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

Law, Joey; Ong, Jeen Wei; Aziz, Kamarulzaman Ab. Article Cultural heritage safeguarding through social entrepreneurship: a case study analysis in George Town UNESCO World heritage site, Malaysia Cogent Business & Management Provided in Cooperation with: Taylor & Francis Group Suggested Citation: Law, Joey; Ong, Jeen Wei; Aziz, Kamarulzaman Ab. (2024) : Cultural heritage safeguarding through social entrepreneurship: a case study analysis in George Town UNESCO World heritage site, Malaysia, Cogent Business & Management, ISSN 2331-1975, Taylor & Francis, Abingdon, Vol. 11, Iss. 1, pp. 1-19, https://doi.org/10.1080/23311975.2024.2347964 This Version is available at: https://hdl.handle.net/10419/326256 Standard-Nutzungsbedingungen: Die Dokumente auf EconStor dürfen zu eigenen wissenschaftlichen Zwecken und zum Privatgebrauch gespeichert und kopiert werden. Sie dürfen die Dokumente nicht für öffentliche oder kommerzielle Zwecke vervielfältigen, öffentlich ausstellen, öffentlich zugänglich machen, vertreiben oder anderweitig nutzen. Sofern die Verfasser die Dokumente unter Open-Content-Lizenzen (insbesondere CC-Lizenzen) zur Verfügung gestellt haben sollten, gelten abweichend von diesen Nutzungsbedingungen die in der dort genannten Lizenz gewährten Nutzungsrechte. Terms of use: Documents in EconStor may be saved and copied for your personal and scholarly purposes. You are not to copy documents for public or commercial purposes, to exhibit the documents publicly, to make them publicly available on the internet, or to distribute or otherwise use the documents in public. If the documents have been made available under an Open Content Licence (especially Creative Commons Licences), you may exercise further usage rights as specified in the indicated licence. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ Cogent Business & Management ISSN: 2331-1975 (Online) Journal homepage: www.tandfonline.com/journals/oabm20 Cultural heritage safeguarding through social entrepreneurship: a case study analysis in George Town UNESCO World heritage site, Malaysia Joey Law, Jeen Wei Ong & Kamarulzaman Ab. Aziz To cite this article: Joey Law, Jeen Wei Ong & Kamarulzaman Ab. Aziz (2024) Cultural heritage safeguarding through social entrepreneurship: a case study analysis in George Town UNESCO World heritage site, Malaysia, Cogent Business & Management, 11:1, 2347964, DOI: 10.1080/23311975.2024.2347964 To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/23311975.2024.2347964 © 2024 Multimedia University, Malaysia. Published by Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group Published online: 10 May 2024. Submit your article to this journal Article views: 1625 View related articles View Crossmark data Citing articles: 1 View citing articles Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=oabm20 EntrEprEnEurship & innovation | rEsEarch articlE Cogent Business & ManageMent 2024, VoL. 11, no. 1, 2347964 Cultural heritage safeguarding through social entrepreneurship: a case study analysis in George Town UNESCO World heritage site, Malaysia Joey lawa , Jeen Wei onga and Kamarulzaman ab. azizb aFaculty of Management, Multimedia university, Cyberjaya, Malaysia; bFaculty of Business, Multimedia university, Melaka, Malaysia ABSTRACT this article suggests social entrepreneurship, driven by the focal point of social Entrepreneurship orientation, as a mechanism to safeguard the cultural heritage of George town, a unEsco World heritage site, through the case study of two entities - a legally registered organisation (orG01) and an informal group (orG02). Given the complex mechanism of social entrepreneurship, this study employed a qualitative approach utilising the theory of change framework to dissect the intricated aspects of social entrepreneurship initiatives into processes and challenges, focusing on inputs, activities, outputs, outcomes, and impacts. the key findings shed light on the roles of two entities embodying the characteristics of social Entrepreneurship orientation in their safeguarding efforts. lastly, this article contributes to a practical understanding and possible development of a sustainable model for cultural heritage safeguarding by comprehending the social entrepreneurship process and aligning with sustainable Development Goal 11 of fostering sustainable cities and communities. 1. Introduction historically, George town became the intersection of multicultural society when it was turned into a free trading port by the British East india company (penang port commission, 2023; Jackson, 2013). referring to Figure 1, George town, penang is strategically positioned between china and the indian subcontinent and served as a crucial commercial port for the British, facilitating trade and commerce between these two significant regions (Zhao et al., 2019). as an initiative to develop George town, the British encouraged more settlers by allowing them to claim as much land as they could clear (penang port commission, 2023). this has triggered a large wave of immigration from china and india to Malaya. Besides tangible items, the settlers also brought their intangible cultural heritage. it is indisputable that penang possesses a unique cultural heritage where many religions and cultures meet and coexist due to the influences of British colonisation and mass emigration. as a result, George town was awarded the unEsco World heritage site (Whs) title in conjunction with Melaka on 7th July 2008 for having outstanding universal values (ouvs); the title intends to preserve the cultural heritage for future generations (unEsco, 2019). Figure 2 shows that 259.42 hectares in George town fall under the Buffer and core Zone (unEsco, 2007). the inscription encloses the core Zone and Buffer Zone, which surrounds and protects the core Zone, ensuring holistic preservation of the heritage site (unEsco, 2007). © 2024 Multimedia university, Malaysia. Published by informa uK Limited, trading as taylor & Francis group CONTACT Jeen Wei ong [email protected].my Faculty of Management, Multimedia university, Cyberjaya, Malaysia https://doi.org/10.1080/23311975.2024.2347964 this is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. the terms on which this article has been published allow the posting of the accepted Manuscript in a