Benefit corporation; Capabilities; Governance; Social venture; Typology; Business and International Management; Management of Technology and Innovation
Abstract :
[en] A series of new legal statutes for profit-seeking social ventures has emerged across geographic and institutional settings. Extant studies commonly do not make a clear distinction between these ventures. Such confusion leads to blurriness in research design and methodology, thereby limiting the relevance of findings. Moreover, researchers, entrepreneurs, and policymakers often lack a clear view of the unique organizational and governance aptitudes these ventures call for, to sustain and grow over time. Thus, this study has two objectives: (1) to clarify the panorama of novel companies that legally commit themselves to a social mission, gathered under the term “social corporation,” by providing a comprehensive typology of these organizations and (2) to identify the governance capabilities that social corporations develop to be sustainable and avoid mission drift in the long run. Our analysis of corporate-governing documents leads us to classify social corporations into three types: hard-law, soft-law, and bylaw. In addition to this typology, our multiple case study uncovers five key governance capabilities of social corporations related to performance, conformance, and responsibility—the main pillars of organizational governance. Overall, our work contributes to a better understanding of novel forms of social entrepreneurship emerging on the market. More important, it casts light on the governance processes that characterize them.
Disciplines :
General management, entrepreneurship & organizational theory
Author, co-author :
Serres, Coline ; Université de Liège - ULiège > HEC Liège : UER > UER Management : Entrepreneuriat social et durable ; CEBRIG, Solvay Brussels School of Economics and Management, Université Libre de Bruxelles (ULB), Brussels, Belgium
Hudon, Marek; CEBRIG, Solvay Brussels School of Economics and Management, Université Libre de Bruxelles (ULB), Brussels, Belgium
Maon, François; IESEG School of Management, Univ. Lille, CNRS, UMR 9221 -LEM- Lille Economie Management, Rue de la Digue, Lille, France
Language :
English
Title :
Social corporations under the spotlight: A governance perspective
The authors thank Associate Editor Sophie Bacq and three anonymous reviewers for their valuable insights and suggestions. For comments on earlier drafts of the manuscript, the authors thank Adrien Billiet, Judith Behrens, Francesca Cooley, Silvia Dorado, Marc Labie, Marthe Nyssens, Samuel Anokye Nyarko, Daniela Ortiz and Roxanne Powell. They also thank François Declercq, Gabriele Mauro, Juliette Michaud, Nadia Ouazir, Helena Placentino and Hélio Venegas Riquelme for their research assistance. Finally, this research has been carried out thanks to the support of the Interfaculty Action de Recherche Concertée funded by the Université Libre de Bruxelles under the title “Locals dealing with Developmental Incomes,” and of La Fondation de la Catho de Lille.
Aguinis, H., Glavas, A., Embedded versus peripheral corporate social responsibility: psychological foundations. Ind. Organ. Psychol. 6 (2013), 314–332.
Amis, J., Barney, J., Mahoney, J.T., Wang, H., From the editors—why we need a theory of stakeholder governance—and why this is a hard problem. Acad. Manag. Rev. 45 (2020), 499–503.
Bacq, S., Aguilera, R.V., Stakeholder governance for responsible innovation: a theory of value creation, appropriation, and distribution. J. Manag. Stud. 59 (2022), 29–60.
Bacq, S., Alt, E., Feeling capable and valued: a prosocial perspective on the link between empathy and social entrepreneurial intentions. J. Bus. Ventur. 33 (2018), 333–350.
Bacq, S., Hartog, C., Hoogendoorn, B., Beyond the moral portrayal of social entrepreneurs: an empirical approach to who they are and what drives them. J. Bus. Ethics 133 (2016), 703–718.
Bacq, S., Janssen, F., Noël, C., What happens next? A qualitative study of founder succession in social enterprises. J. Small Bus. Manag. 57 (2019), 820–844.
Bailey, C., Lips-Wiersma, M., Madden, A., Yeoman, R., Thompson, M., Chalofsky, N., The five paradoxes of meaningful work: introduction to the special issue ‘meaningful work: prospects for the 21st century.’. J. Manag. Stud. 56 (2019), 481–499.
