Social Entrepreneurship for Sustainable Development in Sparsely Populated Areas

Abstract

Social entrepreneurship and responsibility have grown in societies in recent decades. The purpose of this article is to investigate and discuss social entrepreneurship in relation to the SDGs within municipalities in sparsely populated areas in Sweden. Specifically, this article explores how politicians and officials in municipalities view social entrepreneurship, what challenges municipalities face in creating sustainable development, and how municipalities can develop conditions for collaborations between public actors and private companies in order to achieve more sustainable development within the municipality. To this end, close to 40 different stakeholders were interviewed within 15 municipalities in 2 regions in the middle of Sweden. The results illustrate that little attention was paid to the use of social entrepreneurship in these communities and regions. There is also little knowledge regarding the very concept of social entrepreneurship among municipal officials and politicians. Instead, strong focus is placed on creating jobs in the municipalities, where social entrepreneurship can play an important role. Meanwhile, sparsely populated municipalities face challenges in the form of an aging population and population decline. Furthermore, there is also a lack of competence. The companies, for their part, are aware of the important role they play in creating sustainable development in the municipality. The companies employ a large proportion and need skills. From all this, the conclusion is drawn that collaboration between different actors is necessary to create sustainable development.

Keywords

Introduction

Since the United Nations’ (UN) member states approved the Agenda 2030 and its Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) in 2015, this framework has become a key field in both discussions and policy work for addressing societal challenges (George et al. 2016; Griggs et al. 2013; Günzel-Jensen et al. 2020). The SDG framework demands cross-sectorial partnerships requiring global and local partners to join on a set of goals assumed to be important and legitimate. For social entrepreneurs, the ambitions of the SDG framework require them to engage and contribute with their local knowledge and innovative capacities. The framework with its SDGs can also potentially offer benefits for social businesses, such as strengthening their relationships with stakeholders by increasing the legitimacy of their social actions and facilitating resource mobilization by bundling their activities for addressing the SDGs collectively (Grodal and O’Mahony 2017; Castellas and Ormiston 2018).

The terms “societal entrepreneurship” and “social entrepreneurship” are used synonymously in this chapter, even if there are some minor language differences. A societal entrepreneur, or societal entrepreneurship, refers to, for example, people who take their own initiatives to improve things that are missing or do not work in society. This can be about anything from sparsely populated areas to new companies with a social dimension. The word “social” here has been borrowed from the English “social.” In Sweden, the word “social” is often not quite as broad, because the foremost purpose of social enterprise is the societal benefit in the form of environmental and/or social sustainability combined with economic sustainability. In other words, even beyond the social aspect, we believe the term “societal entrepreneurship” better highlights the wide perspective. In this chapter, both terms are used and should be seen as synonyms.

Social entrepreneurship has emerged as an important field of research in recent decades (Gandhi and Raina 2018). For instance, the emergence of social businesses in Europe began in Italy in the early 1990s (Defourny and Nyssens 2006). Later, this issue was discussed and included in the EU in 1996. Furthermore, Littlewood and Khan (2018) argue that, for the past 20 years, the concept of social entrepreneurship has grown in importance, both in practice and among researchers. Social entrepreneurship can be defined as the “innovative use and combination of resources to pursue opportunities to catalyse social change and/or address social needs” (Mair and Martí 2006, p. 37). Social entrepreneurs comprise individuals (or groups of individuals) who identify, evaluate, and exploit opportunities for social value creation through commercial activity using a range of resources at their disposal (Bacq and Janssen 2011; Littlewood and Khan 2018).

Gawell et al. (2009, p. 8–9) also discuss and define societal entrepreneurship as follows:

What do we mean by social entrepreneurship? That entrepreneurship is about that most people agree on; the entrepreneur creates something new—sometimes by razing something old. For us, then, entrepreneurship is not limited to starting a business, it is more generally to launch an activity or organisation. What the social entrepreneur initiates has a clear socially beneficial purpose. It can be anything from service in the countryside to the production of organic food or fair-trade clothing. It can also be organised in many different forms, such as a non-profit association, limited liability company, cooperative, or foundation. Social entrepreneurs are everywhere. You may have met them as enthusiasts in the cultural festival or the village development group, but you can just as easily meet social entrepreneurs in the public sector, in business, or in the research world. They appear where community building for one reason or another does not work—it may be where common service is lacking and neither the public sector nor the market want to take responsibility, or in new areas where institutions have not yet developed. Social entrepreneurs in the borderland often act between the traditional sectors—between non-profit and commercial, between public sector and private market, between academia and the outside world.

