Scaling for Social Enterprise Development: A Mixed Embeddedness Perspective on Two Dutch Non-Profit Organisations

Abstract

This article addresses ways in which the scaling strategies of two Dutch non-profit organisations (NPOs) impact their pathways to social enterprise development. The NPOs under investigation seek to address the intertwined issues of hunger, food waste and environmental protection. Comparing and contrasting the two cases, the article discusses the strategies conducive to social enterprise development and the obstacles encountered. Underlying this analysis is a mixed embeddedness perspective which revolves around organisational structure in tandem with institutional pressures affecting the outcome of scaling strategies. So doing, this article makes a contribution to the burgeoning literature on impact scaling, in particular the significance of scaling strategies in the transition of NPOs to social enterprise.

Keywords:

• Scaling strategies
• non-profit organisations
• social enterprise development
• mixed embeddedness
• social franchising
• organisational structure
• institutional environment

Introduction

In the Netherlands, the receding welfare state has prompted the rise of social enterprises as the long-established social partnership between the government and private non-profit organisations (NPOs) has come under pressure (Dahles et al. 2020; Kleinhans and van Ham 2016; Witkamp, Royakkers, and Raven 2011). The decline in public funding has affected particularly NPOs that address the needs of people excluded from the social economy. Many of these organisations have started to develop scaling strategies in order to face the challenges emanating from their dual mission, i.e. to meet an increasing demand for their services and to generate a commercial income to compensate for diminishing public funding. In European welfare states, for lack of systematic policies and private companies protecting their economic interests, NPOs have traditionally been taking care of the delivery of basic goods, such as food, clothing and medicines, to vulnerable people. Grassroots and locally based initiatives, such as soup kitchens and food pantries, are the most common type of front-line organisations dealing with food poverty (Baglioni, De Pieri, and Tallarico 2017). The two NPOs in this study, both based in Amsterdam, seek to reduce food waste and alleviate food poverty by creating cheap or free meals from surplus food collected at local markets and stores. Surplus food is defined as edible and safe food that for various reasons is not sold or consumed (see Baglioni, De Pieri, and Tallarico 2017, 2036).

Whilst both NPOs share the same mission, captured by the dictum ‘recycling edible surplus food’, they also show noteworthy differences which manifest in their pathways to social enterprise development and, in particular, the impact scaling strategies employed to this purpose. In both cases, the dominant strategy is to scale for breadth impact which is typically defined as expanding the geographic reach and/or scope of products and services provided (Desa and Koch 2014, 148). However, while one of the NPOs is scaling impact to reach a growing number of people deprived of regular meals in order to enhance their wellbeing, as captured in the dictum ‘recycling surplus food and feed the needy’, the other NPO is scaling impact in order to build local lifestyle communities around the common cause of reducing food waste and connect globally with like-minded people. The latter strategy tends towards depth scaling and can be described by the dictum ‘recycling surplus food and transform society’. Depth impact addresses the structural causes of market imperfections and social injustice, and aims at social transformation through community engagement and empowerment (Desa and Koch 2014, 149). Comparing and contrasting the two organisations, this article addresses the scaling strategies pursued on their pathway to social enterprise development. In particular, questions will be raised as to what strategies are conducive to this purpose and what obstacles are encountered en route?

Whilst there is a surge of studies in organisational scaling, most of these studies focus on definitions and typologies of scaling strategies (see Dees, Anderson, and Wei-Skillern 2004; Uvin, Jain, and Brown 2000; Weber, Kroger, and Lambrich 2012), the scalability of organisations (Austin, Stevenson, and Wei-Skillern 2006; Bradach 2003; Uvin 1995) and the success factors and drivers of scaling (Bloom and Chatterji 2009; Bloom and Smith 2010; Casasnovas and Bruno 2013). Only a few studies look into the organisational and institutional context within which scaling strategies come about (see Scheuerle and Schmitz 2016; Weber, Kroger, and Lambrich 2012). Looking at both NPOs from an organisational and institutional perspective, the current study makes an attempt at addressing this gap by probing into ways in which organisational structure in tandem with social networks and institutional pressures affect their scaling strategies. In short, this study revolves around the multi-layered embeddedness of the NPOs, an embeddedness that generates and advances particular scaling strategies in response to a specific institutional environment.

From an embeddedness perspective, organisations are understood as contextualised social phenomena (cf. Drakopoulou Dodd and Anderson 2007; Granovetter 1985; Jack and Anderson 2002; Kalantaridis 2009; Swedberg 2012). Addressing social enterprises in particular, Smith and Stevens (2010) argue that differing degrees of embeddedness generate different types of social entrepreneurship. Whilst Smith and Stevens (2010) focus on the spatial dimension of embeddedness, i.e. the geography in which NPOs are situated, Kloosterman and Rath (2001) developed a framework that offers a comprehensive approach to the embeddedness of entrepreneurial behaviour. Their mixed embeddedness perspective views individual enterprises as organisational structures embedded in both social relations and an institutional environment. As this model has become a prominent conceptual device in the study of ethnic or immigrant entrepreneurship, it is applicable to businesses at large (Kloosterman 2010), including social enterprises (McKeever, Anderson, and Jack 2015; Pache and Chowdhury 2012; Peredo and Chrisman 2006).