Battilana, J., Cracking the organizational challenge of pursuing joint social and financial goals: social enterprise as a laboratory to understand hybrid organizing. M@n@gement 21 (2018), 1278–1305.
Battilana, J., Dorado, S., Building sustainable hybrid organizations: the case of commercial microfinance organizations. Acad. Manag. J. 53 (2010), 1419–1440.
Battilana, J., Obloj, T., Pache, A.-C., Sengul, M., Beyond shareholder value maximization: accounting for financial/social tradeoffs in dual-purpose companies. Acad. Manag. Rev, 2020, 10.5465/amr.2019.0386.
Baudot, L., Dillard, J., Pencle, N., The emergence of benefit corporations: a cautionary tale. Crit. Perspect. Account., 2020, 67–68, 10.1016/j.cpa.2019.01.005.
Bebchuk, L.A., Tallarita, R., The illusory promise of stakeholder governance. Cornell Law Rev. 106 (2020), 91–178.
Benefit Corporation, Find a Benefit Corp. 2021, Benefit Corporation Available at https://benefitcorp.net/businesses/find-a-benefit-corp (accessed 12.31.21).
Boeger, N., Beyond the shareholder corporation: alternative business forms and the contestation of markets. J. Law Soc. 45 (2018), 10–28.
Borland, H., Ambrosini, V., Lindgreen, A., Vanhamme, J., Building theory at the intersection of ecological sustainability and strategic management. J. Bus. Ethics 135 (2016), 293–307.
Borzaga, C., Salvatori, G., Bodini, R., Social and solidarity economy and the future of work. J. Entrep. Innov. Emerg. Econ. 5 (2019), 37–57.
Bradley, S.W., Kim, P.H., Klein, P.G., McMullen, J.S., Wennberg, K., Policy for innovative entrepreneurship: institutions, interventions, and societal challenges. Strateg. Entrep. J. 15 (2021), 167–184.
Bridoux, F., Stoelhorst, J.W., Stakeholder governance: solving the collective action problems in joint value creation. Acad. Manag. Rev, 2020, 10.5465/amr.2019.0441.
Bunderson, J.S., Thompson, J.A., The call of the wild: zookeepers, callings, and the double-edged sword of deeply meaningful work. Adm. Sci. Q. 54 (2009), 32–57.
Chiapello, E., Godefroy, G., The dual function of judgment devices. Why does the plurality of market classifications matter?. Histor. Soc. Res. 42 (2017), 152–188.
Choi, N., Majumdar, S., Social entrepreneurship as an essentially contested concept: opening a new avenue for systematic future research. J. Bus. Ventur. 29 (2014), 363–376.
Ciriacy-Wantrup, S.V., Bishop, R.C., “Common property” as a concept in natural resources policy. Nat. Resour. J. 15 (1975), 713–727.
Cobb, J.A., Wry, T., Zhao, E.Y., Funding financial inclusion: institutional logics and the contextual contingency of funding for microfinance organizations. Acad. Manag. J. 59 (2016), 2103–2131.
Cohn, S.R., Ames, S.D., Now It's easier being green: Florida's new Benefit and social purpose corporations. Florida Bar J. 88 (2014), 38–42.
Colenbrander, A., Argyrou, A., Lambooy, T., Blomme, R.J., Inclusive governance in social enterprises in the Netherlands – a case study. Ann. Public Cooperative Econ. 88 (2017), 543–566.
Connolly, C., Kelly, M., Annual reporting by social enterprise organizations: “legitimacy surplus” or reporting deficit?. Account. Audit. Account. J. 33 (2020), 1997–2025.
Cornforth, C., The governance of cooperatives and mutual associations: a paradox perspective. Ann. Public Cooperative Econ. 75 (2004), 11–32.
Cornforth, C., The governance of hybrid organisations. Billis, D., Rochester, C., (eds.) Handbook on Hybrid Organisations, 2020, Edward Elgar Publishing, Cheltenham, 220–236.
