Send message to Authors

Paper short abstract:

This mapping review examines faith-based social enterprises—particularly, Protestant ones—at the intersectional field of religion and development, religious social entrepreneurship, and social enterprises in development to identify evidence and recommended practice.

Paper long abstract:

Social enterprises have emerged as sustainable actors in development contexts, thus offering alternatives to conventional interventions. However, within development studies and its ‘religion and development’ subfield, scholars have focused primarily on conventional faith-based organisations (e.g., non-government organisations) while overlooking the burgeoning faith-based social enterprises (FBSEs). Although management studies, particularly those concerning religious social entrepreneurship, have yielded significant research on FBSEs, Protestant social enterprises lack rigorous studies. Therefore, using a mapping review methodology, this study examines the nexus between FBSEs (particularly Protestant FBSEs) and development across three interconnected fields: religion and development, religious social entrepreneurship, and social enterprises in development. We discovered that religion and development is the dominant conceptual framework among the three main interconnected fields and has a strong affinity for the FBSE-development nexus. Additionally, our analysis reveals how religious teachings shape Protestant social enterprises' approaches to whole-person transformation—a characteristic that distinguishes them from their secular counterparts—while contributing to social change. However, our findings indicate both limited and inconclusive development impacts, as well as a lack of economic viability. Therefore, in order to enhance development impacts, they need to harness the solidarity with secular development actors and faith-based organisations of other religions in ‘Aidland’ by focusing on their common virtues, practices and worldviews or bridging the secular-religious and religious divides among them. Moreover, FBSEs need to be reflexive of their ingrained coloniality in their positivist approaches and indirect forms of ruling, which are reminiscent of the complicity between colonial powers and missionary movements in controlling the colonised.