In applying the mixed embeddedness framework to organisational scaling strategies, this article makes three important contributions to the social entrepreneurship literature. First, it contributes to the body of knowledge on organisations transitioning to social entrepreneurship and, in particular, the role of impact scaling for the purpose of social enterprise development (Bradach 2003; Desa and Koch 2014; Lyon and Fernandez 2012). Second, this article contributes to the burgeoning literature on impact scaling by directing attention to relatively neglected dimensions that underlie scaling strategies at the organisational level (in particular the dimensions of organisational structure and collaborative networks) as well as the institutional level (the specific political and social context within which social entrepreneurship emerges and develops) (Ram, Theodorakopoulos, and Jones 2008). Third, in doing so, the article makes an attempt at extending the existing body of knowledge of embeddedness into the domain of social entrepreneurship as advocated by various scholars (Kerlin 2006; McKeever, Anderson, and Jack 2015). Building on Smith and Stevens (2010), it is argued that the nature and extent of embeddedness affects the pathways of organisations scaling for SEO development. Together, these contributions add to the growing theoretical foundation of the field of social entrepreneurship.

This article proceeds as follows. The next section reviews relevant literature on the scaling of social enterprises and identifies key concepts for the interpretation of the empirical case-studies. The subsequent sections discuss, first, social enterprise development in the Netherlands and, second, the strategies and methods of data-collection. After that, the two cases will be presented and analysed against the backdrop of the key concepts. The concluding section will compare the findings across the two cases and discuss the implications of the results for the ongoing debate on impact the scaling in SEOs.

Literature review and key concepts

Scaling for SEO development

Organisational impact scaling has been defined as ‘an ongoing process of increasing the magnitude of both quantitative and qualitative positive changes in society by addressing pressing social problems at individual and/or systemic levels through one or more scaling paths’ (Islam 2020). As for NPOs, such positive impact is achieved by reaching more people in need. SEOs, on the other hand, apply commercial strategies to create positive changes, also described as social value (Bloom and Smith 2010; Mair and Martí 2006). As hybrid organisations (Doherty, Haug, and Lyon 2014), SEOs follow the logic of the market in their quest for financial sustainability, whilst their social mission aims to meet the needs of communities (Mair and Martí 2006) and advance social change (Alvord, Brown, and Letts 2004). Therefore, to quote Casasnovas and Bruno 2013, 174), social entrepreneurship is at the intersection of social mission, market orientation and innovation.

Resonating with the current literature on organisational impact scaling (Bloom and Chatterji 2009; Casasnovas and Bruno 2013; Desa and Koch 2014; Uvin, Jain, and Brown 2000), the above definition emphasises that impact is enhanced not so much through mere growth but by creating and sustaining social value through continuous innovation and learning. In social entrepreneurship studies, impact scaling is commonly synonymous with diffusion or replication of a product or service in multiple geographic settings in order to maximise the number of people reached (Dees, Anderson, and Wei-Skillern 2004). However, in order to effect systemic change, more complex and diverse processes of scaling are involved including the diffusion of ideas and processes of learning, and spanning social systems and institutions (Moore, Riddell, and Vocisano 2015). Consequently, there is a multitude of paths leading to organisational impact scaling (see for example Austin, Stevenson, and Wei-Skillern 2006; Blundel and Lyon 2015; Bradach 2003; Dahles et al. 2020; Dees, Anderson, and Wei-Skillern 2004; Desa and Koch 2014; Lyon and Fernandez 2012; Uvin 1995).

Among the strategies identified two scaling paths stand out: organisations attempt to enhance their social impact either by increasing their reach or by deepening their community engagement through social and economic empowerment. In short, scalability occurs along a spectrum ranging from breadth-scaling to depth-scaling (André and Pache 2016; Bacq et al. 2015; Bauwens, Huybrechts, and Dufays 2020; Bloom and Chatterji 2009; Desa and Koch 2014; Lyon and Fernandez 2012). Scaling for breadth implies that social value is defined in a functional way and measured in quantitative terms. For NPOs it is about the number of people in need reached; for SEOs it is about commercial success, economic efficiency and returns on investment. Breadth scaling strategies aim at reducing production costs by replicating products and services to multiple geographic locations and, thereby, creating economies of scale. Scaling for depth, on the other hand, addresses the structural causes underlying poverty and social injustice and promotes social change. Taken together, both paths capture the quantity and quality of social impact (Palomares-Aguirre et al. 2018).

