Embedded dilemma – Examination of hibrid nature of work integration social enterprises
Keywords:
hybrid organizations, social entrepreneurship, labour market integration, target distortion, conflict of involved in organizational operationsAbstract
The concept and the potential social and economic role of social enterprises are both subject to considerable scientific and policy debate. While in many places it‟s seen as the renewal of the welfare system and as a kind of compromise between economic and social goals, this study mostly analyzes the conflicting nature of a special type of social enterprise that's aimed at labor market integration. The place of social enterprises within institutional pluralism can be interpreted in a very broad spectrum regarding both their economic and their social character. The result of grasping this concept is that - while we know little about the actual number of social enterprises, and the characteristics of the sector - the number of benefits attributed to these organizations is significantly increased. However, optimizing these two means not only balancing the social and economic dimensions, but it‟s also the source to the distortion of goals and to the conflict for those involved in organizational operations, which, in certain cases can endanger sustainability, and realization of social and economic goals of social enterprises.
References
ALTER, K. (2007): Social Enterprise Typology. Virtue Ventures LLC
AUSTIN, J. – STEVENSON, H. – WEI-SKILLEM, J. (2006): Social and commercial entrepreneurship: same, different, or both? IN: Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice Vol. 30. No. 1.
BATTILANA, J. – LEE, M. (2014): Advancing research on hybrid organizing. IN: The Academy of Management Annals. Vol. 8. No. 1. pp. 397.441.
BERGERON, S. – HEALY, S. (2015): The business case: a community economies approach to gender, development and social economy. IN: Utting, P. (szerk.) Social and solidarity economy – Beyond the fringe. London: Zed Books. pp. 72-85.
BESHAROV, M. - SMITH, W. K. (2013): Multiple logics within organizations: An integrative framework and model of organizational hybridity. Elérhető: http://www.hbs.edu/faculty/conferences/2013-paulrlawrence/Documents/Multiple%20logics%20within%20organizations_Besharov%20and%20Smith_for%20conference%20distribution_05.07.13.pdf letöltés dátuma: 2016. 11. 15.
BODE, I. – EVERS, A. – SCHULZ, A. (2006): Work integration social enterprise in Europe: can hybridization be sustainable? IN: Nyssens, M. (szerk.) Social enterprise. New Yor: Routledge. pp. 237-258.
BORZAGA, C. – DEFOURNY, J. (2004): Social enterprises in Europe: a diversity of initiatives and prospects. IN: Borzaga, C. – Defourny, J. (szerk.) The emergence of social enterprise. New York: Routledge. pp. 350-359.
BORZAGA, C. - DEPEDRI, S. (2014): When social enterprises do it better: efficiency and efficacy of work integration in italian social cooperatives. IN: Denny, S. – Seddon, F. (szerk.) Social enterprise: Accountability and evaluation around the world. New York: Routledge. pp. 85-101.
COONEY, K. (2011): The business of job creation: An examination of the social enterprise approach to workforce development. IN: Journal of Poverty. Vol. 15. No. 1. pp. 88-107.
DAVISTER, C. – DEFOURNY, J. – GREGOIRE, O. (2004): Work integration social enterprises in the European Union: an overview of existing models. Elérhető: http://orbi.ulg.ac.be/bitstream/2268/90492/1/Work%20Integration%20Social%20Enterprises%20in%20the%20European%20Union_An%20overview%20of%20existing%20models.pdf letöltés dátuma: 2016. 11. 12.
DEES, G. J. (1998): The Meaning of "Social Entrepreneurship. Elérhető:http://www.redalmarza.cl/ing/pdf/TheMeaningofsocialEntrepreneurship.pdf letöltés dátuma: 2016. 11. 18.
DEFOURNY, J. – NYSSENS, M. (2012): The EMES approach os social enterprise in a comparative perspective. Elérhető: http://www.emes.net/uploads/media/EMES-WP-12-03_Defourny-Nyssens.pdf letöltés dátuma: 2016. 11. 18.
DEPEDRI, S. (2010): The competitive advantages of social enterprises. IN: Becchetti, L. – Borzaga, C. (szerk) The economics of social responsibility. New York: Rotledge. pp. 34-54.