repository by the author(s) or with their consent. ARTICLE HISTORY received 26 December 2023 revised 22 February 2024 accepted 22 april 2024 SUBJECTS asian studies (general), social entrepreneurship, anthropology - soc sci, culture, issues; cultural heritage KEYWORDS social entrepreneurship initiatives; sustainability initiatives; theory of change; cultural heritage safeguarding; urban heritage conservation; sDG alignment REVIEWING EDITOR Grant Wilson, university of regina Faculty of Business administration, canada 2 J. laW Etal. Following the inscription, tourism in George town unEsco World heritage site (GtWhs) has boomed, and it has since gained attention from many stakeholders. tourism-related activities contribute significantly to penang’s economy and turn penang into a bustling island (ong, 2022). Even though the coviD-19 pandemic slowed the tourism sector, it is on a rebounding trend (Mok, 2023; Bernama, 2023; solhi, 2021). indisputably, the Whs title did more than promote and lift penang to international status. however, it also protected the tangible cultural heritage (tch), such as built heritage within the GtWhs, from being demolished to make room for high-rise and modernised buildings (Kaur, 2019). unfortunately, there are some harmful effects from the listing, specifically on the intangible cultural heritage (ich) – indirectly and unintentionally changes the social fabric in GtWhs, causing mass exodus and ceasing of traditional businesses (Foo & Krishnapillai, 2018; teoh, 2018; Barron, 2017). after the exodus process, built heritage is often turned into hotels and cafes to cater to tourism-related activities with little to no elements of ich attached as the living cultural heritage has taken them along during the exodus process. apart from that, the property prices for the built heritage are constantly increasing, plus the prohibitive cost with tons of guidelines on upkeeping; those unable to sell or rent will eventually be abandoned and left to rot (lo, 2020). Based on the latest official report by penang island city council (MBpp) in 2020, there are reportedly 73 units of abandoned built heritage within GtWhs (lo, 2020). Moreover, time-related factors, including globalisation, inflation, and social cohesion, threaten GtWhs’s cultural heritage in the long term. Globally, it is a known fact that safeguarding cultural heritage is a long-term process that requires a constant flow of funds (Mekonnen etal., 2022; unEsco, 2016). nevertheless, one of the many obstacles in the safeguarding process is the need for more funds. sadly, the dying of cultural heritage does not rank as a present issue requiring immediate action; thereby, it is less likely to receive enough attention and funding from the government and private sector. Governments have a statutory responsibility to provide funds to safeguard the cultural heritage, but with the shrinking of finances and increase in social issues, there is a gap left unmet. Factors such as inflation make safeguarding cultural heritage costs skyrocket, especially the cost of preserving built heritage. as Mohd nawi et al. (2020) mentioned, the risks and costs in conserving and preserving built heritage are higher and often more complicated given the rigid set of guidelines to maintain the built heritage’s authenticity. the disappearance of cultural heritage is viewed as a social issue because cultural heritage is a valuable shared asset that reflects past 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). coGEnt BusinEss & ManaGEMEnt 3 generations’ human legacy (Mekonnen etal., 2022; harvey, 2019). Besides, safeguarding cultural heritage receives less attention and funds than other contemporary issues in sectors such as health, education, and environment (singh & lee, 2023; British council, 2018); these sectors are deemed more vital. For the past few decades, social entrepreneurship has emerged as a mechanism to accomplish social change by bridging gaps unmet by the government and private sector. Establishing social enterprises comes with the main aim of addressing targeted social and environmental issues. For instance, hong Kong has proved that social entrepreneurship is an effective mechanism to safeguard cultural heritage through the revitalisation of abandoned built heritage, such as the old tai o police station and lai chi Kok hospital, into a heritage hotel and an institution that operates as social enterprises and promoting of the chinese culture (cho, 2022; Jtia, 2021; chung, 2012). therefore, social entrepreneurship is anticipated to positively impact the efforts of safeguarding the cultural heritage of GtWhs as it is proven that social entrepreneurship activities can solve contemporary social and environmental issues (Dickel et al., 2020; Zhang & li, 2017; Dacin et al., 2010; Dees et al., 2001). Given social entrepreneurship’s complex yet ambiguous circumstances, this article seeks to understand its process in the context of GtWhs. although social entrepreneurship is practised widely, there is neither a core business model nor a unifying definition to pin down the term. Besides, Malaysia’s lack of a 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/). 4 J. laW Etal. legal framework for social enterprise does not stop organisations and groups from working to safeguard GtWhs’s cultural heritage. social entrepreneurship in Malaysia is still in its infancy but gaining traction. this article will analyse case studies of one organisation and one informal group in GtWhs to comprehend the social entrepreneurship process through the lens of social Entrepreneurship orientation (sEo) using elements from the theory of change (toc). in this context, this article attempts to fill a research gap by anchoring on the perspective of business management – the role of social entrepreneurship in the effort to safeguard the cultural heritage in GtWhs. apart from that, there is a lack of (social) entrepreneurship studies in safeguarding the cultural heritage within GtWhs, leaving an under-explored gap. theoretically, this article also contributes to social entrepreneurship and cultural anthropology literature. this article is structured into seven main sections: introduction, literature review, research methodology, findings, cross-case analysis, discussion, and lastly, conclusion. 