Crilly, D., Zollo, M., Hansen, M.T., Faking it or muddling through? Understanding decoupling in response to stakeholder pressures. Acad. Manag. J. 55 (2012), 1429–1448.
Dacin, P.A., Dacin, M.T., Matear, M., Social entrepreneurship: why we don't need a new theory and how we move forward from Here. Acad. Manag. Perspect. 24 (2010), 37–57.
Dacin, M.T., Dacin, P.A., Tracey, P., Social entrepreneurship: a critique and future directions. Organ. Sci. 22 (2011), 1203–1213.
Dato, M.H., Hudon, M., Mersland, R., Board governance: does ownership matter?. Ann. Public Cooperative Econ. 91 (2020), 5–28.
Davies, I.A., Haugh, H., Chambers, L., Barriers to social enterprise growth. J. Small Bus. Manag. 57 (2019), 1616–1636.
Dearlove, D., Interview: Jeff Skoll. Bus. Strateg. Rev. 15 (2004), 51–53.
Deci, E.L., Connell, J.P., Ryan, R.M., Self-determination in a work organization. J. Appl. Psychol. 74 (1989), 580–590.
Dedeurwaerdere, T., Schutter, O.D., Hudon, M., Mathijs, E., Annaert, B., Avermaete, T., Bleeckx, T., Callataÿ, C. de, Snijder, P.D., Fernández-Wulff, P., Joachain, H., Vivero, J.-L., The governance features of social enterprise and social network activities of collective food buying groups. Ecol. Econ. 140 (2017), 123–135.
Dees, J.G., The meaning of social entrepreneurship. Durham, NC: Center for the Advancement of Social Entrepreneurship, Fuqua School of Business, 2001, Duke University Available at https://centers.fuqua.duke.edu/case/wp-content/uploads/sites/7/2015/03/Article_Dees_MeaningofSocialEntrepreneurship_2001.pdf (accessed 01.18.21).
Dees, J.G., Anderson, B.B., Framing a theory of social entrepreneurship: building on two schools of practice and thought. Res. Soc. Entrep. 1 (2006), 39–66.
Defourny, J., L’économie sociale. Defourny, J., Nyssens, M., (eds.) Économie Sociale et Solidaire: Socioéconomie Du 3e Secteur. De Boeck Superieur, Louvain-la-Neuve, 2017, 29–72.
Defourny, J., Nyssens, M., Social enterprise in Europe: recent trends and developments. Soc. Enterp. J. 4 (2008), 202–228.
Defourny, J., Nyssens, M., Conceptions of social enterprise and social entrepreneurship in Europe and the United States: convergences and divergences. J. Soc. Entrep. 1 (2010), 32–53.
Defourny, J., Nyssens, M., Fundamentals for an international typology of social enterprise models. Volunt. Int. J. Volunt. Nonprofit Org. 28 (2017), 2469–2497.
D'Espallier, B., Hudon, M., Szafarz, A., Unsubsidized microfinance institutions. Econ. Lett. 120 (2013), 174–176.
Doherty, B., Haugh, H., Lyon, F., Social enterprises as hybrid organizations: a review and research agenda. Int. J. Manag. Rev. 16 (2014), 417–436.
Dosi, G., Nelson, R., Winter, S., Introduction: the nature and dynamics of organizational capabilities. Dosi, G., Nelson, R., Winter, S., (eds.) The Nature and Dynamics of Organizational Capabilities, 2000, Oxford University Press, New York, 1–22.
Dosi, G., Faillo, M., Marengo, L., Organizational capabilities, patterns of knowledge accumulation and governance structures in business firms: an introduction. Organ. Stud. 29 (2008), 1165–1185.
Dufays, F., Huybrechts, B., Where do hybrids come from? Entrepreneurial team heterogeneity as an avenue for the emergence of hybrid organizations. Int. Small Bus. J. 34 (2016), 777–796.