Today, social entrepreneurs contribute to building sustainable societies for the future. The starting point for this study consists of examining the municipalities’ role in creating conditions for social entrepreneurship. Municipalities usually consist of both elected politicians, who hold their position for 4 years in Sweden, and a large proportion of salaried employees who, in their role as employees of the municipality, must create positive conditions for the municipality, including for the population, the companies, and public authorities.

This chapter is based on Sweden and its precondition for societal and social entrepreneurship. Sweden is divided into 20 regions and 290 municipalities. Municipalities and regions are self-governing and governed by regionally and locally elected politicians. Considerable regional differences exist between these 290 municipalities and 20 regions in Sweden. The starting point for this study is that it focusses on 2 regions with 15 municipalities. These municipalities are located in the middle of Sweden, but they face major challenges in that they are located in sparsely populated areas.

Sweden still faces numerous obstacles to societal entrepreneurship. In practice, it is quite cumbersome for the socially beneficial initiatives to establish and grow, as the system lacks functioning support structures. Often, the initiatives end up “in the middle” – they do not fit into the market structure with bank financing, venture capital, and strict financial accounting nor in the public sector grant system (Gawell et al. 2009). Societal entrepreneurship research has highlighted six different dimensions that constitute obstacles: (1) understanding, (2) knowledge, (3) access to capital, (4) regulations, (5) support/networks, and (6) legitimacy. Many (not least of which being decision-makers) are incomprehensible to the “nonprofit commercialism” of societal entrepreneurship; it does not fit our division into private, public, or nonprofit, and no one takes responsibility for the issues.

Furthermore, few know what social entrepreneurship means. Knowledge is lacking in terms of, for example, how to measure the benefit or gain of societal entrepreneurship in different sectors. Societal entrepreneurs’ views on profit (social, environmental, and economic) also do not agree with banks, investment funds, and venture capitalists. Therefore, it remains difficult to find financing. Regulations that do not particularly value social, ethical, or environmental goals can also leave social entrepreneurs with a worse starting point (for instance, bank loans, public procurement, etc.). The regulations can also pose an obstacle for cross-border activities. Societal entrepreneurship represents a complex business that requires knowledge in numerous areas. Today, there are no platforms for exchanging experiences, requiring every societal entrepreneur to learn everything from scratch. Many societal entrepreneurs are also dismissed with the label “fiery soul,” which is not associated with long-term growth or social responsibility. Put simply, acting entrepreneurially and taking one’s own initiatives are not always perceived as positive (Gawell et al., 2009).

Social entrepreneurs are among the best at driving development within global sustainability goals. Despite this, however, social entrepreneurs are still treated with suspicion and doubt in Sweden (SEFORUM 2017). A social entrepreneur describes a person who has identified a societal problem as well as an innovative solution (Wallenberg 2018). Social entrepreneurs also share the same characteristics as traditional entrepreneurs. For instance, they often use business methods and principles. What distinguishes a social entrepreneur is intention. A social entrepreneur measures success not in financial gain but rather in profit for society, that is, how much the idea has helped solve the identified problem. Some social entrepreneurs run their activities as companies, while others do so as foundations or nonprofit associations. A part of the social entrepreneurs combines different organizational forms (Thompson 2002). In this way, the term “social entrepreneurship” refers to the person behind a new solution to a societal problem. This should not be confused with the term “social enterprise” (the organizational form chosen by some social entrepreneurs), social innovation (an idea that, when implemented, leads to solving a societal challenge), or CSR (corporate social responsibility, aimed at corporate responsibility for a more sustainable world; Wallenberg 2018).

Social entrepreneurship can contribute to creating a more sustainable society, which represents the goal of Agenda 2030. Through Agenda 2030, the countries of the world have committed themselves to eradicating poverty and hunger everywhere from 1 January 2016 to 2030. Beyond this, they have also committed to combating inequalities within and between countries; building peaceful, just, and inclusive societies; protecting human rights and promoting equality and the empowerment of women and girls; and ensuring lasting protection for the planet and its natural resources. This political declaration states the vision and intention of the agenda. The declaration is characterized by a high level of ambition and a clear vision in terms of striving to meet global challenges, such as eradicating global poverty and promoting a sustainable future. It further clarifies that sustainable development is crucial for our common future and that all three dimensions of sustainable development (economic, environmental, and social) must work together.

