Strategic innovation management of social enterprises in service sector affecting poverty reduction based on the Chiang Mai context
Keywords:
Strategic Innovation Management, Social Enterprise, Service Sector, Poverty Reduction, Chiang MaiAbstract
This research aimed to develop strategic innovation management strategies for service-sector social enterprises in Chiang Mai and examine their impact on poverty reduction. A mixed-methods approach was employed. Qualitative data were collected through semi-structured interviews and focus group discussions with 44 key informants, including social enterprise founders, managers, and community representatives. SWOT Analysis and the TOWS Matrix were used to identify internal and external factors and formulate strategic innovation management strategies. Quantitative data were collected through structured questionnaires from 400 stakeholders associated with service-sector social enterprises in Chiang Mai. The sample size was determined using Yamane’s formula at a 95% confidence level and a 5% margin of error. Qualitative findings identified four strategic innovation management dimensions: Smart Community Service Innovation (SO), Institutional Capacity Development (WO), Cultural Value-Based Market Resilience (ST), and Organizational Resilience Development (WT).Quantitative results demonstrated that strategic innovation management overall was perceived at a high level ( = 4.27, S.D. = 0.39), with all four dimensions showing statistically significant relationships with poverty reduction (p < 0.01). Multiple regression analysis indicated that the overall model explained 79.4% of the variance in poverty reduction (R2 = 0.794, Adjusted R2 = 0.786, F = 94.621, p < 0.001). Smart Community Service Innovation exhibited the strongest positive influence (Beta = 0.472, p < 0.001), followed by Cultural Value-Based Market Resilience (Beta = 0.316, p < 0.001) and Institutional Capacity Development (Beta = 0.194, p = 0.002). In contrast, Organizational Resilience Development demonstrated a statistically significant negative effect (Beta = -0.248, p < 0.001), suggesting that excessive emphasis on defensive strategies may limit proactive socioeconomic growth. The findings highlight the vital role of service innovation, cultural asset utilization, and institutional capacity enhancement in driving sustainable poverty reduction through social enterprise management in Chiang Mai.
References
Atsalikorn, W., Laothamatas, J., & Prasoptham, J. (2023). Social impact and social return on investment of the potential development project for elderly care service in Mae Mok subdistrict, Thoen district, Lampang province. Kasetsart Journal of Social Sciences, 44, 665-674. https://doi.org/10.34044/j.kjss.2023.44.3.03
Creswell, J. W., & Creswell, J. D. (2023). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches (6th ed.). Sage.
Dombrovska, N., & Farion, V. (2024). Digital transformation in enterprise management: Adaptation of business models under the influence of innovative technologies. Economic Analysis, 34(3), 40-53. https://doi.org/10.35774/econa2024.03.040
Duan, H., Wei, Y., Wang, Z., & Huang, J. (2025). Sustainable business model innovation in social enterprises: An institutional logic perspective. Sustainability, 18(1), Article 97. https://doi.org/10.3390/su18010097
Kitchaicharoen, J., Suebpongsang, P., Singvejsakul, J., & Pradit, O. (2024). Social return on investment of Chiang Mai’s urban pesticide-free vegetable production system development project. In ASEAN University Symposium for Sustainable Food System Faculty of Economics 18–19 April 2024 (pp. 1-10). https://doi.org/10.22004/ag.econ.344451
McQuitty, S. (2018). The purposes of multivariate data analysis methods: An applied commentary. Journal of African Business, 19(1), 124-142. https://doi.org/10.1080/15228916.2017.1374816
Nik Jaafar, N. F. H., Abdul Kadir, M. A. B., & Ismail, Z. (2025). Sustainability of social enterprises from a practitioner’s perspective. Environment-Behaviour Proceedings Journal, 10(SI28), 261–268. https://doi.org/10.21834/e-bpj.v10iSI28.6958
Ramadani, V., Agarwal, S., Caputo, A., Agrawal, V., & Dixit, J. K. (2022). Sustainable competencies of social entrepreneurship for sustainable development: Exploratory analysis from a developing economy. Business Strategy and the Environment, 31(7), 3437-3453. https://doi.org/10.1002/bse.3093
Social Enterprise Promotion Office. (n.d.). About us. https://www.osep.or.th/en/elementor-2866/
Weihrich, H. (1982). The TOWS matrix—A tool for situational analysis. Long Range Planning, 15(2), 54–66. https://doi.org/10.1016/0024-6301(82)90120-0
Yamane, T. (1967). Statistics: An introductory analysis (2nd ed.). Harper & Row.
Zaniarti, S., Veronica, S., & Arsytania, R. A. (2022). The effect of financial literacy on the sustainability of micro, small, and medium, enterprises with access to finance as a mediating variable. The International Journal of Management Science and Business Administration, 9(1), 17-31. https://doi.org/10.18775/ijmsba.1849-5664-5419.2014.91.1002
สุธาวัลย์ สัจจสมบูรณ์, ภูษณิศา เตชเถกิง, ปรีดา ศรีนฤวรรณ, และจักรพงษ์ สุขพันธ์. (2567). รูปแบบนวัตกรรมธุรกิจเพื่อสังคมของผู้ประกอบการธุรกิจเกษตรกรรุ่นใหม่ในเขตภาคเหนือตอนบนของประเทศไทย. วารสารธรรมศาสตร์, 43(2), 93–107 https://so05.tci-thaijo.org/index.php/tujo/article/view/275227
สุริยนต์ สูงคำ และลัดดา ปินตา. (2565). การจัดการห่วงโซ่อุปทานสินค้าเกษตรปลอดภัยของ บริษัท เชียงใหม่วิสาหกิจเพื่อสังคม จำกัด. วารสารบริหารธุรกิจและศิลปศาสตร์ ราชมงคลล้านนา, 10(2), 1–18. https://so05.tci-thaijo.org/index.php/balajhss/article/view/262226
สุวิมล มธุรส, เสาวรส วิชาพร, และมัทธนา พิพิธเนาวรัตน์. (2566). นวัตกรรมเชิงกลยุทธ์เพื่อการพัฒนาองค์กรให้ยั่งยืน. วารสารรัชต์ภาคย์, 17(53), 408–423. https://so05.tci-thaijo.og/index.php/RJPJ/article/view/264243
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2026 Dhurakij Pundit University
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.
Content and information of the article published at Suthiparithat Journal are based on the sole opinions and responsibility of author(s) only. Neither the editorial board involve in......