Ebrahim, A., Rangan, V.K., What impact? A framework for measuring the scale and scope of social performance. Calif. Manag. Rev. 56 (2014), 118–141.
Ebrahim, A., Battilana, J., Mair, J., The governance of social enterprises: mission drift and accountability challenges in hybrid organizations. Res. Organ. Behav. 34 (2014), 81–100.
Eisenhardt, K.M., Building theories from case study research. Acad. Manag. Rev. 14 (1989), 532–550.
Eisenhardt, K.M., Agency theory: an assessment and review. Acad. Manag. Rev. 14 (1989), 57–74.
Eisenhardt, K.M., Graebner, M.E., Theory building from cases: opportunities and challenges. Acad. Manag. J. 50 (2007), 25–32.
Ellis, T., The New Pioneers: Sustainable Business Success through Social Innovation and Social Entrepreneurship. 2010, Wiley, Chichester.
Fahy, M., Weiner, A., Roche, J., Beyond Governance: Creating Corporate Value through Performance, Conformance and Responsibility. 2005, Wiley, Chichester.
Filatotchev, I., Wright, M., Uhlenbruck, K., Tihanyi, L., Hoskisson, R.E., Governance, organizational capabilities, and restructuring in transition economies. J. World Bus. 38 (2003), 331–347.
Fosfuri, A., Giarratana, M.S., Roca, E., Social business hybrids: demand externalities, competitive advantage, and growth through diversification. Organ. Sci. 27 (2016), 1275–1289.
Fowler, E.A.R., Coffey, B.S., Dixon-Fowler, H.R., Transforming good intentions into social impact: a case on the creation and evolution of a social enterprise. J. Bus. Ethics 159 (2017), 665–678.
Fraisse, L., Gardin, L., Laville, J.-L., Petrella, F., Richez-Battesti, N., Social enterprise in France : at the crossroads of the social economy, solidarity economy and social entrepreneurship?. (No. halshs-01449222), 2016 Available at https://halshs.archives-ouvertes.fr/halshs-01449222 (accessed 7.20.21).
Freeman, R.E., Parmar, B.L., Martin, K., Purpose and Profits. 2020, The Power of And. Columbia University Press, New York and Chichester, 47–64.
Galunic, D.C., Eisenhardt, K.M., The evolution of intracorporate domains: divisional charter losses in high-technology, multidivisional corporations. Organ. Sci. 7 (1996), 255–282.
Gioia, D.A., Corley, K.G., Hamilton, A.L., Seeking qualitative rigor in inductive research: notes on the Gioia methodology. Organ. Res. Methods 16 (2013), 15–31.
Grayson, D., Hodges, A., Corporate Social Opportunity! Seven Steps to Make Corporate Social Responsibility Work for your Business. 2017, Routledge, Sheffield.
Gümüsay, A.A., Smets, M., Morris, T., “God at work”: engaging central and incompatible institutional logics through elastic hybridity. Acad. Manag. J. 63 (2020), 124–154.
Haber, S., Efficiency and Uplift: Scientific Management in the Progressive Era, 1890–1920. 1973, University of Chicago Press, Chicago.
Hahn, T., C. Mitzineck, B., Business sustainability as a context for studying hybridity. Besharov, M., L., (eds.) Organizational Hybridity: Perspectives, Processes, Promises, Research in the Sociology of Organizations, 2020, Emerald Publishing Limited, Bingley, 115–138.
Haigh, N., Hoffman, A.J., Hybrid organizations: the next chapter in sustainable business. Organ. Dyn. 41 (2012), 126–134.
Haugh, H., Community–led social venture creation. Entrep. Theor. Practice 31 (2007), 161–182.
Haugh, H., O'Carroll, M., Empowerment, social innovation and social change. George, G., Baker, T., Tracey, P., Joshi, H., (eds.) Handbook of Inclusive Innovation, 2019, Edward Elgar Publishing, Cheltenham, 486–502.
Helfat, C.E., Peteraf, M.A., The dynamic resource-based view: capability lifecycles. Strateg. Manag. J. 24 (2003), 997–1010.