In this way, Agenda 2030 reaffirms the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and its subsequent conventions as a starting point for the new agenda, as well as human rights as universal, interdependent, and indivisible. The 17 global goals and the 169 subgoals for sustainable development are universal, integrated, and indivisible with regard to different national circumstances, capacities, and levels of development, as well as with respect for national policies and priorities. The synergies and integrated nature of the global goals are crucial for ensuring that Agenda 2030’s goal of sustainable development is realized. To this end, each government will decide on how to incorporate global goals into national planning processes, policies, and strategies (The Swedish Government 2022). The 17 different sustainability goals contribute in different ways to a more sustainable society. For the purposes of this chapter, the focus is primarily placed on SDGs 4, 5, 8, 9, and 11, which consist of the following: SDG 4 pursues good education for all; SDG 5 pursues gender equality; SDG 8 pursues decent working conditions and economic growth; SDG 9 pursues sustainable industry, innovations, and infrastructure; and SDG 11 pursues sustainable cities and communities.

Purpose of This Chapter

The purpose of this chapter is to investigate and discuss the concept of social entrepreneurship in relation to the SDGs from the perspective of municipalities. This is further discussed through the following research questions in this chapter:

• RQ1: How do municipalities view social entrepreneurship and its role in contributing to a sustainable society?

• RQ2: How can social entrepreneurship contribute to sustainable development in sparsely populated areas?

• RQ3: What are the challenges in sparsely populated municipalities?

Methodology

This study was conducted with a qualitative design. The purpose is to investigate and discuss the concept of social entrepreneurship in relation to SDGs from the perspective of municipalities. To this end, qualitative interviews were chosen as the data-collection method. The advantage of conducting interviews is that they afford the opportunity for deeper conversations with a greater breadth of answers as well as the chance to ask follow-up questions. The interview guide was created based on previous research focusing on different themes. Examples of questions asked include the following:

• 1. How does the interviewee view the concept of social entrepreneurs and social entrepreneurship?

• 2. What knowledge is there in social entrepreneurship?

• 3. What are the conditions in the municipality?

• 4. Which entrepreneurs in the municipality offer positive examples of social entrepreneurship?

• 5. How does the municipality cooperate with companies in the region?

• 6. How does the interviewee view the concept of social entrepreneurs and social entrepreneurship?

• 7. What knowledge is there in social entrepreneurship?

• 8. What are the conditions in the municipality?

• 9. How does the municipality cooperate with companies in the region?

This study was conducted in central Sweden, where two different counties were chosen: Jämtland and Västernorrland. In these 15 municipalities in total, interviews were conducted with politicians, officials at the municipality, and entrepreneurs. As a result, a total of 38 interviews were conducted. The interviews were primarily conducted on site at the municipalities and the offices of the various companies. However, a small number were conducted through telephone interviews. All interviews lasted between 30 min and 2 h. The various interviewed stakeholders are presented below (Table 1).

Table 1 Description of the respondents

The interviews were transcribed, after which a thematic analysis was conducted. From this, themes and subthemes emerged.

Description of the Municipalities in the Regions of Jämtland and Västernorrland

For this study, 2 regions and their 15 different municipalities were selected. As illustrated in the Fig. 1, Jämtland County consists of Z and Västernorrland County consists of Y. The counties border each other and are centrally located in Sweden geographically.

Fig. 1

Map of Sweden’s regions and municipalities (Wikipedia, https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:SverigesL%C3%A4n2007mKod.svg; https://sv.wikipedia.org/wiki/J%C3%A4mtlands_l%C3%A4n#/media/Fil:J%C3%A4mtland_County.png; https://sv.wikipedia.org/wiki/V%C3%A4sternorrlands_l%C3%A4n#/media/Fil:V%C3%A4sternorrland_County.png; https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/)

Jämtland County (Z) consists of the following municipalities: Berg, Bräcke, Härjedalen, Krokom, Ragunda, Strömsund, Åre, and Östersund. Västernorrland County (Y) consists of the following municipalities; Härnösand, Kramfors, Sollefteå, Sundsvall, Timrå, Ånge, and Örnsköldsvik. The largest city in Jämtland is Östersund, whereas Sundsvall is the largest in Västernorrland.

To obtain an effective overview of the conditions faced by each municipality, key figures for each municipality are described below. The statistics used for each municipality are from 2021 (Ekonomifakta 2021).

