Social enterprise and neoinstitutional theory: An evaluation of the organizational logics of SE in the UK

Abstract

Purpose

The purpose of this paper is to argue that neoinstitutional theory can provide insights into the conflicts between social ends and economic means within social enterprises (SEs). Tensions between these differing institutional logics may be seen as a manifestation of ambiguity and incoherence in an organizational field that is, despite many recent regulative and normative changes, still weakly institutionalized in the UK.

Design/methodology/approach

The research design adopts a qualitative approach and is based on semi-structured, in-depth interviews with 40 SE managers in four major UK cities.

Findings

Findings suggest that SE managers deal with the competing institutional logics of “the market” and “social care” in differing ways.

Research limitations/implications

The case studies are derived from major UK cities where SEs are more likely to be dependent on state and quasi-public sector forms of support.

Practical implications

Policies attempting to imbue a more commercial and business-like approach with the institutional field of SE should recognize the tensions imposed by such a shift. These tensions are especially pronounced in SEs affected by changes to state funding regimes and publicly sponsored markets. In some situations, such market logic may be largely inappropriate.

Social implications

Changing institutional logics within an organizational field such as SE requires a recognition of the complex interrelationships between that factors that create and sustain such a field, most notably legal (regulative), educational (normative) and attitudinal (cognitive) factors.

Originality/value

This is one of the few papers to explore the value of neoinstitutional theory in the context of SE.

Citation

Pinch, S. and Sunley, P. (2015), "Social enterprise and neoinstitutional theory: An evaluation of the organizational logics of SE in the UK", Social Enterprise Journal, Vol. 11 No. 3, pp. 303-320. https://doi.org/10.1108/SEJ-07-2014-0030