Search results

Prevailing concepts of corporate governance that are based on external shareholder interests have been challenged by a number of authors over the last three decades. The purpose of this paper is to outline the core assumptions of communitarian philosophy and values, together with the way writers imagine these might be enacted in a social enterprise context. These assumptions are then explored using two case studies.

The paper was conducted using participatory action research which involves parties examining current actions together and seeking to improve on them. The value of this approach is based on the plausible, authentic and critical insights it generates into management practice.

Case evidence suggests that companies are able to adopt and operate effectively while deploying communitarian values and that these values lead to alternative business objectives expressed through new forms of corporate governance. Nevertheless, the adopting of common language does not necessarily mean that social enterprises share a common philosophy.

The key contribution of this paper is to evaluate the institutionalisation of governance and consider the relationship between the form and substance of practice. By considering the link between words and actions, the paper concludes that the adoption of a governance framework, or particular language, matters less than the capacity of company members to participate in the development of governance norms that enable them to act congruently with their own beliefs and values.

In light of the faster than expected take up of the community interest company (CIC) in the UK, the purpose of this paper is to revisit findings from a study undertaken in 2000 on the impact of asset‐locks on the longevity, growth and management styles in co‐operative social enterprises.

This paper is both conceptual and empirical. It examines different worker co‐operative traditions and develops a meta‐theory that explains underlying assumptions in different forms of co‐operative social enterprise. Using empirical data from five common ownership co‐operatives and five equity‐based co‐operatives, this exploratory study finds differences in management style, access to finance and growth prospects both within and between the two groups.

Devolution of management responsibilities is more prevalent in co‐operatives permitting both individual and collective ownership, as opposed to common ownership. Access to external finance is less problematic for organisations where individuals have made investments. Despite this, it is not established that organisations with external equity or loan finance grow quicker or fare better over the longer term.

The value of the paper lies both in the development of a meta‐theoretical framework for differentiating forms of worker co‐operative, as well as empirical evidence on the impact of asset‐locks in the management and development of social enterprises. The study suggests that the companies limited by share (CLS) version of the CIC, or abandonment of the CIC in favour of an appropriately structured CLS or Industrial and Provident Society model, may be appropriate for social enterprises wishing to grow, but makes little difference in small service oriented social enterprises.

This paper aims to re-evaluate social enterprise (SE) history to pinpoint a pluralist turn in communitarian philosophy during the 1970s, which has the potential to transform labour and consumer rights in enterprise development.

Through a close examination of model rules created by founders of the FairShares Association (FSA), the authors find that the communitarian origins of SE are disturbingly obscured and hidden.

In studying FSA documents and building a timeline of the development of the FairShares Model (FSM), the authors found links between SE developments in the UK, continental Europe, Asia, North/South America and the development of solidarity cooperatives.

The authors argue that the discovery of a communitarian pluralist turn advances “new cooperativism” by enfranchising both labour and users in industrial relations (IR). Using this insight, they challenge accounts of SE history and argue for more research on SE’s potential contribution to radical IR.

The paper highlights the potential of the FSM as a vehicle for catalysing new SE and IR practices that share wealth and power more equitably between social entrepreneurs, workforce members, service/product users and community/social investors.