Search results
1 – 2 of 2Malcolm Abbott, Jo Barraket, Erin I-Ping Castellas, Kiros Hiruy, Roksolana Suchowerska and Libby Ward-Christie
The social economy – including not-for-profits, cooperatives, mutual organisations and social enterprises – is playing a stronger role than ever in the delivery of public policy…
Abstract
Purpose
The social economy – including not-for-profits, cooperatives, mutual organisations and social enterprises – is playing a stronger role than ever in the delivery of public policy. Yet, these organisations are often anecdotally viewed as relatively inefficient providers. The purpose of this paper is to compare the profitability and labour productivity of social enterprises in the State of Victoria in Australia with that of small- and medium-sized business enterprises (SMEs) in the same state. This paper found that, although social enterprises generally generated smaller profits and, therefore, could be less profitable, their relative level of labour productivity (value added and income to labour employed) was comparable or higher than that of SMEs. This paper responds to the need for comparative insights about social enterprise performance and considers the implications of these findings for new public governance.
Design/methodology/approach
The social economy – including not-for-profits, cooperatives, mutual organisations and social enterprises – is playing a stronger role than ever in the delivery of public policy. Yet these organisations are often anecdotally viewed as relatively inefficient providers.
Findings
This paper found that, although social enterprises generally generated smaller profits and, therefore, could be less profitable, their relative level of labour productivity (value added and income to labour employed) was comparable or higher than that of SMEs. This paper responds to the need for comparative insights about social enterprise performance and considers the implications of these findings for new public governance.
Originality/value
This is the first work that has been done of this sort that has looked specifically at Australia circumstances.
Details
Keywords
Erin I-Ping Castellas, Jarrod Ormiston and Suzanne Findlay
This paper aims to explore the emergence and nature of impact investment in Australia and how it is shaping the development of the social enterprise sector.
Abstract
Purpose
This paper aims to explore the emergence and nature of impact investment in Australia and how it is shaping the development of the social enterprise sector.
Design/methodology/approach
Impact investment is an emerging approach to financing social enterprises that aims to achieve blended value by delivering both impact and financial returns. In seeking to deliver blended value, impact investment combines potentially conflicted logics from investment, philanthropy and government spending. This paper utilizes institutional theory as a lens to understand the nature of these competing logics in impact investment. The paper adopts a sequential exploratory mixed methods approach to study the emergence of impact investment in Australia. The mixed methods include 18 qualitative interviews with impact investors in the Australian market and a subsequent online questionnaire on characteristics of impact investment products, activity and performance.
Findings
The findings provide empirical evidence of the rapid growth in impact investment in Australia. The analysis reveals the nature of institutional complexity in impact investment and highlights the risk that the impact logic may become overshadowed by the investment logic if the difference in rigor around financial performance measurement and impact performance measurement is maintained. The paper discusses the implications of these findings for the development of the Australian social enterprise sector.
Originality/value
This paper provides empirical evidence on the emergence of impact investment in Australia and contributes to a growing global body of evidence about the nature, size and characteristics of impact investment.
Details