2. Literature review the lack of resources for safeguarding will threaten GtWhs’s cultural heritage. the disappearance of cultural heritage is a social issue, and this article suggested social entrepreneurship as a mechanism to address this contemporary social issue. First, a literature review on cultural heritage safeguarding and social entrepreneurship will be discussed, followed by sEo, as it helps to create a boundary in the organisations’ and groups’ selection process. additionally, toc, alongside the elements, will be discussed to understand the social entrepreneurship process, followed by a discussion of formal and informal groups. 2.1. The importance of cultural heritage safeguarding anthropologically, culture represents the shared system of explicit and implicit knowledge within a specific group, while heritage encompasses the cultural aspects transmitted through generations (pappas & McKelvie, 2022; hudelson, 2004). cultural heritage embodies values, traditions, skills, knowledge, places, artistic expressions, languages, and values that signify a shared relationship within a community. Established in 1945, the united nations Educational, scientific and cultural organization (unEsco) aims to promote global peace, sustainable development, and human rights (unEsco, 2024). cultural heritage safeguarding is one of the major focus areas for unEsco, involving protecting tangible and intangible elements, as it fosters a sense of identity and belonging within communities. sustainable Development Goal (sDG) 11.4 emphasises the importance of safeguarding cultural heritage, explicitly targeting preserving cultural and natural heritage (united nations, 2022). stakeholders should strengthen efforts to safeguard cultural heritage because it contributes to resilience and sustainable development (hosagrahar, 2017). also, safeguarding cultural heritage is crucial for broader sustainability goals, including economic growth and poverty reduction (unEsco, 2015). Despite unEsco’s initiative to spearhead the efforts to safeguard cultural heritage through various conventions, it has yet to mitigate the inherent complexities and challenges associated with these safeguarding efforts. hence, traditional safeguarding is insufficient when facing rapid social change and thereby requires a new adaptation, such as using sustainable mechanisms to safeguard cultural heritage. this article focuses on understanding the significance of cultural heritage safeguarding within the context of GtWhs. lastly, through comprehensive analysis, this article provides insights into social entrepreneurship as an effective mechanism for safeguarding cultural heritage. 2.2. The panorama of social entrepreneurship in Malaysia the practices and contributions of social entrepreneurship may be publicly and widely gaining support and recognition, but the term itself is still trying to achieve validity academically (Karré & Meerkerk, 2023). apart from being vaguely and boundaryless defined, social entrepreneurship also continues to challenge the functional perspective of business and economics with no core business model or specific economic measurement scales (Dickel etal., 2020; Weller & ran, 2020; Wu etal., 2020; abu-saifan, 2012). the definition of social entrepreneurship is inconclusive, but the fundamental idea of social entrepreneurship is relatively simple and straight to the point; it is all about doing business and addressing any coGEnt BusinEss & ManaGEMEnt 5 social issues that are left unsolved by the government and private sectors with its resources such as earned income, knowledge and skills, among others (MEcD, 2023; osberg & Martin, 2015; Doherty etal., 2014). although social enterprises aim for profitability in the interest of sustainability, the primary goal always lies in addressing societal issues (osberg & Martin, 2015). Just a decade ago, the concept and activities of social entrepreneurship were hardly known or discussed in Malaysia (abdul Kadir et al., 2019). in the past few years, social entrepreneurship has gained popularity and attracted the attention of many stakeholders, including the government. in 2015, the government recognised the importance of social entrepreneurship towards society and launched the Malaysia social Enterprise Blueprint, which entailed a three-year strategic roadmap to support the development of social enterprises (Dna, 2015). unfortunately, three years was inadequate for social entrepreneurship to be a self-sustaining sector nor to establish a legal framework to cater to social enterprises; the ambiguity and challenges in social entrepreneurship remain. therefore, building on the work from 2018, the government launched the social Entrepreneurship action Framework 2030 (sEMy2030) in april 2022 to support and spur the development and growth of social entrepreneurship and social enterprise (Galimberti, 2022). With the sEMy2030, the penang state government aspires to grow more social enterprises by 2030 (Moroter, 2023). currently, a social enterprise in Malaysia is neither recognised as a conventional business nor a non-governmental organisation (nGo); instead, organisations can be accredited and formally recognised as one (MEcD, 2023; Yeow & ng, 2022). Even with the vagueness and challenges, it does not hinder social entrepreneurship activities. according to the data published by the Ministry of Entrepreneur and cooperatives Development (MEcD), there are currently 17 accredited social enterprises that have been operating for more than two years, and 223 more that have been operating for at least six months throughout Malaysia (MEcD, 2023). in the Malaysian context, MEcD defines social enterprise as a legally registered entity, purpose-driven, and has a financially sustainable business model that aims to tackle social or environmental issues to achieve positive impacts on both the beneficiaries and the economy; these are also the criteria to get accredited (MEcD, 2023). the most recent data from 2018 indicates an estimation of over 20,000 social enterprises in Malaysia, the number registered under micro, small, and medium enterprises, co-operatives, and nGos, excluding associations/groups that are not legally registered (loh, 2020; lee, 2019; British council, 2018). While there are over 81,000 registered charitable organisations, such as non-profit organisations (npos) and nGos, there