Search results

This paper aims to explain the development of the social economy by analyzing when, why and how the community interest company (CIC) legal structure was established in the UK. The CIC legal structure was designed for social enterprise to ensure that company assets are committed to public benefit in perpetuity.

This research paper uses archival data and semistructured interviews to analyze the historical development of the social economy, emergence of social enterprise and the establishment of the CIC legal structure.

The historical analysis describes why and how the idea for the CIC emerged from practitioners and explains how collaboration between practitioners, lawyers, civil servants and politicians established the CIC as a new legal structure for social enterprise.

The analysis explains how practitioners influenced policy development and demonstrates how practitioner influence can be usefully incorporated into policy development.

The CIC legal structure advanced the social economy by creating an institutionally recognized brand identity for social enterprise that locks assets to public benefit in perpetuity.

The paper presents a detailed empirical account of the establishment of a new legal structure for social enterprise and applies theoretical concepts to develop an integrated account of social economy advancement.

Third-sector organizations have been described as intermediate organizations (Evers, 1995) in mixed economies (Ben-Ner & van Hoomissen, 1991) that are situated in the interstices between the private and the public sector. This curious mode of defining a group of organizations in terms of something they are not has created a rich field of opportunities to explore the interfaces between them and other organizations in the private, public or third sectors. Research has emerged from this juxtaposition that explores the maintenance of organizational differences and the processes of organizational convergence. Interest in hybridization as a process to explain the management of the conflicting pressures to maintain difference and foster convergence has led to advances in institutional theory (Battilana & Dorado, 2010), institutional entrepreneurship (Tracey, Phillips, & Jarvis, 2011) and our understanding of bricolage (DiDomenico, Haugh, & Tracey, 2010). In their chapter, Le Ber and Branzei add to this area of critical analysis by adopting feminist theory to extend our understanding of hybridization practices in the third sector.

Purpose – This chapter introduces the contents of the volume and provides an editorial overview of the origins of the concept of the Third Sector, methodologies employed by contributors, how contributions address different organizational forms, issues of critique within the volume, and the benefits of the contributions for researchers and practitioners within the Third Sector, and within Critical Management Studies.

Methodology/approach – Editorial overview and synthesis.

Research implications – The contents of the volume significantly advance critical perspectives upon the Third Sector.

Social implications – The contents of the volume enable improved critical reflection for those working within the Third Sector.

Originality/value of chapter – This editorial introduction presents the first broad-ranging synthesis of (a) contemporary issues within the Third Sector, Social Economy and Civil Society and (b) Critical Management Studies.

This section provides a number of useful overviews to key elements of the Third Sector whilst presenting some quite distinct and contrasting angles of current studies of the sector. The chapter by Haugh and Peredo neatly builds upon previous analyses of UK government policies towards the sector (Haugh & Kitson, 2007), and here analyses the discourse associated with the development of a new legal form for social enterprises, Community Interest Company. The chapter by Myers and Cato focuses on a different and much older legal form, the co-operative, in their discussion of the current ‘mutual moment’ in Wales in the context of increasing government pressure to shift the provision of key basic services from the public sector to other organisations. In the chapter by Delalieux and Kourula, the focus is global rather than national as the authors critically analyse the literature examining the ability of non-governmental organisations (NGOs) to have positive, progressive impacts on multinational corporations, an ability which is often touted as one of their raison d'êtres.

The fourth section adopts a critical perspective to explore the notion of hybridity in third-sector management systems and processes. Although the theme of hybridity runs through most of the previous chapters, it is in this section that empirical data is gathered on how it is enacted by organizations. Both chapters provide accounts of the tensions and conflicts that emerge between actors that endeavour to generate social change.

The common good refers to contextual conditions that contribute to human wellbeing and flourishing, such as prosperous communities and environmental sustainability. In this paper, we consider how entrepreneurship impacts society by investigating the generalized outcomes of social entrepreneurship on the common good. From a qualitative study of ten large and profitable social enterprises in the United Kingdom, we theorize how social entrepreneurship contributes to the common good in the short and long term. We also conjecture how some commercial practices undermine the common good and further, explain how the common good performs as a conceptual anchor for social entrepreneurship.

This paper discusses the practical impact of recent European Union (EU) hygiene legislation on small and medium‐sized enterprises (SMEs) in the fish‐processing industry in north‐east Scotland. Using data gathered via participant observation and in‐depth interviews, the paper reveals the attitudes and responses from four SMEs to the most recent EU hygiene requirements, and discusses the lessons that can be learned from their experiences. The results highlight the impact of an industry culture in which modernisation was interpreted by some as unnecessary. Incorporating responses from the local authority and regional trade association, the conclusion emphasises the need for cultural sensitivity in policy development and implementation. The research also endorses the need for SMEs to adopt a proactive approach to influencing future legislation, and to be actively involved in pre‐statutory collaboration and consultation.