DIOCHON, M. – ANDERSON, A. R. (2011): Ambivalance and ambiguity in social enterprise: Narratives about values in reconciling purpose and practices. IN: International Entrepreneurship and Management Journal. Vol. 7. No. 1. pp. 93-109.
DOHERTY, B. – FOSTER, G. – MASON, C. – MEEHAN, J. – MEEHAN, K. – ROTHEROE, N. – ROYCE, M. (2009): Management of social enterprise. Los Angeles: Sage Publications. pp. 90-110.
DOHERTY, B. – HAUGH, H. – LYON, F. (2014): Social enterprisesas hybrid organizations: A review and research agenda. IN: International Journal of Management Reviews. Vol 16. pp. 417-436.
ELKENBERRY, A. M. (2009): Refusing the market: A demorcratic discourse for voluntary and nonprofit organizations. IN: Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly 2009. No: 38. pp. 582-596.
ENJOLRAS, B. (2014) The associative as governance structure IN: Defourny, J. – Hulgard, L. – Pestoff, V. (szerk.) Social enterprise and the third sector – Changing european landscape in a comparative perspective. London: Routledge. pp. 187-211.
GALASKIEWICZ, J. – BARRINGER, S. N. (2012): Social enterprise and social categories. IN: IN: Gidron, B. – Hasenfeld, Y. (szerk.) Social enterprise: An organizational perspective. New York: Palgrave Macmillan. pp. 47-70.
GARROW, E. - HASENFELD, Y. (2012): Managing conflicting institutional logics: Social Service versus market. IN: Gidron, B. – Hasenfeld, Y. (szerk.) Social enterprise: An organizational perspective. New York: Palgrave Macmillan. pp. 121-143.
GIDRON, B. – MONNICKENDAM-GIVON, Y. (2016): A social welfare perspective market-oriented social enterprises. IN: International Journal of Social Welfare. July 2016. pp. 1-14.
GONIN, M. – BESHAROV, M. – SMITH, W. – GACHET, N. (2012): Managing social-business tensions: A review and research agenda for social enterprise. IN: Business Ethics Quarterly. May 2013.
HULGARD, L. (2014): Social enterprise and the third sector – Innovative service delivery or a non-capitalist economy? IN: Defourny, J. – Hulgard, L. – Pestoff, V. (szerk.) Social enterprise and the third sector – Changing european landscape in a comparative perspective. London: Routledge. pp. 66-85.
HUYBRECHTS, B. – MERTENS, S. – RIJPENS, J. (2014): Explaining stakeholder involvement in social enterprise governance through resources and legitimacy. IN: Defourny, J. – Hulgard, L. – Pestoff, V. (szerk.) Social enterprise and the third sector – Changing european landscape in a comparative perspective. London: Routledge. pp. 157-176.
FOSFUR, A. – GIRRATANA, M. S. – ROCA, E. (2016): Social business hybrids: Demand externalities, competitive advantage, and growth through diversification. IN: Organization Science. Vol. 27. No. 5. pp. 1275-1289.
HANSMANN, H. B. (1980): The role of nonprofit enterprise. Yale Law Journal. Vol. 89. No 5. pp. 835-901.
HUDSON, R. (2009): Life on the edge: Navigation the competitive tensions between the ‚social‘ and the ‚economic‘ in the social economy and in its relations to the mainstream. IN: Journal of Economic Geography. Vol. 9. No. 4. pp. 493-51.
LAVILLE, J. L. (2015): Social and solidarity economy in historical perspective. IN: Utting, P. (szerk.) Social and solidarity economy – Beyond the fringe. London: Zed Books. pp. 41-56.
MASON, C. – BRYDE, D. J. (2007). Form stakeholders to institutions: The changing face of social enterprise governance theory. IN: Management Decision, 2007/11.
MCMURTRY, J-J. (2015): Prometheus, Trojan horse or frankenstein? Appraising the social and solidarity economy. IN: Utting, P. (szerk.) Social and solidarity economy – Beyond the fringe. London: Zed Books. pp. 57 – 71.