is a lack of coherence, and so far, there is no statutory body that regulates charities – hence, the rules and regulations are still blurry (Yeow & ng, 2022; British council, 2018). as of now, it is unclear how many exact numbers of social enterprises operate without being legally registered or being registered under other legal entities. this is a sign that the social entrepreneurship scenario in Malaysia is thriving, but challenges and ambiguities remain. however, the government recognised the importance of social entrepreneurship activities towards society and the economy and acknowledged the potential for social entrepreneurship to grow. therefore, the government is working towards addressing the challenges to encourage more social entrepreneurship activities in Malaysia. While the government’s aspiration to encourage more social enterprises is a positive goal, it is crucial to assess the existing challenges faced by entities that carry out social entrepreneurship initiatives and if the framework is compelling enough to achieve this goal. the thriving social entrepreneurship scenario in Malaysia is promising. however, its full potential may remain unrealised without comprehensive data on informal groups. this lack of data hinders the ability to fully grasp the understanding of the social entrepreneurship landscape in Malaysia. in light of these challenges, the subsequent discussion will provide a framework for assessing the characteristics of entities engaged in social entrepreneurship initiatives. 2.3. Social entrepreneurship orientation sEo is a concept that explains the characteristics of the organisation in practices and decision-making; it evolved from entrepreneurship orientation (Eo) (halberstadt & spiegler, 2018). however, sEo differs from Eo as social value creation was the main aim, not financial value creation (Gali et al., 2020; Kraus et al., 2017). Kraus et al. (2017) established a scale to operationalise sEo with four dimensions, see table 1. halberstadt and spiegler (2018) and Kraus et al. (2017) mentioned that regardless of which (legal) structures, organisations that possess the characteristics of social entrepreneurship and concurrently 6 J. laW Etal. operate to address societal issues are to be considered social enterprises. Furthermore, social entrepreneurship activities can be found in all types of organisations, regardless of the (legal) structure, as long the earned income or available resources are used to solve societal and environmental issues. as the number of organisations and groups carrying out social entrepreneurship activities in Malaysia remains vague and needs to be clarified, it impedes and raises many questions regarding which types of activities, business models or organisations should be considered part of the social entrepreneurship spectrum. therefore, sEo can help create functional boundaries in the selection process based on the focus and scope of organisations and groups contributing to the safeguarding efforts in GtWhs. as argued by Martin and osberg (2007), it is vital to establish boundaries in social entrepreneurship because the term would be insignificant and meaningless if it is left too wide open; therefore, boundaries are essential. also, a boundary that is too narrow is deemed meaningless (Wanyoike & Maseno, 2021). therefore, sEo can justify the inclusion of organisations and groups working to safeguard cultural heritage in GtWhs, regardless of their (legal) structure. on the other hand, applying the lens of sEo in safeguarding efforts goes beyond delineating boundaries in the social entrepreneurship process; it also highlights the significance of each dimension. social innovativeness is essential in addressing the challenges in safeguarding efforts, emphasising the importance of an organisation’s creative problem-solving skills. social risk-taking emphasises that an organisation is willing to go the extra mile and accept ambiguities, which is vital in addressing ever-changing issues faced during safeguarding efforts. simultaneously, social proactiveness urges an organisation to pursue opportunities actively while aligning with the nature of cultural heritage issues. lastly, socialness emphasises the organisation’s commitment to creating social value by prioritising positive social impacts over financial gain. in the context of GtWhs, sEo provides detailed insights into how organisations, irrespective of their (legal) structures, play a role in safeguarding efforts through social entrepreneurship activities. 2.4. Theory of change toc will be used as an underlying framework to study the process of social entrepreneurship. there has yet to be a consensus on how to describe and define a toc or an exact set of methodologies to utilise it (Davies, 2018; serrat, 2017; vogel, 2012). stein and valters (2012) broadly defined and summarised toc into a set of "if…then" statements – if represents a set of intervention(s) and then represents the outcome(s). For instance, if parents continue to teach and speak to their children in penang hokkien instead of Mandarin, then the lifespan of penang hokkien will be prolonged for generations to come. on the contrary, toc is narrowly defined and directly linked to positive social change (ruff, 2021; Bacq, 2017) - toc is expected to be used for social impact and change. however, it is not exclusively applicable to only positive social change. there are different definitions for toc, but the shared core elements are similar. thus, this makes toc a very flexible yet methodical model to examine the links between activities and expected outcomes while considering the contexts of the initiative(s). Given the complexity of social issues in which the solutions are often not off-the-shelf, toc can fragment the social entrepreneurship process and, in parallel, provides comprehensive illustrations on how and why change(s) is expected to occur (Bacq, 2017; serrat, 2017; vogel, 2012). toc comprises multiple key elements; see table 2. 