Hybridity of Social Enterprise Models and Ecosystems

• Autorzy: Laima Okuneviciute Neverauskiene , Irena Pranskeviciute
• Języki publikacji: EN

Abstrakty

EN

The growth and development of social enterprises in the world represent a dynamic paradigm shift from the dualistic "market vs. state" and "private vs. public" institutional tradition towards more complex hybrid socioeconomic models, such as social enterprise. A number of research demonstrated the systemic impact of social enterprises on economic sustainability, regional development, and innovations. However, there is a lack of empirical studies, investigating the conditions in which social enterprises evolve. The presented research seeks to analyze how hybridity operates and manifests through social enterprises (microlevel) and the social enterprise ecosystem (macrolevel) in the three post-soviet countries: Ukraine, Lithuania, and Latvia. The research determines that hybridity is a significant factor to social enterprises and social enterprise ecosystem identity and development. This hybridity has a direct relation to sustainability, innovativeness, and efficiency of social enterprises. The analysis of social enterprise ecosystems shows that hybridity frames the supportive environment to social enterprise sector development through cross-sectoral collaboration. The study indicates that enablement of the social enterprise sector requires an understanding of a complex and non-dualistic socioeconomic perspective. (original abstract)

Słowa kluczowe

EN

Hybrid organizations; Social economy; Ecosystem

PL

Organizacje hybrydowe; Ekonomia społeczna; Ekosystem

• Czasopismo: Journal of International Studies
• Rocznik: 2021
• Tom: 14
• Numer: nr 1
• Strony: 41--59

