Article

Are We Measuring Social Enterprise Success All Wrong?

2026-11-12 · By Jens Andersson, Monitoring, Evaluation and Learning Specialist, IKEA Social Entrepreneurship

Jens Andersson of IKEA Social Entrepreneurship explores what research with social enterprises in Mexico, Colombia and Chile reveals about measuring success. Rather than focusing on growth and scale alone, the findings highlight adaptation, resilience, trust and community relationships as critical capabilities that help social enterprises navigate complexity and create lasting social and economic impact.

Lessons from Latin America on growth, adaptation and what it really takes to create lasting impact

Across the social enterprise ecosystem, success is often measured through growth.

How many jobs were created? How many customers or beneficiaries were reached? How much investment was secured? How quickly did the enterprise scale?

These metrics matter because they help us assess whether organisations are financially viable and extending their reach. Yet they can also reinforce the assumption that entrepreneurial success follows a linear path from start-up to scale.

But what if that assumption is incomplete?

Recent research by Maastricht University, in collaboration with IKEA Social Entrepreneurship, explored the entrepreneurial journeys of social enterprises across Mexico, Colombia and Chile. Looking beyond traditional growth metrics, the research examined how organisations navigate their contexts to create social and economic value in complex environments.

The findings painted a different picture of success.

Rather than moving predictably from one growth stage to the next, social enterprises continuously adapted to changing market conditions, community needs, institutional barriers and unexpected disruptions. Their journeys suggest that creating positive impact is less about accelerating along a straight path and more about navigating an evolving landscape.

For businesses, investors, accelerators and support organisations, this raises an important question:

Are we focusing too much on growth, and not enough on what enables social enterprises to create lasting impact?

The reality behind the growth narrative

The dominant language of entrepreneurship is filled with metaphors of speed and scale.

We often talk about “accelerating growth”, “breaking barriers”, and “scaling impact”. Many support programs are built to help enterprises move faster and grow larger.

But the social enterprises in this study often took more unpredictable and dynamic paths.

In some cases, growth opportunities came with new challenges. Expanding into new markets increased operational complexity, while new funding relationships introduced competing priorities. Growing customer demand sometimes placed pressure on governance structures or strained connections with the communities the enterprise was established to serve.

The lesson is not that growth is problematic, but that growth alone is an insufficient measure of success.

Several enterprises showed that impact depended not simply on getting bigger but on knowing how to adapt while remaining grounded in their social mission. Sometimes this meant expanding, other times consolidating, or even redesigning business models altogether.

In short, adaptation mattered as much as growth.

The hidden infrastructure of impact

One of the research’s strongest findings was how important relationships are.

Many social enterprises operate at the intersection of different worlds. They work with communities, customers, governments, businesses, producers, and investors, each with its own priorities and ways of working.

Success often came from building trust across these groups.

This work is difficult to quantify. It rarely appears on a balance sheet and is often treated as secondary to product development, sales, or fundraising.

Yet again and again, the research found that relationship-building was not peripheral to impact creation. It was fundamental to it.

Enterprises supporting artisan producers invested significant time in building equitable partnerships and creating market access. Others worked closely with communities to ensure solutions remained relevant and accessible. Some prioritised participatory governance models that enabled local ownership and decision-making.

These actions may not show up in standard business measures, but they often determine whether impact lasts.

For those supporting social enterprises, this presents a challenge.

How often do our funding models, reporting frameworks and partnership structures recognise trust-building as a strategic capability rather than just something extra?

What if adaptation is a sign of strength?

People often think of entrepreneurship as having a clear vision and carrying it out with discipline.

But the social enterprises in this study showed another important skill: the ability to adapt.

As external conditions changed, they adjusted products, services, partnerships and operating models. They responded to economic uncertainty, evolving regulations, shifts in customer demand, and the realities of working with historically underserved communities.

These changes were not signs of failure, but signs of responsiveness.

In complex systems, adapting doesn’t mean that an organisation has lost direction. It often means they’re paying attention.

This insight has implications beyond the social enterprise sector.

More and more mainstream businesses are working with organisations that address social and environmental challenges through inclusive business models. However, many corporate structures still prioritise predictability, standardisation and quantifiable results.

When support systems are built on fixed ideas about growth, they can accidentally make it harder for organisations to be flexible and respond to complex situations.

Seeing adaptation as a strength, not a weakness, could help build better partnerships and longer-lasting impact.

Three questions for those who support social enterprises

The findings from Latin America do not suggest abandoning growth as an ambition.

Instead, they push us to think more broadly about what success means.

As businesses, funders, investors and ecosystem builders, we might ask ourselves:

Are we rewarding enterprises only for growing, or also for becoming more resilient and continuously adapting to complex environments?

Do our support programmes invest sufficiently in relationships, trust and community engagement?

Are we flexible enough to see that the path to impact is rarely straight?

These questions matter because the challenges social enterprises tackle, from inequality and exclusion to climate resilience and economic opportunity, are complex and interconnected.

It follows, then, that the enterprises addressing these challenges need equally nuanced support.

Rethinking success

The social enterprises in this research differed widely in their models, sectors, and contexts. But they all shared one thing: they kept balancing social goals with business needs while adapting to change.

Their experiences challenge the idea that impact is best understood through growth alone.

Instead, they suggest a broader view of success. One that values adaptation and resilience as much as growth, relationships as much as deals, and navigation as much as acceleration.

How this plays out depends very much on the local context. The most important lesson may be to listen to social enterprises to understand what that means for them.