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). coGEnt BusinEss & ManaGEMEnt 7 the mapping of toc is relatively flexible, allowing initiators (or social entrepreneurs) to design, implement and assess the progress effectively (serrat, 2017; stein & valters, 2012). the toc model can be presented in various ways, provided that it incorporates the five key elements: inputs, activities, outputs, outcomes and impacts (Bacq, 2017; vogel, 2012). therefore, toc is a helpful model guiding organisations in navigating the complexity of social problems and developing solutions to solve them (serrat, 2017; vogel, 2012). in this article, toc serves as an essential framework for understanding the social entrepreneurship process by offering an organised approach linking activities with expected outcomes(s), particularly in safeguarding the cultural heritage of GtWhs. safeguarding efforts are complex and multifaceted and often lack readily available solutions (Wagner & clippele, 2023). By utilising toc, organisations and informal groups engaged in safeguarding efforts can comprehensively analyse the inputs, activities, and outputs, align them with expected outcomes, and ultimately lead to transformative impacts. lastly, the flexibility of toc can accommodate the challenges that arise from the safeguarding process, allowing effective and fast planning of initiatives and implementation in the context of GtWhs. 2.5. Formal and informal groups a formal group, also known as a legally registered organisation, is an entity that is officially recognised by the Malaysian government and operates within the legal framework and regulations. in contrast, an informal group operates collectively and represents an association formed by individuals united by common interests; such a group primarily exists to fulfil its members’ social and psychological needs (cross, 2018; Mullins, 2010). unlike formal organisations, informal groups are generally more adaptable and flexible due to the lack of rigid policies, hierarchical structure and predefined common goals during their formation (Mullins, 2010). Due to its flexibility, informal groups can swiftly respond to threats or directional changes, as they are not constrained by official procedures or administrative processes (cross, 2018). this article will explore these two entities and their contributions to social entrepreneurship in the effort to safeguard cultural heritage. 3. Methodology this article employed qualitative techniques to explore and understand the process of social entrepreneurship within GtWhs. considering social entrepreneurship’s multifarious complexity, a case study method was employed as deemed appropriate. according to creswell and creswell (2018), the case study method enables the acquisition of more affluent and deeper explanations and descriptions of a 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). 14 J. laW Etal. communications and posts from orG02 risk being dismissed as irrelevant clutters. Besides that, advocacy efforts also extend to influencing politicians, decision-makers, and policymakers to ensure that safeguarding cultural heritage remains a priority on their agenda. While orG02 faces hurdles and obstacles, its approach and strategy illustrate the significant potential of informal groups in leading impactful advocacy and educational initiatives to safeguard cultural heritage within GtWhs. 5. Cross-case analysis as presented in table 3 below, this cross-case analysis offers comprehensive insights into orG01 and orG02 in the safeguarding efforts within GtWhs. the above table concisely compares orG01 and orG02. it highlights key differences in legal frameworks, funding sources, activities, focus on preservation, collaborations, challenges, outcomes, and strategies for adaptability and sustainability. this cross-case analysis provides insights into how these entities operate and approach cultural heritage safeguarding within GtWhs, showcasing their unique characteristics and strategies. 6. Discussions Even though orG01 and orG02 shared the same expected outcome, they somehow demonstrated different strengths in the four sEo dimensions - social innovativeness, risk-taking, social proactiveness, and socialness. in terms of cultural heritage safeguarding, orG01 and orG02 exhibit innovative approaches in different manners. to ensure the survival of heritage arts, orG01 inspires traditional artisans and craftsmen to be innovative by encouraging them to transform the end products into arts but still stay within the traditional boundary. For instance, orG01 encourages traditional shoemakers to turn wooden clogs into various sizes as decorations, as they are no longer a common option for footwear. this strategy not only safeguards the continuity of heritage arts but also reinforces traditional crafts by integrating contemporary themes, such as decorative art - ensuring their relevance in today’s world. additionally, orG01 is willing to innovate in community engagements, such as planning to include interactive technology in its heritage workshops to attract more youngsters. on the other hand, orG02 demonstrates innovativeness by utilising social media for advocacy work to reach a wider audience. orG02 displays an innovative use of technology for social impact - their ability to adapt and use contemporary communication channels to reach a broader audience and rally support for safeguarding initiatives; this is particularly relevant in the contemporary digital era, where connectivity and outreach are essential. Even though orG01 and orG02 display social innovativeness in their approaches, the degree to which they implement it in their social entrepreneurship initiatives varies. in the dimension of social risk-taking, orG01 and orG02 exhibit opposite traits; this has significantly influenced their ability in safeguarding efforts. orG01 adopts a risk-averse standpoint by avoiding 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. coGEnt BusinEss & ManaGEMEnt 15 significant risks in safeguarding initiatives and sustaining its operation. in contrast, orG02 is a risk-taker, especially obvious in its active advocacy works. one of the main strategies of orG02 is to disclose misconduct that risks potential backlash and possible redelegation of one of its founders. therefore, orG02 demonstrates its willingness and readiness to take risks in advocating for the cause of cultural heritage safeguarding. the risk appetites of orG01 and orG02 show the differences in their strategies for addressing challenges and potential outcomes. as for social proactiveness, orG01 and orG02 show distinct approaches. these strategies hold significant implications and present