Social entrepreneurship has recently received greater recognition from the public sector, as well as from scholars. However, the lack of a unifying paradigm in the field has lead to a proliferation of definitions. Moreover, several approaches of the phenomenon, as well as different schools of thought, have emerged in different regions of the world. At first glance, because of different conceptions of capitalism and of the government's role, there seems to be a difference between the American and the European conceptions of social entrepreneurship. The objective of this paper is to clarify the concepts of ‘social entrepreneurship’, ‘social entrepreneur’ and ‘social entrepreneurship organization’ and to examine whether there is a transatlantic divide in the way these are conceived and defined. After having justified the need for a definition, we present the different geographical perspectives. North American and European literatures on social entrepreneurship are critically analysed by means of Gartner's four differentiating aspects: the individual, the process, the organization and the environment. We show that there is no clear-cut transatlantic divide, but that, even within the US, different conceptions coexist. We propose definitions for the main concepts associated with social entrepreneurship and, finally, discuss implications for future research.

This paper introduces the special issue of Entrepreneurship and Regional Development on bricolage in social entrepreneurship. We anchor this special issue at the heart of an emerging body of research indicating that bricolage is the most appropriate approach to consider social firms operating in an environment characterized by institutional constraints or weak regulatory or political support (Di Domenico, Haugh, and Tracey 2010 Di Domenico, M. , H. Haugh, and P. Tracey. 2010. “Social Bricolage: Theorizing Social Value Creation in Social Enterprises.” Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice 34: 681–703.10.1111/etap.2010.34.issue-4 [Crossref], [Web of Science ®] , [Google Scholar] ; Gundry et al. 2011 Gundry, L. K. , J. R. Kickul, M. D. Griffiths, and S. C. Bacq. 2011. “Entrepreneurial Bricolage and Innovation Ecology: Precursors to Social Innovation?” Frontiers of Entrepreneurship Research 31 (19): 3. [Google Scholar] ). We describe both social entrepreneurship and bricolage. We then identify what closely links these notions. We conduct a literature review of the articles written on the nascent and growing research area at the intersection of social entrepreneurship and bricolage. We finally provide a brief overview of the contributions of each of the papers of this special issue and conclude by outlining a research agenda for future activities in this area of inquiry.

To achieve herd immunity against COVID-19, it is crucial to know the drivers of vaccination intention and, thereby, vaccination. As the determinants of vaccination differ across vaccines, target groups and contexts, we investigate COVID-19 vaccination intention using data from university students from three countries, the Netherlands, Belgium and Portugal. We investigate the psychological drivers of vaccination intention using the 5C model as mediator. This model includes five antecedents of vaccination: Confidence, Complacency, Constraints, Calculation and Collective Responsibility. First, we show that the majority of students have a positive propensity toward getting vaccinated against COVID-19, though only 41% of students are completely acceptant. Second, using the 5C model, we show that ‘Confidence’ (β = 0.33, SE = 03, p < .001) and ‘Collective Responsibility’ (β = 0.35, SE = 04, p < .001) are most strongly related to students’ COVID-19 vaccination intention. Using mediation analyses, we show that the perceived risk and effectiveness of the vaccine as well as trust in the government and health authorities indirectly relate to vaccination intention through ‘Confidence’. The perceived risk of COVID-19 for one’s social circle and altruism, the need to belong and psychopathy traits indirectly relate to vaccination intention through ‘Collective Responsibility’. Hence, targeting the psychological characteristics associated with ‘Confidence’ and ‘Collective Responsibility’ can improve the effectiveness of vaccination campaigns among students.