The Municipalities of Jämtland County

The population is small for all municipalities, even though there are large regional differences where some municipalities have fewer or approximately 10,000 inhabitants. Krokom is located near the central town of Östersund and is therefore easier to attract residents, as it is possible to commute to work in Östersund. Half of the municipalities possess a reduced population, while Åre experiences strong growth. Their strong growth can be explained by the fact that, during the COVID-19 pandemic, many chose to settle in their holiday homes instead of staying in smaller apartments in the big cities.

In addition to Krokom, cohabiting municipalities possess lower incomes than the Swedish average of SEK 304,000 (which is approximately EUR 30,400). All municipalities possess a higher tax rate compared to the Swedish average, and many municipalities have a low proportion of highly educated people. An interesting figure, however, is that the proportion of entrepreneurs is higher for all municipalities except Östersund when compared to the Swedish average. The proportion of people who have started companies is also relatively high for all municipalities. Additionally, there are also longer levels of unemployment compared to the Swedish average, which is positive. One explanation may come from the higher proportion of self-employed people, which means that people are not unemployed but instead run their own companies (Table 2).

Table 2 Jämtland’s municipalities

Regarding the companies’ climate and the annual survey made by the entrepreneurs, the municipalities end up relatively low. Only the Bergs municipality stands out at rank 97 out of 290. By contrast, half of all municipalities are among the worst municipalities for entrepreneurs in Sweden in terms of this survey. There are no large private companies, but many are instead employed in the municipality’s operations. Regarding tax revenues, it is fairly close to the Swedish average, except in Östersund, which has higher levels. However, it turns out that all municipalities receive state compensation at a significantly higher rate than the average for their municipal activities. The municipalities also possess higher costs than the Swedish average.

The Municipalities of Västernorrland County

In terms of population, there are more people living in the Västernorrland municipalities compared to Jämtland. However, considerable variations exist between the different municipalities, where the largest city is Sundsvall, followed by Örnsköldsvik. These municipalities are located along the seacoast and along the largest road in Sweden, making them well located geographically.

The population is older than the Swedish average, and all municipalities are below the average income for Sweden. Most of the municipalities are struggling with population decline, except for the largest city, Sundsvall, which is increasing by 0.5. The municipalities also possess high tax levels for their population, all of which are above the Swedish average. Half of the municipalities possess a low level of education, with all municipalities being below average. Conversely, however, three sparsely populated municipalities have a good proportion of self-employed people, even though the proportion of startups is lower than the Swedish average. All municipalities feature high unemployment and a high level of early retirees. Regarding the business climate, the Timrå municipality stands out compared to all other municipalities in both Jämtland and Västernorrland, being ranked 38 out of the 290 municipalities (Table 3).

Table 3 Västernorrland’s municipalities

There are two large companies in both Örnsköldsvik and Sundsvall. Furthermore, there are also many employees in the municipal operations. The municipalities possess a high level of tax revenue, which constitutes an advantage. Additionally, they also receive a higher level of compensation from the state, which contributes positively. The municipalities feature a high cost level and are well above the Swedish average.

This background information regarding the municipalities and their conditions is crucial for understanding how the municipalities’ politicians and officials act and prioritize their activities.

Findings and Discussion

The following sections are structured as follows: First, (1) concepts and definitions of entrepreneurship, social entrepreneurship, and social entrepreneurship are discussed. The results are then presented in terms of (2) the challenges faced by the municipalities and what are considered important issues to invest in. Finally, (3) how the municipalities create meeting places and arenas for entrepreneurs in the municipality’s companies is presented.

Concepts and Definitions of Traditional Entrepreneurship, Societal Entrepreneurship, and Social Entrepreneurship

Regardless of whether they are politicians , officials, or businesses (e.g., social enterprises), the respondents possess little knowledge of what social and societal entrepreneurship are. The results indicate that there is often confusion between these terms and traditional entrepreneurship. The respondent 1 has gained some knowledge of the concepts of social and societal entrepreneurship, but she admits that she often confuses them.

Several municipalities emphasize that social entrepreneurship represents an area that will become more important in the future and will complement the public service sector (R16, R20). Furthermore, this offers a way to bring together public administration with private organizations that are actually competing to develop sparsely populated regions.

