Search results

Most strategies for managing conflicts between social and commercial objectives of social enterprises are discussed either at the individual or at the team level of analysis. This paper aims to argue in favor of taking into account both levels of analysis at the same time. It furthermore aims to unravel how management strategies at the individual and the team level reinforce one another.

This study adopts the theoretical lenses of personal values (at the individual level of analysis) and stewardship (at the team level). The authors have conducted 23 semi-structured interviews across three Belgian social enterprises. Primary data collection was complemented with secondary data of 12 annual reports and 314 newspaper articles. The variety of cases and the richness of primary and secondary data proved useful to elaborate on the mechanisms of managing conflicting objectives.

This paper highlights four bridging mechanisms that facilitate the mitigation of conflict between social and commercial objectives, i.e. fit of values, agile structure, partnerships and communications. It also shows how these mechanisms reinforce each other at the individual and team levels of analysis and thus form an iterative process for managing the conflicting objectives of social entrepreneurs.

This paper contributes by bringing the level of analysis on managing conflicting objectives at the intersection of the individual and team performance. It argues that social entrepreneurs should target both individuals and teams at the same time, to manage effectively conflicting objectives. The four mechanisms create an alignment and reflection iterative process for managing conflicting objectives.

Purpose: This literature review aims to answer the calls for further exploration of scaling challenges and opportunities for social entrepreneurs (SEs). We address the scaling issue of social entrepreneurship through the theoretical lens of sustainable business models. Methodology: This paper investigates, on a multilevel approach, 340 journal articles published in one of the 20 peer-reviewed journals in management, entrepreneurship, CSR, organizational behavior, and nonprofit. It also considers influential articles due to their relatively high citation count (i.e., more than 150 times) outside of those selected journals. This paper furthermore analyses in-depth 32 scaling articles. Findings: This study positions the topics of social entrepreneurship over the last decades, together with the six types of scaling strategies: scaling up, scaling down, scaling across, scaling deep, scaling out, and diversification. It also discusses 15 challenges related to the scaling efforts by SEs. It furthermore elaborates on potential leads for research and practice regarding scaling social impact. Social Implications: There are many pathways for SEs to increase their impact on society, even though it remains quite challenging to achieve for most. Understanding what possibilities or limitations apply to individual SEs is but a first step in developing the full potential of social entrepreneurship. Originality: This paper approaches scaling from three complementary levels of analysis, i.e., individual, organizational, and institutional. Thus we provide more clarity and a nuanced perspective on past and future research regarding scaling challenges and opportunities.

Despite the abundant literature on CSR, the implementation of social responsibility in public sector organizations is still underexplored. And this despite the fact that, as illustration, the public sector accounts for more than one-third of the economic activity in Belgium. Moreover, public sector organizations have an example function toward other societal actors, and by implementing social responsibility themselves, they are likely to provide a strong signal to the market. In this chapter, we approach the example role of public organizations in CSR implementation by doing a qualitative research of 14 (out of 19) municipalities in Brussels and focus thereby on the implementation of a social responsibility proxy, “Local Agenda 21” (LA21). We find that political support, through key political figures and the opposition, are very important for the success of the implementation of social responsibility in municipalities. We were surprised to learn that municipalities are experiencing competition amongst each other regarding LA21 implementation. However, the most unexpected result of our study was that municipalities reported that their involvement in LA21 seems to have only a limited impact on the private sector. Therefore, the argument of government institutions “leading by example” requires further investigation.

Social entrepreneurs (SEs) often face various challenges whereby they rely on the support of others to realize their objectives. In this context, ecosystem thinking is very helpful to understand how various stakeholders can assist SEs. The purpose of this paper is to develop a classification of the different types of support that third parties can provide to SEs.

The authors have developed the arguments in this paper based on a literature review of 258 articles on ecosystem thinking and social entrepreneurship. Articles have been retrieved from the Web of Science database, using as search parameters on the one hand publications in top journals, and on the other articles with more than 60 citations. In addition, the authors have received recommendations for relevant good-quality articles following a snowball procedure.

This paper contributes by distinguishing three support categories for SEs – fuel, hardware and DNA – based on what we know from ecosystem thinking. This paper elaborates on the building blocks of each support category, points at the relevant actors and discusses the interrelatedness across support categories.

The three support categories are developed by building on predominantly ecosystem literature. This study implies that the scalability of SEs’ social impact does not only depend on their strengths but also on how well they are supported.

The three support categories are complementary to the strengths of individual SEs. SEs can therefore start with what they have, and then gradually expand their support structure by surrounding themselves with stakeholders that can assist them with fuel, infrastructure and DNA.

Social enterprise theories have elaborated on the various challenges that SEs face. Lack of resources, lack of staff, lack of professional management, underdeveloped networks and mission drift are seen as the most pressing. Although the relevant literature does rightly point out the indispensable support of others, it does so without differentiating between the kinds of support that can help SEs increase their social impact. This paper offers to remedy this by creating three separate support categories: fuel, hardware and DNA.