ความสามารถในการแข่งขันของกิจการเพื่อสังคมของประเทศไทย [Competitiveness of Social Enterprise in Thailand]
Article Sidebar
Main Article Content
Abstract
The purposes of this study are to 1) analyze the competitiveness of social enterprise in Thailand, and 2) analyze the strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and threat and determine the strategies for the development of competitiveness of social enterprise in Thailand. By In-depth interviews with 20 stakeholders.Using Dynamic Diamond Model, SWOT Analysis and TOWS Matrix.The results of the study showed that: 1) production factor was not able to respond to the competition,2) demand was mostly a form of artificial demand,3) the integration of relevant organizations was consistent,4) the nature of business competition in the current capitalism was not conducive to the operation,5) sustainable development was an opportunity for the private and public sector to recognize the importance, 6) the government supported the civil-state unity policy which was the way to develop the competitiveness of social enterprise and the development strategy for the competitiveness of social enterprise in Thailand1) participative strategy for society and community 2) strategy for spending society capital and cultural capital 3) public relation strategy for the quality of products of social enterprises 4) development strategy for the structure that conformed to the competition 5) strategy for exchanging the knowledge 6) Strategy for beginner funding and proceed period funding and 7) development strategy for mentoring and assisting systems from experts
Article Details
References
2. Bourdieu, P. (1986). The forms of capital in Richardson, J., Handbook of theory and research for the sociology of education. New York: Greenwood.
3. Chiangkul, W. (2015). Why need to read Karl Marx?. Bangkok: Sangdao.
4. Dees, J. G. (1998). Social enterprise: Private initiatives for the common good. Harvard Business Review, 76(1), 54-68.
5. Ebrashi, R. E. (2013). Social entrepreneurship theory and sustainable social impact. Social Responsibility Journal, 9(2), 188-209.
6. Elkington, J. (1997). Cannibals with forks: The triple bottom line of twenty-first century business. Capstone: Oxford.
7. Haugh, H. (2006). A research agenda for social entrepreneurship. Social Enterprise Journal, 1(1), 1-12.
8. Jiao, H. (2011). A conceptual model for social entrepreneurship directed toward social impact on society. Social Enterprise Journal, 7(2), 130-149.
9. Kerlin, J. A. (2006). Social enterprise in the United States and Europe: Understanding and learning from the differences. Voluntas, 17(3), 247-263.
10. Meadows, M. and Pike, M. (2010). Performance management for social enterprises. Systemic Practice and Action Research, 23(2), 127-141.
11. Mulgan, G. (2006). Cultivating the other invisible hand of social entrepreneurship: Comparative advantage, public Policy and future research priorities. In A.Nicholls (Ed.), Social entrepreneurship: New models of sustainable social change (pp.74-95). Oxford: Oxford University.
12. Munro, M. M. and Belanger, C. (2017). Analyzing external environment factors affecting social enterprise development. Social Enterprise Journal, 13(1), 38-52.
13. Nantharojphong, K., Kittisaknawin, C. and Deesawad, N. (2017). Organization development intervention in digital economy era for the high performance organization. Journal of Business, Economics and Communications, 12(2), 23-34.
14. Pearce, J. (2003). Social enterprise in any town. Lisbon: CalousteGulbenkian Foundation.
15. Porter, M. E. (1990). The competitive advantage of nations. New York: Free Press.
16. Suthiwartnarueput, K. (2009). Management for competitiveness - new model and new frames. Chulalongkorn Business Review, 31(4), 66-74.
17. The Working Group Members on Local Economic and Public-private Collaboration. (2016). Pracharath Rak Samakkee handbook 2. Retrived August 24, 2016, from http://prsthailand.com/th/download
18. UK Department for Trade and Industry. (2002). Social enterprise: A strategy for success. Cambridge: Harvard Business School.