Recent literature recognises that scaling up is the most widely used strategy when it comes to increasing social impact (Palomares-Aguirre et al. 2018). Scaling-up implies expanding a current social venture to other geographic locations to reach more beneficiaries (Jolly, Raven, and Romijn 2012, 201; Scheuerle and Schmitz 2016, 130). Commonly, scaling up is contrasted with scaling deep, which implies intensifying the scope by generating greater social impact, much in the vein of widely-accepted breadth/depth or quantity/quality dichotomy. However, as Uvin’s work (1995) illustrates, this may be a false dichotomy. Uvin (1995) distinguishes four types of upscaling that cut across this dichotomy to describe a continuum comprising quantitative, functional, organisational and political upscaling. Quantitative upscaling is about the geographical expansion of organisations, very similar to the breadth mode of scaling. Functional upscaling occurs when organisations transform their products or services into higher-value types of activities, combining breadth and depth scaling. Organisational upscaling addresses issues of sustainability and, in so doing, engages in both breadth and depth scaling in such a way that more adequate products and services are offered to more people. Political upscaling implies that organisations engage in depth scaling by concerning themselves - beyond their core business - with issues of social justice and community empowerment.

The mixed embeddedness of scaling

In view of this variety in scaling paths, the question has to be raised as to what factors or conditions affect the particular strategy for organisations to effectively scale their social impact? An answer may be provided by a concept that has risen to some prominence in the field of economic sociology where enterprises are understood as contextualised social phenomena (Drakopoulou Dodd and Anderson 2007; Granovetter 1985; Jack and Anderson 2002; Kalantaridis 2009; Swedberg 2012). Acknowledging the contextually embedded nature of scaling strategies, there is a growing interest in the concept of embeddedness in the entrepreneurship literature. The embeddedness perspective, believed to originate in Karl Polanyi’s work, in particular in his essay ‘The Economy as Instituted Process’ (Polanyi 1957), is critical towards the homo economicus of neo-classical economics and challenges the suggestion that markets are operating independently and unaffected by social relations and cultural dynamics. Instead, Polanyi argued that economies are socially constructed, politically mediated and historically situated (McKeever, Anderson, and Jack 2015). Polanyi’s work inspired perspectives on markets as shaped by social forces and actors ‘formed by the structural, institutional and cultural embeddedness of market exchange’ (Roy and Grant 2020, 183). Granovetter (1985), in reintroducing Polanyi’s embeddedness concept in entrepreneurship studies, pointed out that all economic behaviour is embedded in communities and networks of interpersonal relationships (McKeever, Anderson, and Jack 2015, 225). In this vein, the concept of social embeddedness has led scholars to include the dimensions of organisational structure and social networks in their analysis of entrepreneurial opportunity spaces.

Granovetter’s perspective on social embeddedness has received some critical scrutiny, in particular from the adjacent field of immigrant entrepreneurship studies. Kloosterman and Rath (2001) criticised this concept for neglecting the macro-level or, the institutional dimensions, such as regulatory frameworks for business operations. Changes in the economy that create or obliterate opportunities for new businesses and/or for expanding existing firms are as relevant as their social embeddedness, Kloosterman and Rath (2001) argue. To capture these complexities, Kloosterman and Rath (2001) developed a framework that offers a more comprehensive approach to the study of economic behaviour. Their mixed embeddedness perspective (Kloosterman 2003, 2010; Kloosterman and Rath 2001) includes the individual entrepreneur or organisation (embedded in social relations which provide access to capital, labour, and opportunities) and the institutional environment (including rules and regulations, and the economic and political setting). The mixed embeddedness perspective is a relevant addition to the field because of the combined attention to the micro-level (organisational structure, including the financial and human capital), the meso-level (social and collaborative networks), and the macro-level (the institutional environment).

For the purpose of this paper, the mixed nature of embeddedness is highly relevant as the organisations under study distinguish themselves by their use of financial, human and social capital and the way they are positioned in the opportunity spaces of a shared but changing institutional environment. Literature suggests that NPOs and SEOs are highly resonant of the existing social context in which they are embedded (André and Pache 2016; Han and Shah 2020; Pache and Chowdhury 2012; Peredo and Chrisman 2006; Smith and Stevens 2010). It is from this context that their social mission derives its meaning and relevance. Below we distinguish the micro, meso and macro levels of embeddedness and on each level outline considerations that are important for our purposes.