solutions to challenges, thereby influencing the long-term sustainability of their safeguarding initiatives. orG01 appears to have shifted from a proactive to a more reactive stance due to several challenges the organisation is facing internally. Despite that, orG01 is willing and planning to change its usual way of conducting workshops and tours to attract younger audiences. conversely, orG02 proactively interacts and engages with communities, such as seeking opinions and feelings from residents and traditional artisans about the unEsco inscription - it is a proactive element in their safeguarding efforts to understand the communities better. it shows that orG01 and orG02 navigate differently in this dimension. the dimension of socialness reveals that orG01 and orG02 display dedication to creating social value and staying sustainable simultaneously. orG01 redirects all its earnings towards meeting its expected outcome. similarly, orG02 also exhibits the same commitment, except through internal means to fund its safeguarding efforts. apart from that, orG01 and orG02 show strong networking and partnership; as both key informants mentioned, safeguarding cultural heritage is a collective effort. thereby, in this sense, networking and partnerships are important. Even though there are differences between the financial models, orG01 and orG02 share similar dedications to their social causes. the dimensions unfold unique insights into how orG01 and orG02 represent and enact social entrepreneurship principles in their respective efforts to safeguard cultural heritage within GtWhs. apart from promoting cultural heritage safeguarding, their safeguarding efforts and initiatives also contribute directly to making GtWhs inclusive, safe, resilient, and sustainable, which aligns with the spirit of sDG 11: sustainable cities and communities, specifically 11.4, promoting the conservation of cultural heritage. hence, their efforts have a broader significance and are beyond the local context of GtWhs. 7. Conclusion the case studies of orG01 and orG02 present insights into the role of social entrepreneurship in safeguarding cultural heritage. Despite their differences in characteristics, both entities exhibit a commitment to their goals, utilising innovative strategies, risk-taking, and proactive approaches to create social value. the toc framework provides a practical lens for understanding how these entities tackle societal problems like the loss of cultural heritage. however, obstacles related to power dynamics and engagement with authorities hinder their effectiveness – highlighting potential challenges in the social entrepreneurship field. Future research should explore the implications of social entrepreneurship and sEo across diverse organisational structures and contexts, improving discourse and developing sustainable safeguarding models. the fragmented regulatory environment and lack of official data on informal groups with social entrepreneurship initiatives in Malaysia pose challenges for social enterprises, highlighting the need for more supportive policies. this article suggests that integrating sEo principles can enhance and strengthen the role of social entrepreneurship in safeguarding efforts, even beyond formal social entrepreneurship structures. While this study offers insights, its scope is limited, and external factors may influence the applicability of sEo principles. lastly, despite these limitations, this study provides a fundamental grasp of how social entrepreneurship initiatives contribute to safeguarding efforts within GtWhs through the lens of orG01 and orG02, laying the groundwork for practical social entrepreneurship applications for future research. Authors’ contributions J.l., J.W.o. and K.a.a. contributed substantially to the conception and design of the work. J.l. is responsible for drafting the manuscript, and J.W.o. and K.a.a. provided support and valuable input during the writing process and supervision throughout the research process. all authors critically reviewed the manuscript for important intellectual 16 J. laW Etal. content, gave final approval for the version to be published, and agreed to be accountable for all aspects of the work, ensuring the accuracy and integrity of every component, and committed to appropriately investigating and resolving any questions. Disclosure statement no potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s). About the authors Joey Law is a ph.D. candidate at the Faculty of Management, Multimedia university, Malaysia, focusing on social entrepreneurship and cultural heritage. she is concurrently enhancing her skills in supply chain management through a professional development program (Weiterbildung) sponsored by the German government. her experience in multinational organisations significantly enriches both her research and professional development. Ong Jeen Wei is an associate professor at the Faculty of Management, Multimedia university, Malaysia. he also serves as the Director of alumni Engagement, career, and Entrepreneurship Development. Jeen Wei earns his phD (Management) in Entrepreneurship and strategic Management. his main research interests include entrepreneurship, strategic management, agriculture business and technology adoption, sustainable issues in management, and small and medium enterprises. Kamarulzaman Ab. Aziz is currently a professor at the Faculty of Business and a member of the centre of e-services, Entrepreneurship, and Marketing (cEsEM). Before transferring to the current faculty, he was the Deputy Dean (r&D) of the Faculty of Management, and the founding Director of the Entrepreneur Development centre (EDc), at Multimedia university. he was also the founding president of the aKEpt Young researchers circle (aYrc). his research interests include Entrepreneurship, commercialization, project Management, technology and innovation Management. Funding no funding was received. ORCID Joey law http://orcid.org/0009-0006-2153-6869 Jeen Wei ong http://orcid.org/0000-0002-0333-495X Kamarulzaman ab. aziz http://orcid.org/0000-0002-0134-4951 Data availability statement the data supporting this study’s findings are available from the corresponding author, J.W.o., upon reasonable request. References abdul Kadir, M. a. B., Zainudin, a. h., harun, u. s., Mohamad, n. a., & che