Hengst, I.-A., Jarzabkowski, P., Hoegl, M., Muethel, M., Toward a process theory of making sustainability strategies legitimate in action. Acad. Manag. J. 63 (2020), 246–271.
Hertel, C.J., Bacq, S., Belz, F.-M., It takes a village to sustain a village: a social identity perspective on successful community-based Enterprise creation. Acad. Manag. Discov. 5 (2019), 438–464.
Hiller, J.S., The benefit corporation and corporate social responsibility. J. Bus. Ethics 118 (2013), 287–301.
Ho, C.-K., Corporate governance and corporate competitiveness: an international analysis. Corporate Govern. 13 (2005), 211–253.
Huse, M., Boards, Governance and Value Creation: The Human Side of Corporate Governance. 2007, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
Huybrechts, B., Mertens, S., Rijpens, J., Explaining stakeholder involvement in social enterprise governance through resources and legitimacy. Defourny, J., Hulgård, L., Pestoff, V., (eds.) Social Enterprise and the Third Sector: Changing European Landscapes in a Comparative Perspective, 2014, Routledge, London and New York, 157–175.
Jackson, G., Bartosch, J., Avetisyan, E., Kinderman, D., Knudsen, J.S., Mandatory non-financial disclosure and its influence on CSR: an international comparison. J. Bus. Ethics 162 (2020), 323–342.
Jamali, D., Safieddine, A.M., Rabbath, M., Corporate governance and corporate social responsibility synergies and interrelationships. Corporate Govern. 16 (2008), 443–459.
Jarzabkowski, P., Shaping strategy as a structuration process. Acad. Manag. J. 51 (2008), 621–650.
Jay, J., Navigating paradox as a mechanism of change and innovation in hybrid organizations. Acad. Manag. J. 56 (2013), 137–159.
Jiao, H., A conceptual model for social entrepreneurship directed toward social impact on society. Soc. Enterp. J. 7 (2011), 130–149.
Jones, T.M., Felps, W., Shareholder wealth maximization and social welfare: a utilitarian critique. Bus. Ethics Q. 23 (2013), 207–238.
Kelly, L.M., Athanassiou, N., Crittenden, W.F., Founder centrality and strategic behavior in the family-owned firm. Entrep. Theor. Practice 25 (2000), 27–42.
Kennedy, E.D., Beaton, E., Haigh, N., Increasing social impact among social enterprises and traditional firms. Billis, D., Rochester, C., (eds.) Handbook on Hybrid Organisations, 2020, Edward Elgar Publishing, Cheltenham, 251–272.
Khavul, S., Chavez, H., Bruton, G.D., When institutional change outruns the change agent: the contested terrain of entrepreneurial microfinance for those in poverty. J. Bus. Ventur. 28 (2013), 30–50.
Kibler, E., Muñoz, P., What do we talk about when we talk about community? Commentary on “It takes a village to sustain a village: a social identity perspective on successful community-based Enterprise creation” by Christina Hertel, Sophie Bacq, and Frank-Martin Belz. Acad. Manag. Discov. 6 (2020), 721–725.
Klarner, P., Yoshikawa, T., Hitt, M.A., A capability-based view of boards: a new conceptual framework for board governance. Acad. Manag. Perspect. 35 (2021), 123–141.
Klein, P.G., Mahoney, J.T., McGahan, A.M., Pitelis, C.N., Who is in charge? A property rights perspective on stakeholder governance. Strateg. Organ. 10 (2012), 304–315.
Kor, Y.Y., Mahoney, J.T., How dynamics, management, and governance of resource deployments influence firm-level performance. Strateg. Manag. J. 26 (2005), 489–496.
Kuntz, J.R.C., Näswall, K., Malinen, S., Resilient employees in resilient organizations: flourishing beyond adversity. Ind. Organ. Psychol. 9 (2016), 456–462.
Lafuente, E., Vaillant, Y., Vendrell-Herrero, F., Conformance and performance roles of bank boards: the connection between non-performing loans and non-performing directorships. Eur. Manag. J. 37 (2019), 664–673.