At a micro-level, NPOs on their path to social enterprise development, experience persistent tensions between income generation and social mission. Whilst scaling strategies are designed to advance their social mission (André and Pache 2016; Bauwens, Huybrechts, and Dufays 2020), they also experience incentives to respond to market opportunities and become more entrepreneurial and financially sustainable. For this reason, NPOs and SEOs often embed themselves in a social franchising structure (Tracey and Jarvis 2007). Social franchising is defined as the application of a commercial franchising framework for the purpose of achieving social aims (Tracey and Jarvis 2007). Organisations enter into social franchising arrangements to access economies of scale. As Alter (2007, 49) explains, ‘the franchise model enhances scalability and social value creation through replication’. With social value creation prevailing over income maximisation, NPOs and SEOs have only limited financial resources available for staffing. Therefore, SEOs depend heavily on the contribution of volunteers (Dees 1998; Graff 2006). Not only is the involvement of volunteers of crucial significance for the successful implementation of the programs and services, but also for the promotion of the social mission (Graff 2006, 25). As Martinez and McMullin (2004, 114) argue, volunteer roles appeal to people with lifestyles that represent a good fit with the social mission of a NPO or SEO. As champions of the social mission, volunteers often play a role in enhancing the breadth or width impact of the organisation (Bacq et al. 2015).

At the meso-level of embeddedness, much attention has been directed to the role of networks and networking (see in particular, Hoang and Antoncic 2003; Jack et al. 2010). It has been argued, with a nod to Granovetter (1985), that the embeddedness in social networks is relevant for organisational performance because it accommodates the process of identifying resources, overcoming constraints and pioneering innovation (McKeever, Anderson, and Jack 2015, 228). Many authors view this dimension of embeddedness as pivotal in initiating and scaling SEOs (McKeever, Anderson, and Jack 2015; Johannisson and Nilsson 1989; Peredo and Chrisman 2006; Smith and Stevens 2010) as they ‘need a supportive ecosystem and infrastructure such as targeted financial services, cultural encouragement, and accommodating legal regulatory mechanisms’ (Lechner and Dowling 2003, 202). Collaborative networks are instrumental in identifying resources and creating social impact (Austin, Stevenson, and Wei-Skillern 2006; Huybrechts and Nicholls 2012). In this vein, collaborative networks can enhance social impact by either reaching more people or initiating change (Sakarya et al. 2012) and, therefore, advance both breadth and depth scaling (Bacq et al. 2015).

Proceeding to the macro-level of embeddedness, the institutional environment within which NPOs and SEOs operate has significant impact on scaling paths as several authors have pointed out (Austin, Stevenson, and Wei-Skillern 2006; Bloom and Smith 2010; Dahles et al. 2020; Kerlin 2006; Mair, Martí, and Ventresca 2012; Martin and Osberg 2007; Scheuerle and Schmitz 2016). Pache and Chowdhury (2012, 496) assume that scaling strategies resonate with specific institutional logics, i.e. ‘collective taken-for-granted norms and values that guide the behaviour of actors in the sector and provide them with prescriptions of goals appropriate to pursue and means appropriate to achieve them.’ Comprising of the formal and informal regulative rules and norms of a society, institutions directly affect the ways and the extent to which organisation can make their scaling strategies work, which then again vary across the diverse institutional environments within which they operate (Bloom and Smith 2010). Where such institutions are absent or weak, institutional voids occur that encourage the emergence of compensatory arrangements (Mair, Martí, and Ventresca 2012, 821) and, so doing, create ‘opportunity spaces’ for organisations to scale their social impact (Mair and Martí 2009, 421). Hence compensatory social enterprises (CSEs) that address social issues common to capitalist economies, such as poverty, homelessness, unemployment, sanitation and illiteracy (Newey 2018). By contrast, organisations that prioritise activism for the purpose of changing society in order to effectively and permanently alleviate poverty and inequality are transformative in nature (Scheuerle and Schmitz 2016). Transformative social enterprises (TSEs) are envisioned to develop alternative entrepreneurial initiatives in order to drive social innovation and change the current global system (Newey 2018).

In summary, to establish the mechanisms that underlie the scaling strategies pursued by NPOs and SEOs, two broad strategies of social impact scaling will be distinguished: scaling for breadth impact and scaling for depth impact. While these strategies reflect the relevant paths available for such organisations, it is acknowledged that, rather than representing a dichotomy, breadth and depth form the extremes of a continuum comprising of various overlapping and mixed practices of impact scaling as Uvin (1995) has pointed out. Taking NPOs and SEOs as contextual agents, we propose a framework which examines scaling strategies from an embeddedness perspective that will serve as an interpretive device that ‘links the macro structural conditions of exchange with the micro foundations of decision making and behaviour’ (Smith and Stevens 2010, 583). The two empirical case studies below will explore, at the micro-level, their organisational structure including their social franchising arrangements and human resources management; at a meso-level, the social and collaborative networks maintained by the two organisations; and, at a macro-level, their institutional environment, particularly, the receding welfare state and weakening social economy in the Netherlands.