harun, n. h. a. (2019). Malaysian social enterprise blueprint 2015-2018: What’s next? ASEAN Entrepreneurship Journal, 5(2), 1–19. abu-saifan, s. (2012). social entrepreneurship: Definition and boundaries. Technology Innovation Management Review, 2(2), 22–27. https://doi.org/10.22215/timreview/523 Bacq, s. (2017). social entrepreneurship exercise: Developing your “theory of change. Entrepreneur and Innovation Exchange, 1, 1-6. https://doi.org/10.17919/X9Z96J Barron, l. (2017). “unEsco-cide”: does world heritage status do cities more harm than good?. The Guardian, august 30. https://www.theguardian.com/cities/2017/aug/30/unescocide-world-heritage-status-hurt-help-tourism Bernama. (2023). penang tourism sector sees resilient rebound after borders reopen. Bernama, February 8. https:// www.bernama.com/en/business/news.php?id=2162759 British council. (2018). the state of social Entrepreneurship in Malaysia. Pioneers Post (pp. 28–58). https://www. pioneerspost.com/news-views/20190312/malaysia-profit-proves-problematic coGEnt BusinEss & ManaGEMEnt 17 cho. (2022). Conserve and Revitalise Hong Kong Heritage - Commissioner for Heritage’s Office (9). www.heritage.gov.hk. https://www.heritage.gov.hk/en/about-us/commissioner-for-heritages-office/index.html chung, J. K. h. (2012) Adaptive Reuse of Historic Buildings through PPP A Case Study of Old Tai-O Police Station in HK [paper presentation]. the 2nd international conference on Management, Economics and social sciences. creswell, J. W., & creswell, J. D. (2018). Research Design: Qualitative, Quantitative & Mixed Methods Approaches (5th ed.). sage publication. cross, D. o. (2018). impact of informal groups on organisational performance. International Journal of Scientific Research and Management, 6(9), 686-694. https://doi.org/10.18535/ijsrm/v6i9.em04 Dacin, p. a., Dacin, M. t., & Matear, M. (2010). social entrepreneurship: Why we don’t need a new theory and how we move forward from here. Academy of Management Perspectives, 24(3), 37–57. https://doi.org/10.5465/ aMp.2010.52842950 Davies, r. (2018). representing theories of change: technical challenges with evaluation consequences. Journal of Development Effectiveness, 10(4), 438–461. https://doi.org/10.1080/19439342.2018.1526202 Dees, J. G., Emerson, J., & Economy, p. (2001). Enterprising Nonprofits: A Toolkit for Social Entrepreneurs. Wiley. Dermawan, a. (2023). heritage advocates not happy over construction of five-storey block within GtWhs | new straits times. NST Online, april 5. https://www.nst.com.my/news/nation/2023/04/896561/heritage-advocate s-not-happy-over-construction-five-storey-block-within Dickel, p., sienknecht, M., & hörisch, J. (2020). the early bird catches the worm: an empirical analysis of imprinting in social entrepreneurship. Journal of Business Economics, 91(2), 127–150. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11573-020-00969-z Dna. (2015). Malaysia unveils social enterprise blueprint. Digital News Asia, May 14. https://www.digitalnewsasia.com/ digital-economy/malaysia-unveils-social-enterprise-blueprint Doherty, B., haugh, h., & lyon, F. (2014). social enterprises as hybrid organizations: a review and research agenda. International Journal of Management Reviews, 16(4), 417–436. https://doi.org/10.1111/ijmr.12028 Foo, r., & Krishnapillai, G. (2018). preserving the intangible living heritage in the George town World heritage site, Malaysia. Journal of Heritage Tourism, 14(4), 358–370. https://doi.org/10.1080/1743873X.2018.1549054 Gali, n., niemand, t., shaw, E., hughes, M., Kraus, s., & Brem, a. (2020). social entrepreneurship orientation and company success: the mediating role of social performance. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 160, 120230. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2020.120230 Galimberti, s. (2022). real commitment needed to achieve sEMy2030 objective. New Straits Times, april 26. https://www.nst.com.my/opinion/columnists/2022/04/792087/real-commitment-needed-achiev e-semy2030-objective Google Maps. (n.d). Google Maps. retrieved February 10, 2024, from Google Maps website: https://www.google.com/ maps/@13.6960393,101.5092679,5z?entry=ttu halberstadt, J., & spiegler, a. B. (2018). networks and the idea-fruition process of female social entrepreneurs in south africa. Social Enterprise Journal, 14(4), 429–449. https://doi.org/10.1108/sEJ-01-2018-0012 harvey, E. (2019). Climate Change and the Loss of Cultural Heritage - UNA-USA. unausa. https://unausa.org/ climate-change-and-the-loss-of-cultural-heritage/ hosagrahar, J. (2017). culture: at the heart of sDGs. UNESCO, 1, 12–14. https://unesdoc.unesco.org/ark:/48223/ pf0000248116 hudelson, p. M. (2004). culture and quality: an anthropological perspective. International Journal for Quality in Health Care: journal of the International Society for Quality in Health Care, 16(5), 345–346. https://doi.org/10.1093/intqhc/mzh076 Jackson, a. (2013). Buildings of empire. in Google Books. oup oxford. https://books.google.de/books?id=_ rv7aaaaQBaJ&pg=pa7&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q&f=false Karré, p. M., & Meerkerk, i. v. (2023). the challenge of navigating the double hybridity in the relationship between community enterprises and municipalities. Journal of Social Entrepreneurship, 1, 1–21. https://doi.org/10.1080/1942 0676.2023.2263772 Kaur, B. (2019). clan jetties unesco listing boon or bane? New Straits Times, July 7. https://www.nst.com.my/news/ nation/2019/07/502201/clan-jetties-unesco-listing-boon-or-bane 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 Key informant 1. (2022). interview [Face-to-Face]. october 5. Key informant 2. (2023). interview [Google Meet]. april 14 lee, M. (2019). Malaysia: profit proves problematic. Pioneers post, March 12. www.pioneerspost.com. https://www. pioneerspost.com/news-views/20190312/malaysia-profit-proves-problematic liew, J. X. (2022). Gentrification harming clan Jetties site. The Star Newspaper, november 24. https://www.thestar. com.my/news/nation/2022/11/24/gentrification-harming-clan-jetties-site lo, t. c. (2020). heritage buildings left to rot. The Star, august 20. https://www.thestar.com.my/news/nation/2020/08/20/ heritage-buildings-left-to-rot loh, J. (2020). social enterprises in Malaysia – an emerging employment provider. Malay Mail, June 17. https://www. malaymail.com/news/what-you-think/2020/06/17/social-enterprises-in-malaysia-an-emerging-employment-prov ider-jason-loh/1876306 18 J. laW Etal. Martin, r. l., & osberg, s. (2007). social entrepreneurship: the case for definition. Stanford Social Innovation Review, 29–39. MEcD. (2023). About Social Enterprise. Kuskop.gov.my. https://www.kuskop.gov.my/index.php?r=site/index&id=11&page_ id=22&articleid=6839&language=en Mekonnen, h., Bires, Z., & Berhanu, K. (2022). practices and challenges of cultural heritage conservation in historical and religious heritage sites: evidence from north shoa Zone, amhara region, Ethiopia. Heritage Science, 10, 2–22. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40494-022-00802-6 Mohd nawi, n. h., che haron, r., & Kamarudin, Z. (2020). risk cost analysis in Malay heritage conservation project. Planning Malaysia, 18(12), 48–58. https://doi.org/10.21837/pm.v18i12.742 Mok, o. (2023). penang’s tourism industry sees strong rebound, expects full recovery by end of 2023. Yahoo! News, March 11. https://malaysia.news.yahoo.com/penang-tourism-industry-sees-strong-024155632.html?guccounter=1& guce_referrer=ahr0chM6ly93d3cuZ29vZ2xllmnvbs8&guce_referrer_sig=aQaaaa9ensM2tjGwonqtlaG_ c-0nbo3Kt4duc_bqaZqov2Fmkbu28rJtonjmvD0-4sao0pDy_sahbdvFikwvryh8Dm-pJ3YEMEGlK3mw3dx wqjtucpn_zzE84l12auJjJrFl2uvurD3BEEihed7lfq1cpro0k3_i8cgMJm7ntcun1da_ Moroter, t. (2023). penang hopes to grow more social enterprises by 2030. Buletin Mutiara, March 21. https:// www.buletinmutiara.com/. https://www.buletinmutiara.com/penang-hopes-to-grow-more-social-enterprises-by2030/ Mullins, l. J. (2010). Management and Organisational Behaviour (9th ed., pp. 311–313). Financial times prentice hall. ong, W. l. (2022). Penang’s Economy in the Immediate Post-Pandemic Period: Excelling in a Challenging Environment. penang institute. https://penanginstitute.org/publications/issues/penangs-economy-in-the-immediate-post-pand emic-period-excelling-in-a-challenging-environment/#:~:text=penang's%20economy%20is%20led%20by%20 manufacturing%20and%20tourism%2Drelated%20activities osberg, s., & Martin, r. (2015). two keys to sustainable social enterprise. Harvard Business Review. https://hbr. org/2015/05/two-keys-to-sustainable-social-enterprise pappas, s., & McKelvie, c. (2022). What is culture? retrieved February 15, 2024, from livescience.com website: https:// www.livescience.com/21478-what-is-culture-definition-of-culture.html penang port commission. (2023). Penang port commission - history penang port. penangport.gov.my. https:// penangport.gov.my/en/public/history-penang-port rodríguez-ramírez, a., Zapata-Domínguez, Á., & ramírez-plazas, E. (2022). theoretical analysis of the social entrepreneur’s mode of being. Journal of Social Entrepreneurship, 1, 1–23. https://doi.org/10.1080/19420676.2022.2128393 ruff, K. (2021). how impact measurement devices act: the performativity of theory of change, sroi and dashboards. Qualitative Research in Accounting & Management, 18(3), 332–360. https://doi.org/10.1108/QraM-02-2019-0041 serrat, o. (2017). theories of change. in Knowledge Solutions (pp. 237–243). springer. https://link.springer.com/chapt er/10.1007/978-981-10-0983-9_24# singh, n. B., & lee, Y. (2023). an analysis of factors affecting malaysia’s youth unemployment rate. International Journal of Management, Finance and Accounting, 4(1), 68–86. https://doi.org/10.33093/ijomfa.2023.4.1.5 solhi, F. (2021). penang tourism industry badly hit | new straits times. NST Online, september 10. https://www.nst. com.my/news/nation/2021/09/725960/penang-tourism-industry-badly-hit stein, D., & valters, c. (2012). understanding theory of change in international Development. Justice and security research programme, Jsrp paper 1, 3–15. Jsrp. teoh, s. (2018). unEsco listing both a boon and bane for George town. The Straits Times, January 16. www. straitstimes.com. http://www.straitstimes.com/asia/se-asia/unesco-listing-both-a-boon-and-bane-for-george-town 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/ unEsco. (2015). Intangible cultural heritage intangible cultural heritage and sustainable development. https://ich.unesco. org/doc/src/34299-En.pdf unEsco. (2016). International funds supporting culture. unEsco. https://en.unesco.org/protecting-our-heritage-an d-fostering-creativity/international-funds-supporting-culture unEsco. (2019). World heritage. unEsco. https://whc.unesco.org/pg.cfm?cid=160 unEsco. (2024). history of unEsco. retrieved February 15, 2024, from unesco.org website: https://www.unesco.org/ en/history united nations. (2022). Goal 11: sustainable cities and communities. The Global Goals. https://www.globalgoals.org/ goals/11-sustainable-cities-and-communities/ 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 Wagner, a., & clippele, M. s. (2023). safeguarding cultural heritage in the digital era – a critical challenge. International Journal for the Semiotics of Law - Revue Internationale de Sémiotique Juridique, 36(5), 1915–1923. https://doi. org/10.1007/s11196-023-10040-z coGEnt BusinEss & ManaGEMEnt 19 Wanyoike, c. n., & Maseno, M. (2021). Exploring the motivation of social entrepreneurs in creating successful social enterprises in East africa. New England Journal of Entrepreneurship, 24(2), 79–104. https://doi.org/10.1108/ nEJE-07-2020-0028 Weller, s., & ran, B. (2020). social entrepreneurship: the logic of paradox. Sustainability, 12(24), 10642. https://doi. org/10.3390/su122410642 Wu, Y. J., Wu, t., & sharpe, J. (2020). consensus on the definition of social entrepreneurship: a content analysis approach. Management Decision, 58(12), 2593–2619. https://doi.org/10.1108/MD-11-2016-0791 Yeow, J. Y., & ng, B.-K. (2022). Empowering and sustaining social enterprises. The Edge Markets, september 6. https:// www.theedgemarkets.com/article/empowering-and-sustaining-social-enterprises Yin, r. K. (2018). Case Study Research and applications: Design and Methods (6th ed.). sage publications, inc. Zhang, Y., & li, Y. (2017). a literature review on social enterprise. research on Modern higher Education 3. https:// doi.org/10.24104/rmhe/2017.03.01006 Zhao, l., Wong, W. B., & hanafi, Z. B. (2019). the evolution of George town’s urban morphology in the straits of Malacca, late 18th century-early 21st century. Frontiers of Architectural Research, 8(4), 513–534. https://doi. org/10.1016/j.foar.2019.09.001