Levillain, K., Segrestin, B., From primacy to purpose commitment: how emerging profit-with-purpose corporations open new corporate governance avenues. Eur. Manag. J. 37 (2019), 637–647.
Li, H., Terjesen, S., Umans, T., Corporate governance in entrepreneurial firms: a systematic review and research agenda. Small Bus. Econ. 54 (2020), 43–74.
Liñán, F., Fayolle, A., A systematic literature review on entrepreneurial intentions: citation, thematic analyses, and research agenda. Int. Entrep. Manag. J. 11 (2015), 907–933.
Maiolini, R., Rullani, F., Versari, P., Mechanisms and boundaries of collective action in social entrepreneurship. Presented at the DRUID15, Rome, Italy. 2015 Available at https://conference.druid.dk/acc_papers/tx1sva7v3iq4ojtmofgkyek9rvpe.pdf (accessed 12.18.20).
Mair, J., Battilana, J., Cardenas, J., Organizing for society: a typology of social entrepreneuring models. J. Bus. Ethics 111 (2012), 353–373.
Mair, J., Mayer, J., Lutz, E., Navigating institutional plurality: organizational governance in hybrid organizations. Organ. Stud. 36 (2015), 713–739.
Malsch, F., Guieu, G., How to get more with less? Scarce resources and high social ambition: effectuation as KM tool in social entrepreneurial projects. J. Knowl. Manag. 23 (2019), 1949–1964.
Markman, G.D., Russo, M., Lumpkin, G.T., Jennings, P.D., Mair, J., Entrepreneurship as a platform for pursuing multiple goals: a special issue on sustainability, ethics, and entrepreneurship. J. Manag. Stud. 53 (2016), 673–694.
Maroun, W., A conceptual model for understanding corporate social responsibility assurance practice. J. Bus. Ethics 161 (2020), 187–209.
Mason, C., Simmons, J., Embedding corporate social responsibility in corporate governance: a stakeholder systems approach. J. Bus. Ethics 119 (2014), 77–86.
Mayer, K.J., Salomon, R.M., Capabilities, contractual hazards, and governance: integrating resource-based and transaction cost perspectives. Acad. Manag. J. 49 (2006), 942–959.
Mazutis, D.D., Slawinski, N., Reconnecting business and society: perceptions of authenticity in corporate social responsibility. J. Bus. Ethics 131 (2015), 137–150.
Mersland, R., Nyarko, S.A., Szafarz, A., Do social enterprises walk the talk? Assessing microfinance performances with mission statements. J. Bus. Ventur. Insights, 11, 2019, e00117.
Meyer, C., The commons: a model for understanding collective action and entrepreneurship in communities. J. Bus. Ventur., 35, 2020, 10.1016/j.jbusvent.2020.106034.
Montgomery, A.W., Dacin, P.A., Dacin, M.T., Collective social entrepreneurship: collaboratively shaping social good. J. Bus. Ethics 111 (2012), 375–388.
Moroz, P.W., Branzei, O., Parker, S.C., Gamble, E.N., Imprinting with purpose: prosocial opportunities and B Corp certification. J. Bus. Ventur. 33 (2018), 117–129.
Muñoz, P., Kimmitt, J., Social mission as competitive advantage: a configurational analysis of the strategic conditions of social entrepreneurship. J. Bus. Res. 101 (2019), 854–861.
Nelson, T., The persistence of founder influence: management, ownership, and performance effects at initial public offering. Strateg. Manag. J. 24 (2003), 707–724.
Observatoire des Sociétés à Mission, Les entreprises devenues sociétés à mission. 2021 Available at https://observatoire.entreprisesamission.com//societes-a-mission (accessed 12.31.21).
van Oosten, C., Runhaar, H., Arts, B., Capable to govern landscape restoration? Exploring landscape governance capabilities, based on literature and stakeholder perceptions. Land Use Policy, 104, 2021, 10.1016/j.landusepol.2019.05.039.