Research context

Dutch society typically boasts high degrees of private sector involvement in welfare service deliveries as well as strong traditions of corporate social responsibility and volunteering, which arguably presents a fertile breeding ground for social entrepreneurship (OECD/EU 2019). Yet, the maturing of the field has progressed slowly, in part due to the government’s insistence on a level playing field for SEOs and ‘regular’ businesses, and related haggling over the definition and legal status of SEOs (Karré 2019). At the same time there are positive signs as the government intends to create ‘fitting rules and more space for enterprises with a social or societal goal’ (Government of the Netherlands 2017, 33). In this vein, the municipality of Amsterdam is currently rolling out a €2.5 million program to strengthen the city’s ecosystem for what they term ‘impact entrepreneurship’ (Municipality of Amsterdam 2019). Over the past decade the field has become more organised; a watershed moment being the establishment of the Social Enterprise NL platform in 2012. Social enterprises have mushroomed since. A 2016 report by McKinsey & Company estimates that as much as half of the 6000 Dutch SEOs were established since 2011 (Keizer et al. 2016). Reflecting on the traditional role of NPOs as the principal service providers in the field of food redistribution to the needy, initiatives at first focussed on the provision of work opportunities for vulnerable groups (During, van der Jagt, and de Sena 2014). But soon the range of social entrepreneurial activities diversified into healthcare, financial services, social cohesion and international development (Keizer et al. 2016; OECD/EU 2019). Considering the two organisations in the current study, it is important to note that the environment is another key sector: Social Enterprise NL (2018) reports that 24% of SEOs state they have an environmental mission, while the McKinsey & Company report (Keizer et al. 2016) lists ‘improving the food chain’ as a major impact area of SEOs.

The Dutch social economy comprises of NPOs that rely on government subsidies to attend to the needs of the poor, homeless, elderly or otherwise disadvantaged groups (Backer 2019). This arrangement was created by civil society, municipality and state actors in the second half of the twentieth century, and has proven especially pervasive in places that are traditionally dominated by the political left, such as Amsterdam. It has been argued that this arrangement has held back opportunities for more entrepreneurial social-purpose ventures (Witkamp, Royakkers, and Raven 2011). In recent years, however, NPOs are faced with a receding welfare state and reductions in public funding (Kerlin 2006). This trend parallels the rise of the Dutch liberal party and, especially since the 2008 financial crisis, a shift from a classical welfare state to a so-called ‘participation society’ that is expected to be less dependent on state resources (OECD/EU 2019). As a response, many existing NPOs are developing commercial activities to become more financially self-reliant, and thus enter the social enterprise spectrum (Kleinhans and van Ham 2016). At the same time, new SEOs are established that aim to be financially independent from the onset. In a sense, they fill the void left behind by government budget cuts and embody the envisioned participation society. Typically, these are set up by idealistic entrepreneurs who are worried about social inequality, climate change and other excesses of shareholder capitalism and neoliberalism. They are part of a new generation of entrepreneurs who are the frontrunners in the emergence of a lifestyle community that revolves around societal and environmental engagement (Keizer et al. 2016). This lifestyle community as well as supportive frameworks for SEOs are concentrated in the bigger cities, especially Amsterdam (OECD/EU 2019).

SEOs in Amsterdam thus trace their roots to both the declining social welfare economy as well as upcoming discourses of social and sustainable entrepreneurship and innovation. The two organisations that feature in this article exemplify this diversity. While their core activity is identical, their pathway to SEO status is not. Both are neighbourhood-based charitable organisations whose primary aim is to collect surplus food to create meals. However, one organisation focuses on the social dimension of their mission in providing free meals to Amsterdam’s poor in community centres. While increasingly trying to generate their own income, they keep relying on subsidies. The other, in contrast, foregrounds the environmental dimension of their mission of tackling food waste. Their meals are consumed not by Amsterdam’s poor, but by students who sympathise with their cause and make a donation in return for a meal in the restaurant. As we will show in the remainder of this paper, this different positioning of both organisations bears heavily on the scaling practices they develop.

Research design and methodology

This research is based on a ‘multiple’ or ‘comparative’ case study design (Yin 2009). The case study approach stipulates the use of a range of research methods to acquire rich data on the experiences of a variety of stakeholders to come to a comprehensive understanding of a phenomenon in its real-life context (Eisenhardt 1989; Fitzgerald and Dopson 2009; Gustafsson 2017). Such an explorative approach is especially suitable to examine new or ill-defined topical areas (Eisenhardt and Graebner 2007), such as new organisational forms (Tracey, Philips, and Jarvis 2011) or the mechanisms that affect the scaling practices of NPOs and SEOs (Dahles et al. 2020). Whereas single case studies focus on the contextual detail of one particular case, multiple case studies allow patterns between two or more cases to surface, and hence may foster the development of ‘more convincing theory’ pertaining to the overarching phenomenon (Gustafsson 2017, 3). Notably, our two cases reveal important similarities as well as differences. They are ‘matching cases’ (Fitzgerald and Dopson 2009, 472) with respect to characteristics including their core activity, location and, in extension, their operating environment. Yet, within their specific niche they represent variations among Dutch NPOs as described above. The comparison of these similar-yet-different cases allows us to tease out a wider array of possible mechanisms influencing scaling practices than a single case study would.