Some respondents pointed out that social entrepreneurship is about getting people with social challenges into the labor market. It is businesses that “start up social enterprises for people in vulnerable positions, or who in one way or another have ended up outside the labour market” (R5). This can be seen as a clear focus on SDG 8 regarding decent work and economic growth.

Social entrepreneurship also plays an important role in various municipalities and today contributes to solving problems that exist in society, but where no natural actor takes responsibility for the issue. As one respondent explained, “For a municipality as ours, it is a way to develop our region” (R16). When taking a broad view of the sustainable goals , this can be placed under SDG 11: sustainable cities and communities.

Challenges in the Municipalities

The municipalities (politicians and civil servants) share a common picture of what they should invest in. The main focus for all municipalities is to create more jobs. If there are jobs, people move to the town to a greater extent. This result is not surprising but rather lies in what a municipality should invest in. The SDG 8 concerning decent work and economic growth is clearly in focus here, but for some municipalities, the SDG 9 concerning industry, innovation, and infrastructure is also applicable.

Most of the municipalities face major challenges with a declining as well as aging population. There is a younger population in the age of 30 who moved after school, but who want to return; however, there are no qualified jobs, which means they do not return. There is also a challenge in getting more people into work. The people who are outside the labor market often lack the skills desired by potential employers, which means that the municipalities also need to invest in education and skill development (R28). With these challenges, the SDG 4 concerning quality education is in focus, since a match needs to be made between provided education and the needs of both employers and employees. Regarding the challenges of younger persons moving from the small municipalities, especially younger women, the SDG 5 concerning gender equality is crucial, raising the question of how municipalities can attract younger women to stay there.

When a municipality possesses a low level of education, this often leads to difficulties in obtaining a job. Furthermore, there is also a group that did not complete upper secondary school, and it is important for the municipality to work to ensure that more young people complete upper secondary school in order to make it easier to obtain a job in the future (R28). The quality education (SDG 4) is crucial in this regard, and the small municipalities need to cooperate in this matter, since not all of them are large enough to provide the necessary education.

Despite the fact that the municipalities are located in a sparsely populated area and possess a lower level of education compared to the Swedish average, a large portion of the jobs are in the private sectors. Specifically, private employers account for 75% of the jobs in the municipalities, which represents a large proportion. This means that the municipalities remain dependent on creating positive conditions for these companies so that they can grow and employ even more people. The SDG 8 concerning decent work and economic growth is definitely the goal to consider here.

The municipalities also feature considerable differences in the conditions and challenges they face. For instance, a few municipalities feature a city that is the region’s capital or city of residence, which more easily attracts people as well as companies to move there. However, there are considerable differences between the two different counties in their proportion of entrepreneurs. Historically, some regions have been more entrepreneurial, while others have instead had few, but large, employers (industries). This means a greater challenge when jobs disappear, requiring people to create more jobs of their own. There is also an expectation that it is “someone else” who will create such a job: “The population is not very entrepreneurial, as it has not received it with breast milk. It is customary for the parents to have been teachers, worked in public administration – i.e. in short, been employed” (R6-7).

Many of the municipalities feature a rich association life where people are engaged in nonprofit involvement. It is emphasized in these municipalities that association life is important, but also, the size of the population affects how much one can offer in terms of quality of life and culture. As such, it becomes difficult to maintain service functions when the population decreases, leading to reduced tax revenues. As one respondent explained, it is “difficult to maintain public service on such a large and so sparsely populated area, which does not provide any opportunities for economies of scale” (R2). The SDG 11 concerning sustainable cities and communities is important and poses a considerable challenge for the studied municipalities.

The companies’ respondents further highlight the role that the company plays in the region. They are aware that they also possess a social responsibility toward the region. This involves providing opportunities for people to live on the site by offering jobs. However, there is also a need on the part of companies for employable staff to be available. As such, they emphasize that a reciprocity and dependency exist between them. The entrepreneurs also emphasize that they do not have much exchange with the municipality itself. The municipality exists, but they do not have regular contacts or exchanges, with the focus instead being mostly about needs, such as when they need a permit for different types of activities. It is therefore “very important for the company’s development to take social responsibility in the society in which they operate. In a small town and in a small municipality, it is important that entrepreneurs think about the opportunities and consequences that the companies’ operations can mean for the local community” (R3). Companies in a municipality and region also play an important role in reaching the SDG 11 goal of sustainable cities and communities.