Ozanne, L.K., Phipps, M., Weaver, T., Carrington, M., Luchs, M., Catlin, J., Gupta, S., Santos, N., Scott, K., Williams, J., Managing the tensions at the intersection of the triple bottom line: a paradox theory approach to sustainability management. J. Public Policy Mark. 35 (2016), 249–261.
Ozcan, Y.A., Shukla, R.K., Tyler, L.H., Organizational performance in the community mental health care system: the need fulfillment perspective. Organ. Sci. 8 (1997), 176–191.
Pache, A.-C., Santos, F., When worlds collide: the internal dynamics of organizational responses to conflicting institutional demands. Acad. Manag. Rev. 35 (2010), 455–476.
Pache, A.-C., Santos, F., Inside the hybrid organization: selective coupling as a response to competing institutional logics. Acad. Manag. J. 56 (2013), 972–1001.
Patagonia Works, Annual Benefit Corporation Report Fiscal Year 2019. (accessed 12.31.21), 2020 Available at https://www.patagonia.com/on/demandware.static/-/Library-Sites-PatagoniaShared/default/dwf14ad70c/PDF-US/PAT_2019_BCorp_Report.pdf.
Peredo, A.M., Chrisman, J.J., Toward a theory of community-based enterprise. Acad. Manag. Rev. 31 (2006), 309–328.
Peredo, A.M., Haugh, H.M., McLean, M., Common property: uncommon forms of prosocial organizing. J. Bus. Ventur. 33 (2018), 591–602.
Peredo, A.M., Haugh, H., Hudon, M., Meyer, C., Mapping concepts and issues in the ethics of the commons: introduction to the special issue. J. Bus. Ethics 166 (2020), 659–672.
Rawhouser, H., Cummings, M., Crane, A., Benefit corporation legislation and the emergence of a social hybrid category. Calif. Manag. Rev. 57 (2015), 13–35.
Regulator of Community Interest Companies, Community Interest Companies Annual Report 2020-21. (accessed 11.24.21), 2021 Available at https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/1005991/cic-21-3-community-interest-companies-annual-report-2020-2021.pdf.
Rey-Martí, A., Ribeiro-Soriano, D., Palacios-Marqués, D., A bibliometric analysis of social entrepreneurship. J. Bus. Res. 69 (2016), 1651–1655.
Rivera-Santos, M., Holt, D., Littlewood, D., Kolk, A., Social entrepreneurship in Sub-Saharan Africa. Acad. Manag. Perspect. 29 (2014), 72–91.
Saebi, T., Foss, N.J., Linder, S., Social entrepreneurship research: past achievements and future promises. J. Manag. 45 (2019), 70–95.
Sahasranamam, S., Nandakumar, M.K., Individual capital and social entrepreneurship: role of formal institutions. J. Bus. Res. 107 (2020), 104–117.
Santos, F.M., A positive theory of social entrepreneurship. J. Bus. Ethics 111 (2012), 335–351.
Schoeneborn, D., Morsing, M., Crane, A., Formative perspectives on the relation between CSR communication and CSR practices: pathways for walking, talking, and t(w)alking. Bus. Soc. 59 (2020), 5–33.
Segrestin, B., Levillain, K., Vernac, S., Hatchuel, A., La « Société à Objet Social Étendu »: Un nouveau statut pour l'entreprise. 2015, Presses des Mines, Paris.
Segrestin, B., Hatchuel, A., Levillain, K., When the law distinguishes between the enterprise and the corporation: the case of the new French law on corporate purpose. J. Bus. Ethics 171 (2021), 1–13.
Shah, S.K., Corley, K.G., Building better theory by bridging the quantitative–qualitative divide. J. Manag. Stud. 43 (2006), 1821–1835.
Sharir, M., Lerner, M., Gauging the success of social ventures initiated by individual social entrepreneurs. J. World Bus. 41 (2006), 6–20.
Shepherd, D.A., Williams, T.A., Zhao, E.Y., A framework for exploring the degree of hybridity in entrepreneurship. Acad. Manag. Perspect. 33 (2019), 491–512.