Qualitative field research was conducted in the two Amsterdam-based organisations during four months in early 2019. Participant observation was the primary strategy of data collection. As an intern in both organisations, the researcher – at the time undertaking this project as part of her Master’s degree - took part in the day-to-day affairs, including in staff or central board meetings, picking up food, organising the dinners, initiating new events, etcetera. Active participation in both organisations created a degree of immersion and fostered in-depth insight into the dealings and considerations of organisational members in different positions (Moeran 2009). The researcher jotted down notes of experiences and elaborated these in a diary (typically after the event), including also thoughts on patterns in the data or theoretical hunches. Appendix Table A1 lists the occurrences of participant observation throughout the research trajectory. While participant observation included numerous informal conversations, formal interviews were also conducted. In-depth interviewing is an important additional strategy because it enables the researcher to discuss relevant empirical themes more explicitly and extensively with people with whom good rapport has already been established through participant observation (Heyl 2001). A total of nine interviews were conducted - lasting between 30 to 60 minutes each - with volunteers as well as board members, four within each organisation and one with a volunteer involved in both. Appendix Table A2 lists the interviewees and their positions in the organisation (other characteristics are omitted to ensure anonymity). Interviews revolved around a number of main themes that provided a degree of structure, but left enough room to elaborate on unanticipated topics of conversation (see Appendix Table A3 for the interview topic guide). Finally, a number of documents containing factual information were collected, most notably annual reports and strategy documents of both organisations. Combined, participant observation, interviews and document analysis resulted in data saturation - new pieces of data hardly provided new insights towards the end of the field research - indicating that relatively comprehensive understanding was achieved. The tape-recorded interviews were transcribed and field notes digitalised to prepare the data for analysis.

Table 1. Overview of scaling activities.

Scaling strategy				Organisation
Breadth/Depth	Mode of upscaling	Description	Implementation	Social bite	Greenlife community
Breadth	Quantitative	Geographical expansion	In progress	Opening new branches in the Netherlands	Opening new branches in the Netherlands and co-opting like-minded groups globally
Breadth/depth	Functional	Higher value activity for more people	In progress	Combat social isolation; offer opportunities for volunteering	Offer edutainment and a chance to socialise; offer opportunities for volunteering
Depth/breadth	Organisational	More adequate product/services for more people	In progress	Social franchising through volunteering; launch an individual membership	Social franchising through student internships and volunteering; incubator for SEOs
			Unsuccessful	Attempts at starting a platform for other charities to become a local food broker
Depth	Political	Addressing issues of social justice and community empowerment	In progress		Building a global community and change the world; campaign for sustainable food systems
			Unsuccessful	Offer training programs in waste management for commercial B2B links

Thematic analysis, a flexible yet careful mode of data analysis, was applied in this research in order to identify, describe, interpret and explain key themes emerging from the raw data. This process entails in-depth or ‘thick’ analysis of individual pieces of data and cuts across these pieces seeking patterns (Vaismoradi and Snelgrove 2019). A theme and its sub-themes make up a ‘storyline’ in the dataset and comprise of explicit behavioural aspects as well as implicit meanings and ‘subjective understandings of participants’ (Vaismoradi et al. 2016, 101). A theme thus ‘organizes a group of repeating ideas’ (Vaismoradi et al. 2016, 101). In the present paper, ‘SEO development’ can be considered the emergent theme, and the various scaling strategies - which revolve around particular activities, motivations and aspirations of the NPOs and their members - represent the sub-themes that together make up the process of SEO development. Moreover, and in tune with the case study methodology, thematic analysis carefully considers the context within which these themes acquire meaning and efficacy (Vaismoradi and Snelgrove 2019). Researchers consistently keep questioning emerging patterns in order to avoid the premature closure of the empirical cycle to ensure that possibly relevant aspects of the context are accounted for. As is common practice in thematic analysis and, more generally, in qualitative research aimed at developing conceptual insights or nuances, the data analysis in the current study has been an iterative process moving between the data, the authors’ interpretations thereof, and the academic literature (Eisenhardt and Graebner 2007; Vaismoradi and Snelgrove 2019), thereby condensing ‘more and more data into a more and more coherent understanding of what, how and why’ (Miles and Huberman 1994, 91).

As a first step, case descriptions of both organisations were created, focussing not only on their mission and the scaling practices they (aspire to) undertake, but also detailing their start-up trajectory, the people involved, their collaborations, and so forth. In developing these case descriptions, the authors were careful to take heed of different types of data (the research diary, interview transcripts and documents) and different perspectives (volunteers, board members and the researcher) to come to an accurate and balanced understanding of scaling practices and relevant contexts in which they emerge. Overlaying their scaling practices and scaling typologies presented in the literature the authors came to realise that there are important differences between the two organisations, notably in terms of breadth versus depth scaling. This urged them to examine the underlying causes of these differences. Looking into extant literature on organisational scaling provided few suggestions of how to conceptualise these differences. Looking further, and mindful of the multi-layered nature of scaling within both NPOs, a mixed embeddedness perspective (Kloosterman and Rath 2001) proved especially valuable as it offered a comprehensive framework that does justice to the complexity and contextual dynamics of the scaling practices observed. In accordance with the mixed embeddedness approach, all the data were then revisited in a systematic manner to tease out the micro, meso and macro mechanisms that underlie the scaling practices of the two organisations under study. The ensuing findings section presents the result of this endeavour. Please not that the names of the two NPOs in this study are pseudonyms.