Twórcy

autor

Laima Okuneviciute Neverauskiene

• Vilnius Gediminas Technical University Vilnius, Lithuania

autor

Irena Pranskeviciute

• Lithuanian Centre for Social Sciences, Lithuania

Bibliografia

• Adner, R. (2012). The Wide Lens: a New Strategy for Innovation. Portfolio Penguin.
• Adner, R. (2016). Ecosystem as structure: an actionable construct for strategy. Journal of Management, 43(1). doi:10.1177/0149206316678451
• Adner, R., & Feiler. D. (2017). Innovation Interdependence and Investment Choices: an Experimental Approach to Decision Making Ecosystem. Unpublished results.
• Agafonow, A. (2014). Toward a positive theory of social entrepreneurship. On maximizing versus satisficing value capture. Journal of Business Ethics, 125, 709-713.
• Alter, K (2007). Social Enterprise Typology. Virtue Ventures LLC.
• Artcer, T., Chayka, Y., & Trukhanenko, A. (2016). Mentoring as an Essential Element of Social Entrepreneurship. WELLSO III International Scientific Symposium on Lifelong Wellbeing in the World, 34-42. http://dx.doi.org/10.15405/epsbs.2017.01.5
• Audretsch, D.B. (2010) Sustaining innovation and growth: public policy support for entrepreneurship. Industry and Innovation, 11, 167-191. https://doi.org/10.1080/1366271042000265366
• Battilana, J., & Lee, M. (2014). Advancing Research on hybrid organizing - Insights from the study of social enterprises. The Academy of Management Annals, 8(1), 397-441. doi: 10.1080/19416520.2014.893615
• Bauwens, T., Huybrechts, B., & Dufays, F. (2020). Understanding the diverse scaling strategies of social enterprises as hybrid organizations: the case of renewable energy Cooperatives. Organization & Environment, 33(2), 195-219.
• Bretos, I., Bouchard, M. J., & Zevi, A. (2020). Institutional and organizational trajectories in social economy enterprises: resilience, transformation and regeneration. Annals of Public and Cooperative Economics, 91(3), 351-357.
• Besley, T., & Ghatak, M. (2017). Profit with purpose? A theory of social enterprise. American Economic Journal: EconomicPolicy, 9(3), 19-58. doi: 10.1257/pol.20150495
• Bilan, Y., Mishchuk, H., & Pylypchuk, R. (2017). Towards sustainable economic development via social entrepreneurship. Journal of Security and Sustainability Issues, 6(4), 691-702. http://doi.org/10.9770/jssi.2017.6.4(13)
• Blundel, R., & Lyon, F. (2015). Towards a long view: historical perspectives on the scaling and replication of social ventures. Journal of Social Entrepreneurship, 6(1), 80-102.
• Borzaga, C., Fazzi, L., & Galera, G. (2016). Social enterprise as a bottom-up dynamic: part 1. The reaction of civil society to unmet social needs in Italy, Sweden and Japan. International Review of Sociology, 26(1), 1-8. doi: 10.1080/03906701.2016.1148332
• Conger, M., McMullen, J.S., Bergman, J.B., & York, G.J. (2018). Category membership, identity control, and the reevaluation of prosocial opportunities. Journal of Business Venturing, 33(2), 179-206. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusvent.2017.11.004
• Cornelissen, J.P., Akemu, O., Jonkman, J. G.F., & Werner, M. D. (2020). Building character: the formation of a hybrid organizational identity in a social enterprise. Journal of Management Studies, 1-37. doi:10.1111/joms.12640
• Dedeurwaerdere, T., De Schutter, O., Hudon, M., Mathijs, E., Annaert, B., Avermaete, T., Bleeckx, Th., de Callataÿ, Ch., De Snijder, P., Fernández-Wulff, P., Joachain, H., & Vivero, J.L. (2017). The governance features of social enterprise and social network activities of collective food buying groups. Ecological Economic, 140, 123-135.
• Defourny, J., & Nyssens, M. (2010). Conceptions of social enterprise and social entrepreneurship in Europe and in the United States: convergences and differences. Journal of Social Entrepreneurship, 1(1), 32-53.
• Defourny, J., & Pestoff, V. (2014). Towards a European conceptualization of the third sector. In (Ed.) Accountability and Social Accounting for Social and Non-Profit Organizations (Advances in Public Interest Accounting, Volume 17) (pp. 25-87). Bingley, United Kingdom: Emerald Group Publishing Limited. doi: https://doi.org/10.1108/S1041-706020140000017001
• Defourny, J., & Nyssens, M. (2017). Fundamentals for an international typology of social enterprise models. International Journal of Voluntary and Nonprofit Organizations, 28, 2469-2497. doi: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11266-017-9884-7
• Dinçer, H., Yüksel, S., Korsakienė, R., Raišienė, A.G., & Bilan, Y. (2019). IT2 Hybrid decision-making approach to performance measurement of internationalized firms in the Baltic States. Sustainability, 11, 296, 1-22.
• Eisenhardt, K.M. (1989). Building theories from case study research. Academy of Management Review, 14(4), 532-550.
• Eldar, O. (2017). The role of social enterprise and hybrid organizations. Columbia Business Law Review, 92-194. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2379012
• Garrow, E.E., Hasenfeld, Y. (2014). Social enterprise as an embodiment of a neoliberal welfare logic. American Behavioral Scientist, 58(11), 1475-1493. doi: https://doi.org/10.1177/0002764214534674
• European Commission. (2018). Social enterprises and their ecosystems in Europe. Updated country report: Latvia. Autor Lasma Licite.
• European Commission. (2018). Social enterprises and their ecosystems in Europe. Updated country report: Lithuania. Authors Okuneviciute-Neverauskiene, L., Pranskeviciute I.
• European Union. (2015). A map of social enterprises and their eco-systems in Europe: Synthesis report. Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union.
• Galera, G., & Borzaga, C. (2009). Social enterprise: An international overview of its conceptual evolution and legal implementation. Social Enterprise Journal, 5(3), 210-228.
• Grassl, W. (2012). Business models of social enterprise: a design approach to hybridity. ACRN Journal of Entrepreneurship Perspectives, 1(1), 37 - 60.
• Hazenberg, T., Bajwa-Patel, M., Mazzei, M.J., & Baglioni, S. (2016). The role of institutional and stakeholder networks in shaping social enterprise ecosystems in Europe. Social Enterprise Journal, 12(3), 302-321.
