said that the denomination does not easily take high financial risks. The use of the facilities also poses a major risk, which results in financial implications and various risks. The organisation does not want to abuse its facilities.

Social issues were also identified by many participants as a potential risk, with change being the main risk in whatever form. The so-called gay debate (to allow LGBTQ+ persons as ministers) and the Belhar debate (a change in the confession documents) were used as examples of risk factors by many of the participants. The risk included losing members when change happens, regardless of the direction of the change. The risk of losing members also results in financial losses. Most of the participants said that it is more important to make the correct decision (moral and Biblical) than to make an incorrect decision to please certain people or parties. Most of the participants mentioned that they are very willing to make the correct decision and to accept the resulting risk. The risk is handled in such a manner that the organisation’s changed position on a specific subject is discussed and communicated to all involved members and parties.

A major risk identified by some of the participants was that there were uninformed members and non-members with outdated views who did not understand the current changes and decisions. This would usually result in negative critique (risk). Participants said that such individuals (risks) should participate in discussions and must be informed of current reasons for social change. Conversation is the preferred way to handle such risks of change. The denomination is willing to accept the risk of conversations.

Participants also mentioned that the environment is the responsibility of all people and the risk needs to be taken seriously. Environmental friendliness is a topic on which the denomination conducts discussions.

To speak out against racism is also a possible risk for the organisation as the organisation initially supported apartheid, but later, in the 1980s, changed to radically oppose it. This was a change-related risk that the organisation took and is still willing to accept.

The participants said that the younger generations forced them to be more open to risk-taking as they require new and innovative ways of thinking. The younger generations can also promise much but deliver nothing, as their dreams mostly remain dreams. Most participants said that the younger generation also forces willingness to accept new risks and refers to change in society and music as topics of discussion.

The participants were confident that many skilled members were attending to different risks, as different committees are responsible for the accompanied risks. The financial, real-estate, human-resources, safety and change committees are a few examples.

Many participants said that the denomination has a slow decision-making system, but that this had recently improved. Participants stated that many congregations had changed to a more efficient and quicker decision-making system over the past few years, resulting in a local management system (concerning the church board) that is able to respond to change more quickly. Most participants, however, mentioned that the response of the larger system of the denomination is still slow, referring to the gay and Belhar debates (as previously discussed).

The members and those receiving social assistance from the denomination is equated to customers in a commercial context, as they are the receivers of the services of the denomination. The life cycle of the denomination paints a direct picture of the members and those receiving social assistance.

All the participants placed the denomination (as an organisation) in a phase of maturity or growth. Some participants mentioned that the organisations have witnessed a decline in the past but that maturity is the current phase. The participants stated that maturity or growth refers to an organisational efficiency and number of members. Some participants said that their financial position is weakening and links it with the economic climate.

Most of the participants said that R&D is the responsibility of the ministers and not necessarily the board members. Of the group interviewed, the average R&D time spent per week is 8.8 hours (total average), while the ministers in the group interviewed averaged 12.2 hours (total average). The organisation involved operates within the social sector in South Africa. There are no existing comparative studies that have measured time spent on R&D within the same context. In contrast, Pinelli, Barclay and Kennedy (1996) reported that The National Aeronautics and Space Administration aerospace scientists and engineers spend 12.1 hours (total average) on producing written material and 11.6 hours (total average) communicating information. Ministers in the DR Church show a strong tendency to invest time in R&D.

The degree of innovation capabilities was measured according to the seven-point measurement system created and tested by Forsman (2011:794). The results of the findings were as follows:

External input through networking into innovation can be measured by identifying positive impact, no impact and negative impact. No participant mentioned negative impact on innovation through networking, while a few referred to examples where networking resulted in no impact (decided against the accompanied innovation). All the participants reported many positive impacts exerted on innovation through networking.

It is the finding of this study that, overall, the networking impact of innovation on the DR Church is positive.

The variable of external input into innovation development through networking was thus reported positively by most of the participants on many accounts.

According to the three variables advanced by Forsman (2011), it can be concluded that the DR Church as an organisation possesses strong and average elements of capacity for innovation, as discussed.

During this research, it became clear that the amount of time spent on R&D by the ministers in the organisation is quite extensive (as calculated). It is significant that both the ministers and board members said that the R&D responsibility lies with the ministers only. It can be recommended that all persons in management positions (ministers and board members) should engage in the R&D process, which could include reading similar books, for example. Advance research platforms are available to continuously assess the micro, meso and macro environment to reactively and proactively address change and needs. A deliberate programme should be established within the managerial structure of the entity to formally address the latter.

The DR Church displayed strong innovation capabilities in three dimensions, namely: capabilities regarding knowledge exploitation, networking and market and member (customer) knowledge. The DR Church displayed average innovation capabilities in four dimensions (on which the organisation could improve in future), namely: entrepreneurial, risk management, development and change management capabilities.

Throughout this study, it became clear that those in management positions (ministers and board members) of the DR Church could improve on these aspects. An entrepreneurial/intrapreneurial mindset should be applied within the managerial sphere to continuously identify opportunities towards finding sustainable outputs (without negating the core offering of the church).

This research reveals that the organisation displays a strong capability to experience a positive influence on innovation by networks. It is recommended that the organisation continues to enjoy a positive effect by networks but also to exploit networks to gain more positive influences. Networking, again, is an entrepreneurial approach towards identifying and developing innovative opportunities with high levels of social impact. Internal and external stakeholders should be integrated in the networking process with an open innovation approach coupled with high levels of absorptive capacity (e.g. the ability to assimilate new information in creating new products/services).