Battling food waste and building community: two Dutch cases

Case 1: the social bite

The Social Bite (SB) are an independent, citizen-driven and volunteer-based community charity, funded by private donations and occasional government subsidies. Established in 2014, the SB were inspired by a citizen movement in Portugal. The organisation is run by a few paid staff members and supported by a network of over 250 volunteers, most of them young urban professionals. Operating at a neighbourhood level, the mission of the SB is threefold: First and foremost they aim at eliminating food waste. Their volunteers collect surplus food from local markets, lunchrooms, and retail stores to create meals served in local community centres. Second, they aim at ending food poverty by serving local people who are not supported by other institutions. The SB provide free meals for over 200 people every week. Third, they attempt to build community solidarity. The SB encourage members of the local community to come together not only to combat social isolation and loneliness, but also to offer opportunities for people to get involved as volunteers, become board members, and perhaps even create their own employment. The volunteers, after serving everyone, commonly join for a meal and mingle with the community members. Leftovers do not go to waste but are handed out to people who bring food containers to carry home.

Driven by their mission to reach more people living in poverty, the most important strategy of scaling their impact is to open new branches across the Netherlands, aiming to grow to 20 urban locations. This pursuit of a wider reach is underpinned by plans to generate a regular income beyond private donations and the occasional subsidy without becoming too reliant on one single source of income. To achieve this, the SB launched multiple fund-raising initiatives, among which a platform for other charities operating in the same space to join. This platform is envisioned to act as a ‘food broker’ facilitating a more efficient collection and distribution of surplus food for a large number of charities and to serve as a benchmark for good practice. These charities would pay a fee for their access to the platform and would use their participation as a marketing tool. Another initiative is the launch of a ‘Social Bite membership’ for individuals who lack the time for volunteering but nevertheless wish to make a positive contribution to poverty alleviation. And, finally, the SB intend to offer a fee-generating business-to-business (B2B) event in collaboration with the business community and corporate sector for the purpose of educating people and organisations and, in the end, effect changes in food waste management practices. At the time of the research, the individual membership received only modest response and the B2B event had yet to be launched. What is more, the idea of the platform had been abandoned as the targeted charities were not willing to pay for this service. As a SB board member explained:

Yeah they back off… but I get it, … these are large sums of money and … they need some kind of value … especially because platform Social Bite was supposed to be structured as a social enterprise meaning … we need to get our own revenue from somewhere … I think that is also a big shift. (Participant 3)

The SB started with one location in Amsterdam but has expanded into a network organisation consisting of an expanding number of local neighbourhood organisations in three major cities run by local boards that receive input from and report to a national board. The national board, formed by four volunteer members operating from a small office in Amsterdam, is focussed on the long-term strategy and assists local boards where needed. The local boards, on the other hand, carry out the core activities of the SB, i.e. the collection of surplus food, the preparation of meals and hosting of lunches, managing the volunteers and communicating with other stakeholders such as food suppliers, local councils and other charities and small enterprises. The local branches operate with a measure of autonomy. In 2017, the national board launched the Social Bite Academy, with at its heart a trainer-to-trainer program providing preparation for their volunteers to initiate and manage new branches. The goal is to prepare them to run the branch autonomously and develop into a social enterprise. To this purpose, the organisation collaborates with starters4community, a social enterprise offering training and development programs for changemakers. As one of the national board members explained:

The goal [of the academy] is to set up new locations and help people think about what they want with regards to this new location. What are the boundaries? How do you manage this kind of stuff? … They do team building sessions, strategy sessions, help with the knowledge transitions and also a session for the locations, you organize things that are of practical relevance. (Participant 7)

The academy, in collaboration with relevant external partners, offers continued low-cost support to the branches in the form of professional coaching and tailor-made refresher trainings. So doing, the SB promote community-building and attract more local people to join the organisation as a volunteer. This approach appeals in particular to well-educated young professionals who may come to view social entrepreneurship as an attractive alternative career path. Tapping into their network is viewed as an effective way of generating some funding or finding new volunteers:

‘One of our local board members was part of a student association and every month every member would donate one euro for charity. This way, we were able to buy some herbs and oil for cooking.’ (Participant 1)

The strength of the SB comes from aligning their values with the policy priorities of the city councils. Dutch councils currently focus on the self-reliance and empowerment of their citizens especially those who have a relatively small network to draw on, feel lonely or live in poverty. The SB are attracting to their hosted dinners people who are difficult to reach for the councils. The organisation, very much aware of their unique position, therefore applied successfully for council funding to continue and expand their work.