The number of self-employed people has previously increased and represents an important aspect of the municipality’s development. Entrepreneurs are needed to create jobs and sustainable development. As one respondent explained, “Another big possibility is that a large proportion of the population has chosen to run a business—13.8% of the population are entrepreneurs in one form or another. It is also a way to create jobs for oneself instead of having to move” (R5). The SDG 8 concerning decent work and economic growth, as well as the SDG 9 concerning industry, innovation, and infrastructure, represent two development goals that the business owners are involved in to a large extent and can contribute to quite a bit.

Cooperation Among the Stakeholders in the Municipality

From the municipality’s side, they emphasize the importance of cooperating with companies in the region. All municipalities highlight that they should interact with the companies and create arenas or meeting places where companies meet but also where the municipality’s officials interact with the companies. It is through collaboration between the various stakeholders in the municipality, and through their subsequent cooperation and shared responsibility, that they can create a sustainable future together. The municipalities further elaborated that, in order to address the challenges that sparsely populated municipalities face, a joint effort is needed. It is “that the collaboration between the private and public sector is A & O. Collaborations contribute to creating a good dialogue within the municipality, and the respondents believe that it improves the opportunities for development. It is also important with collaborations, because in such a small municipality, the municipality is usually the largest client” (R4). It is through cooperation that changes can be achieved to create more sustainable growth in the municipalities.

Some municipalities further realize that their contribution is to find new and more creative ways to create collaboration around social challenges within the municipalities. As explained in the interview, “In order to be able to develop the local social entrepreneurship, respondent 3 says that it is important that there are opportunities for a quick and open dialogue with the municipality” (R3). For all involved stakeholders in a municipality and/or region, they together play an important role in reaching the SDG 11 goal of sustainable cities and communities. Furthermore, their nonprofit sector and the inhabitants’ commitment to nonprofit work also play an important role in building sustainability in an area, as expressed by R5: “The non-profit sector, because there is a great deal of entrepreneurship here, and it becomes a natural meeting place.” With the engagement in nonprofit work and the meeting place provided by such organization, this represents a great place for sustainable engagement and development.

Conclusions

Several conclusions can be drawn from this study: First, this study concludes that the municipalities possess weak knowledge regarding social entrepreneurship. Furthermore, this subject is often confused with traditional entrepreneurship, which focusses on profit maximization.

In summary, this study reveals that municipalities need to cooperate on social challenges in their municipalities. To this end, several different stakeholders can contribute to sustainable development. The big question, however, concerns who takes the lead and who in the municipalities can ensure that positive conditions are created for sustainable development. Social entrepreneurship remains dependent on the entrepreneur who is driven to make a difference, but issues are also faced concerning whose responsibility lies with the municipalities, which means that there is a collaboration between them.

The SDGs in particular focus for this study include SDGs 4, 5, 8, 9, and 11. It is central for the municipalities to be able to provide quality education (SDG 4) to their inhabitants, but since many of the municipalities are small, they need to cooperate to ensure that sufficient education is provided at least within the larger region. Meanwhile, the SDG 5 regarding gender equality poses a particular issue for the small municipalities, since young women move away to larger cities. Many of them then obtain a higher education and good jobs, but there are no qualified jobs in the municipality to attract them back. For the employers, it is thus crucial that they provide decent work and economic growth (SDG 8), as well as jobs at industries with innovation and effective infrastructure (SDG 9). Here, it is also important that the officials at the municipalities provide effective services and that the politicians make decisions that positively influence the trade and industry. High-quality education (SDG 4), gender equality (SDG 5), decent work and economic growth (SDG 8), and industry, innovation, and infrastructure (SDG 9) are all together important for creating sustainable cities and communities (SDG 11). To this end, involved stakeholders play important roles, as figure 2 illustrates.

Fig. 2

Social entrepreneurship for sustainable development (own creation)

The figure presents the cooperation needed for sustainable development. The conclusion from this study is that collaboration between different stakeholders is required to create sustainable development. The importance of different stakeholders for the SDG 11 is central.

There is also a need for cooperation in a society where everyone must contribute in their own way. In order to build and develop such a sustainable society in sparsely populated areas, different actors are required to, together and in exchange with each other, contribute to this development. Furthermore, the different municipalities face different challenges, which everyone must contribute to together in order to create a sustainable society.

A limitation of the study is that it was conducted in only one country in Europe. Therefore, there might be contextual differences. It would therefore be interesting to conduct a similar study in another country. Furthermore, a limitation is that only qualitative interviews were used as a data-collection method.