• Hoffman, A.J., Badiane, K.K., & Haigh, N. (2012). Hybrid organizations as agents of positive social change: bridging the for-profit & non-profit divide. Working Paper No. 1149. In K. Golden-Biddle and J. Dutton (Eds.) Using a Positive Lens to Explore Social Change and Organizations: Building a Theoretical and Research Foundation (pp. 1-30). Routledge, Taylor and Francis Group.
• Kim, D., Cho, W., & Allen, B. (2020). Sustainability of social economy organizations (SEOs): an analysis of the conditions for surviving and thriving. Social Science Journal, 1-17.
• Kochlami, H., Davidsson, P., Obschonka, M, Yazdanfar, D., & Lundstrom, A. (2020). The regional employment effects of new social firm entry. Small Business Economics. doi: 10.1007/s11187-020-00345-9
• Kwona, H., Choia, Y. & Lamb, B. (2018). The design and social enterprise ecosystem: How can design be applied to a developing social enterprise ecosystem? Design Research Society, 1-16. doi:10.21606/dma.2017.283
• Marquis, Ch., & Park, A. (2014). Inside the Buy-One Give-One Model. Stanford Social Innovation Review. Leland Stanford Junior University. Retrieved from http://www.people.hbs.edu/cmarquis/inside_the_buy_one_give_one_model.pdf
• Iansiti, M., & Levien, R. (2006). The keystone advantage: what the new dynamics of business ecosystems mean for strategy, innovation, and sustainability. Academy of Management Executive, 20(2). doi: 10.5465/AMP.2006.20591015
• Jacobides, M.G., Cennamo, C., & Gawer, A. (2018). Towards a theory of ecosystems. Strategic Management Journal, 39, 2255-2276.
• Jucevicius, G., & Grumadaite, K. (2014). Smart development of an innovation ecosystem. Procedia- Social and Behavioral Sciences, 156(26), 125-129.
• Maier, F., Meyer, M., & Steinbereithner, M. (2016). Nonprofit organizations becoming business-like: a systematic review. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 45(1), 64-86.
• Martin, R., & Osberg, S. (2015). Two keys to sustainable social enterprise. Harvard Business Review, 93(5), 86-93.
• Mason, Ch., & Moran, M. (2018). Social enterprise and policy discourse: a comparative analysis of the United Kingdom and Australia. Policy & Politics, 46, 607-626. doi https://doi.org/10.1332/030557317X15133530312516
• McMullen, J. (2018). Organizational hybrids as biological hybrids: Insights for research on the relationship between social enterprise and the entrepreneurial ecosystem. Journal of business venturing, 33, 575-590.
• McMullen, J. & Bergman, B. (2017). Social entrepreneurship and the development paradox of prosocial motivation: a cautionary tale. Strategic Entrepreneurship Journal, 11(3), 243-270. doi: 10.1002/sej.1263
• Meadow, H.M., & Wright, D. (2008). Thinking in Systems: A Primer. Chelsea Green Publishing.
• O'Byrne, D., Lean, J., Moizer, J., Walsh, P., Dell'Aquila, E., & Friedrich, R. (2014). Social enterprise in the European Union: A review of policy. Social & Public Policy Review, 9(1), 13-29.
• Okuneviciute Neverauskiene, L., & Moskvina, J. (2011). Social enterprises: aspect of social economy development. Philosophy. Sociology, 22(4), 384-393.
• Pact. (2018). The Social Entrepreneurship Ecosystem in Ukraine: Challenges and Opportunities. Kyiv, Ukraine and Washington, DC: Pact.
• Peltoniemi, M., & Vuori, E. (2004). Business ecosystem as the new approach to complex adaptive business environments. Proceedings of eBusiness Research Forum, 1-15.
• Powell, M., Gillett, A., & Doherty, B. (2018). Sustainability in social enterprise: hybrid organizing in public services. Public Management Review 21(35). doi: 10.1080/14719037.2018.1438504
• Pratono, H.A., & Sutanti, A. (2016). The ecosystem of social enterprise: Social culture, legal framework, and policy review in Indonesia. Pacific Science Review B: Humanities and Social Sciences, December, 1-7. doi: 10.1016/j.psrb.2016.09.020
• Ridley-Duff, R., & Bull, M. (2016). Understanding Social Enterprise: Theory and Practice (2nd ed.). London: SAGE Publications Ltd.
• Roy, M. J., McHugh, N., Huckfield, L., Kay, A., & Donaldson, C. (2015). The most supportive environment in the world? Tracing the development of an institutional 'ecosystem' for social enterprise. Voluntas, 26(3), 777-800.
• Shvedovsky, V., Standrik, A., & Bilan, Y. (2016). Economic and social institutions: Modelling the evolution paths for the archaic society. Economics and Sociology, 9(2), 137-147. doi: 10.14254/2071-789X.2016/9-2/9
• Signoretti, A., Sacchetti, S. (2020). Lean HRM practices in work integration social enterprises: moving towards social lean production. Evidence from Italian case studies. Annals of Public and Cooperative Economics, 91(4), 545-563.
• Small, V., & Rosandic, A. (2018). Social Economy in Eastern Neighbourhood and the Western Balkans. Country Report - Ukraine. AETS Consortium.
• Staicu, D. (2017). Policy framework and legal forms of social enterprise in Central and Eastern Europe. Proceedings of the 11th International Conference on Business Excellence, 875-883. doi: 11. 10.1515/picbe-2017-0093
• Szymanska, A., & Jegers, M. (2016). Modeling social enterprises. Annals of Public and Cooperative Economics, 87(4), 501-527.
• Talmar, M., Walrave, B., Podoynitsyna, K.S., Holmström, J., & Georges L. Romme, A. (2019). Mapping, analyzing and designing innovation ecosystems: The Ecosystem Pie Model. Long Range Planning, 1-9. doi. doi.org/10.1016/j.lrp.2018.09.002
• Thornton, P., & Ocasio, W. (2008). Institutional Logics. In: R. Greenwood et al. (Eds.) The Sage Handbook of Organizational Institutionalism (pp.99-129). Los Angeles: Sage.
• Vickers, I., Lyon, F., Sepulveda, L., & McMullin, C. (2017). Public service innovation and multiple institutional logics: The case of hybrid social enterprise providers of health and wellbeing. Research Policy, 46(10), 1755-1768. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2017.08.003
• Wry T., & York, J. G. (2017). An identity-based approach to social enterprise. Academy of Management Review, 42(3), 437-460. http://dx.doi.org/10.5465/amr.2013.0506
• Yin, R. (1994). Case Study Research: Design and Methods (2nd ed.). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage Publishing.
• Zahra, A., & Wright, M. (2016). Understanding the social role of entrepreneurship. Journal of Management Studies 53(4), 610-629. doi: 10.1111/joms.12149

Identyfikatory

DOI

10.14254/2071-8330.2021/14-1/3