Shleifer, A., Vishny, R.W., A survey of corporate governance. J. Financ. 52 (1997), 737–783.
Siqueira, A.C.O., Guenster, N., Vanacker, T., Crucke, S., A longitudinal comparison of capital structure between young for-profit social and commercial enterprises. J. Bus. Ventur. 33 (2018), 225–240.
Smith, W.K., Besharov, M.L., Bowing before dual gods: how structured flexibility sustains organizational hybridity. Adm. Sci. Q. 64 (2019), 1–44.
Società Benefit, Sito di informazione sulle Società Benefit curato da B Lab e AssoBenefit. Available at https://www.societabenefit.net/, 2021 (accessed 12.31.21).
Spira, L.F., Bender, R., Compare and contrast: perspectives on board committees. Corporate Govern. 12 (2004), 489–499.
Stecker, M.J., Awash in a sea of confusion: benefit corporations, social enterprise, and the fear of “greenwashing”. J. Econ. Issues 50 (2016), 373–381.
Stephan, U., Patterson, M., Kelly, C., Mair, J., Organizations driving positive social change: a review and an integrative framework of change processes. J. Manag. 42 (2016), 1250–1281.
Strauss, A., Corbin, J., Basics of Qualitative Research: Grounded Theory Procedures and Techniques. 1990, SAGE Publications, Inc, Los Angeles.
Strauss, K., Lepoutre, J., Wood, G., Fifty shades of green: how microfoundations of sustainability dynamic capabilities vary across organizational contexts. J. Organ. Behav. 38 (2017), 1338–1355.
Teece, D.J., Explicating dynamic capabilities: the nature and microfoundations of (sustainable) enterprise performance. Strateg. Manag. J. 28 (2007), 1319–1350.
Termeer, C.J.A.M., Dewulf, A., Breeman, G., Stiller, S.J., Governance capabilities for dealing wisely with wicked problems. Adm. Soc. 47 (2015), 680–710.
Tricker, R.I., International Corporate Governance: Text, Readings and Cases. 1994, Prentice Hall, New Jersey.
Tsang, E.W.K., Williams, J.N., Generalization and induction: misconceptions, clarifications, and a classification of induction. MIS Q. 36 (2012), 729–748.
Vallaster, C., Maon, F., Lindgreen, A., Vanhamme, J., Serving multiple masters: the role of micro-foundations of dynamic capabilities in addressing tensions in for-profit hybrid organizations. Organ. Stud. 42 (2021), 911–947.
Waddock, S., Steckler, E., Visionaries and wayfinders: deliberate and emergent pathways to vision in social entrepreneurship. J. Bus. Ethics 133 (2016), 719–734.
Williams, T.A., Gruber, D.A., Sutcliffe, K.M., Shepherd, D.A., Zhao, E.Y., Organizational response to adversity: fusing crisis management and resilience research streams. Acad. Manag. Ann. 11 (2017), 733–769.
Wry, T., York, J.G., An identity-based approach to social enterprise. Acad. Manag. Rev. 42 (2017), 437–460.
Yin, R.K., Case Study Research and Applications: Design and Methods. 2017, SAGE Publications, Inc, London.
Young, D.R., Longhofer, W., Designing the zoo. Young, D.R., Searing, E.A.M., Brewer, C.V., (eds.) The Social Enterprise Zoo: A Guide for Perplexed Scholars, Entrepreneurs, Philanthropists, Leaders, Investors, and Policymakers, 2016, Edward Elgar Publishing, Cheltenham, 15–32.
Zahra, S.A., Gedajlovic, E., Neubaum, D.O., Shulman, J.M., A typology of social entrepreneurs: motives, search processes and ethical challenges. J. Bus. Ventur. 24 (2009), 519–532.
Zhao, E.Y., Wry, T., Not all inequality is equal: deconstructing the societal logic of patriarchy to understand microfinance lending to women. Acad. Manag. J. 59 (2016), 1994–2020.