MOIZER, J. – TRACEY, P. (2010): Strategy Making in Social Enterprise: The Role of Resource Allocation and It’s Effects on Organizational Sustainability. Elérhető:http://www.rise.or.kr/RBS/Data/Files/fnAAN/research01/10.pdf letöltés dátuma: 2016. 11. 12.
NYSSENS, M. (2014) European work integration social enterprises: Between social innovation and isomorphism. IN: Defourny, J. – Hulgard, L. – Pestoff, V. (szerk.) Social enterprise and the third sector – Changing european landscape in a comparative perspective. London: Routledge. pp. 211-230.
PACHE, A-C. – SANTOS, F. (2013): Inside the hybrid organization: Selective coupling as a response to competing institutional logics. IN: Academy of Management Journal. Vol 56. No. 4. pp. 972-1001.
PERKINS, D. (2009): Welfare to work and social inclusion: Challenges and possibilities. IN: Social Inclusion Research Forum, University of Melbourne, 25–26 June.
SANTOS, F. – PACHE, A-C – BIRKHOLZ, C. (2015): Making Hybrids Work: Aligning Business Models and Organizational Design for Social Enterprises. IN: California Management Review, Vol. 57 No. 3, Spring. pp. 36-58
SEANOR, P. -BULL, M. - RIDLEY-DUFF, R. (2007): Mapping social enterprise:do social enterprise actors draw straight lines or circles? IN: 4thSocial Enterprise Research Conference, London South Bank University,4-5 July 2007.
SMITH, W. K. – BESHAROV, M. - WESSELS, A. K. –CHERTOK, M. (2012): A paradoxical leadership model for social entrepreneurs: Challenges, leadership skills, and pedagogical tools for managing social and commercial demands. IN: Academy os Management Learning & Education. Vol 11. No. 3. pp. 463-378.
SPEAR, R. – CORNFORTH, C. – AIKEN, M. (2014): Major perspectives on govvernance of social enterprise IN: Defourny, J. – Hulgard, L. – PESTOFF, V. (szerk.) Social enterprise and the third sector – Changing european landscape in a comparative perspective. London: Routledge. pp. 133-157.
TEASDALE, S. (2012a): Negotating tensions: How do social enterprises in the homlessness field balance social and commercial considerations? IN: Housing Studies, Vol. 27. No. 4. pp. 514-532.
TEASDALE, S. (2012b): What’s in a Name? Making sense of social enterprise discourses. IN: Public Policy and Administration Vol. 27 No. 2. pp- 1-22.
TORTIA, E. (2010): The impact of social enterprises on output, employment, and welfare. IN:Becchetti, L. – Borzaga, C. (szerk.) The economics of social responsibility. New York: Rotledge. pp. 59-61.
VIDAL, I. (2014): Multi-stakeholder governance in social enterprise. IN: Defourny, J. – Hulgard, L. – Pestoff, V. (szerk.) Social enterprise and the third sector – Changing european landscape in a comparative perspective. London: Routledge. pp. 176-187.
WELLENS, L. – JEGERS, M. (2013): Effective governance in nonprofit organizations: A literature based multiple stakeholder approach. IN: European Management Journal 2013.
WILKINSON, A. – DUNDON, T. (2010): Direct employee participation. IN: Wilkinson, A. – Gollan, P. J. – Marchington, M. – Lewin, D. (szerk.) The Oxford handbook of participation in organizations. New York: Oxford University Press. pp. 167-185.
YOUNG, D. R. – LECY, J. D. (2016): The role of social entrepreneurs in the social enterprise zoo. IN: Young, D. R. – Searing, E. A. M. – Brewer, C. V. (szerk.) The social enterprise zoo: A guide for perplexed scholars, entrepreneurs, philanthropist, leaders, investors, and policymakers. Northampton: Edward Elgar Publishing. pp. 113-142.
ZAMAGNI, S. (2005): A civil-economic theory of the cooperative enterprise. Elérhető: https://www.uvic.ca/research/centres/cccbe/assets/docs/speakers/Zamagni_Theory_of_Cooperative_Enterprise.pdf letöltés dátuma: 2016. 11. 18.
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.
