Cultural heritage safeguarding through social entrepreneurship: a case study analysis in George Town UNESCO World heritage site, Malaysia

Figures & data

Figure 1. Map Showing George Town’s Strategic Positioning between China and India. Note: The red circle highlights the geographic location of George Town, Penang, on the map. Source: Google Maps. (n.d.) (https://www.google.com/maps/@13.6960393,101.5092679,5z?entry = ttu).

Figure 2. Map of core and buffer zones of the historic city of George Town. Note: The dark orange area represents the Core Zone, covering 109.38 hectares, while the light orange area represents the Buffer Zone, covering 150.04 hectares. Source: UNESCO, 2007 (https://whc.unesco.org/en/documents/101085/).

Table 1. Dimensions from SEO.

Dimensions	Descriptions
Social Innovativeness	This dimension reflects an organisation’s ability for innovative problem-solving, actively pursuing positive impact, and employing new ideas and methods to tackle societal problems and facilitate social change. It highlights the importance of creativity and adaptability in social entrepreneurship initiatives.
Social Risk-Taking	This dimension highlights an organisation’s proactive approach to addressing social issues, even when outcomes are uncertain. It involves challenging established models and employing unconventional approaches to create a positive social impact. It emphasises the organisation’s willingness to accept possible failures as an integral part of creating social change.
Social Proactiveness	This dimension emphasises an organisation’s active engagement in identifying and utilising opportunities to address its targeted social issues. It involves proactively pursuing opportunities to impact societal challenges positively. It emphasises the importance of taking initiative and being farsighted in social entrepreneurship activities.
Socialness	This dimension signifies the organisation’s dedication to creating social value by addressing societal issues and contributing to positive social impacts. It emphasises the social orientation of an organisation, highlighting its dedication to facilitating social change rather than solely pursuing financial value.

Note: Adapted from “SEO: Development of a Measurement Scale” by Kraus et al. (2017).

Table 2. Key elements from ToC.

Key Elements	Descriptions
Problem	This element reflects that the initiator should first identify and define the targeted social issue.
Expected Outcome(s)	This element represents the social entrepreneurship process’s final consequence(s). Additionally, it serves as a guideline for the initiator to ensure that all inputs and activities align with the expected outcome(s).
Inputs	This element represents the tangible and intangible resources required to execute activities. Inputs are necessary for the initiator to drive the ToC and sustain the social entrepreneurship initiative.
Activities	This element reflects the actions that transform inputs into outputs - encompassing strategic steps and interventions implemented by the initiator to contribute to the anticipated outcome(s).
Outputs	This element signifies that the tangible and intangible results derived from activities are often quantifiable and affirm to the implemented set of activities.
Outcomes	This element indicates the expected transitional changes resulting from positive repercussions of outputs that serve as turning points for impacts. Outcomes are categorised into short and long-term, which range from 1 to 3 years and 4 to 6 years.
Impacts	This element indicates that impacts generally represent the broader and transformative societal and/or structured changes; impacts signify resolving the targeted social problem. Due to their transformative nature, impacts are challenging to quantify and take longer to emerge - usually more than seven years.
Assumptions	This element expresses the formation of a fundamental yet critical element in ToC, as assumptions underpin the mapping process. Assumptions may encompass the behaviours of relevant stakeholders, causal relationships, power dynamics and cultures, among others. They represent factors that must be understood for the interventions to effectively contribute to the expected outcome(s).
Context	This element refers to the circumstances of the societies and political situations in which the initiative(s) occurs. Identifying the context allows the initiator to understand the underlying influences, fundamental causes, and relevant stakeholders surrounding the specific social or environmental issue.

Note: Adapted from “Review of the Use of ToC in International Development” by Vogel (2012).

Table 3. Comparative analysis of ORG01 and ORG02.

Dimension	ORG01	ORG02
Legal Framework	Formal	Informal
Funding	Relies on diverse support.	Relies solely on internal funding.
Activities	Engages in advocacy works, public stances, and awareness campaigns.	Focuses on advocacy through social media campaigns, workshops, and community engagement.
Preservation Focus	Shifted focus to safeguarding ICH post-UNESCO inscription.	Emphasises the importance of preserving built heritage.
Collaboration	Established networks and collaborations.	Open to collaborations but maintains independence.
Challenges	Balances safeguarding efforts with socioeconomic interests.	Faces complexities in engaging relevant authorities and navigating bureaucratic hurdles.
Outcomes	More established with noticeable outcomes	Young group with limited immediate influence
Adaptability	Demonstrates adaptability in response to changes and challenges.	Remains flexible in addressing new threats.
Sustainability	Embodies principles of social entrepreneurship to maintain sustainability.	Seeks to maintain sustainability by avoiding external funding and maintaining flexibility.

Note: The cross-analysis table of ORG01 and ORG02.

UNESCO. (2007). UNESCO World Heritage Centre - Document - Melaka and George Town, The inscribed property and the buffer zone of the Historic city of Melaka and George Town. Retrieved February 12, 2024, from Unesco.org website: https://whc.unesco.org/en/documents/101085/

 Google Scholar

Kraus, S., Niemand, T., Halberstadt, J., Shaw, E., & Syrjä, P. (2017). Social entrepreneurship orientation: development of a measurement scale. International Journal of Entrepreneurial Behavior & Research, 23(6), 977–997. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJEBR-07-2016-0206

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Vogel, I. (2012). Review of the use of “Theory of Change” in international development. In UK Department of International Development (pp. 8–22). UK Department of International Development. https://www.theoryofchange.org/pdf/DFID_ToC_Review_VogelV7.pdf

 Google Scholar

Data availability statement

The data supporting this study’s findings are available from the corresponding author, J.W.O., upon reasonable request.