Case 2: the Greenlife Community

The Greenlife Community (GLC), established in 2012 and based in Amsterdam’s inner city, are part of an international social movement campaigning for a more sustainable food system worldwide. This community of foodies has spread to other locations in the Netherlands and connects with groups of like-minded people in Canada and New Zealand. Legally enshrined as a foundation, this organisation sources their activities with donations raised at events that showcase best practices of recycling food and reducing food waste.

The GLC depend on volunteers for picking up surplus food - by carrier cycle - from local grocery shops in an Amsterdam neighbourhood. On set weekdays, two or three times a week, voluntary cooks get together to prepare a vegan dinner to share among the team members before opening the doors to the general public. The dinners are embedded in an edutaining program featuring performances, guest speakers, discussions and screenings. The atmosphere resembles a neighbourhood eatery, far more relaxed than a restaurant, which attracts primarily students with an international background. These dinners are offered on a pay-as-you-feel basis and participants are expected to donate before leaving the venue. As the weekly dinners provide the GLC with their only source of a regular income, the core team had a poster designed that is put up at the venue to remind participants of the significance of their donation for the continuity of the Community. After some initial hiccups this strategy seems to work well:

… it was fluctuating in the beginning … . Some people were just giving like some change or they were giving like three dollars… . We made these posters that tell people how much they should donate and like what makes sense for us because like it’s all volunteer basis and we pay rent here as well so…. (Participant 5)

On a less regular basis, the GLC host fundraising events such as food-cycle markets, educational workshops and lectures, event caterings and presentations, in collaboration with schools, universities, private companies and municipalities. They also participate in festivals, conferences and other events to expand their network and contribute to a wider movement pushing for social and ecological justice.

Driven by their mission to reduce food waste and to push for a more sustainable food system, their strategy of impact scaling is threefold. First, the GLC engage in raising awareness through education and dissemination of information about social and environmental issues related to food waste. Second, by offering non-waste dinners, they set an example of how to avoid food waste and build a local community of engaged foodies. And, third, the aim underlying all their activities and campaigns is to effect social change. Without a doubt, the GLC attempt to expand their reach also to generate more donations from a variety of stakeholders, including private citizens and organisations. Most importantly, however, the GLC focus on building community, deepening public awareness and enhancing the quality of the information they provide to their local audience which consists of young, highly educated, cosmopolitan urbanites, who are expected to advance the movement and play a pivotal role in implementing their mission.

The team behind the Amsterdam branch of the GLC consists of two salaried full-time coordinators and a varying number of student interns - together they are referred to as the core team that meets every week and initiates the activities undertaken by the branch. This core team relies on about 100 volunteers, most of them students, for hands-on support. The core team reports to the Board that assists in lobbying for the organisation. Board members, interns and volunteers do not receive any remuneration for their work, only a reimbursement for their expenses. The volunteers supporting the GLC are similar to the regular diners in terms of age, gender, educational background and place of residence. As one of the coordinators explained:

I would say quite high educated and mostly students, a lot of women, … idealistic people who try to build an alternative society in a way. (Participant 8)

Most of the volunteers get introduced to the GLC by a friend and become recruited while attending a dinner. Unsurprisingly, they share concerns about environmental and social issues. Importantly, they feel attracted to the opportunity of socialising with like-minded people:

I go to the Greenlife Community to spend time with the community and have dinner. Also, at the same time it was like ‘great we are saving food at the same time’ and I was helping out mainly because I like the people there. (Participant 3)

The GLC also encourage their volunteers to start a local branch and become a salaried coordinator. New branches can rely on the Amsterdam Community in terms of knowledge transfer, but operate independently. As a core tem member explained:

It's sort of a social franchise. … We also have a manual on how to set up a branch. We worked on that and are trying to find a way to actively promote it as well, that it would just step by step outline how you have to plan, and then you know, look for locations and deal with the legal issues that you have to be aware of. (Participant 8)

The GLC capitalise on their network which includes organisations that are located in the building where they rent office space, functioning like an incubator. Among these organisations are social enterprises and activist organisations in the slow food movement and sustainable agriculture. These organisations give each other a platform to speak about their mission. The GLC engage in multiple ad-hoc collaborations based on organisational similarities and shared goals and missions. Collaboration with other local stakeholders, however, has remained elusive. So far, the GLC have not been successful in engaging effectively with the Amsterdam City Council. The organisation misses a good fit as the Council commonly goes to great lengths to prominently involve the corporate sector with events and projects undertaken under their sponsorship. The chasm between corporate interests and the GLC’s mission runs too deep for any productive collaboration to materialise.

Discussion

Scaling pathways compared

In this section the two organisations will be compared and contrasted in their quest for creating a more sustainable food system in the Netherlands and beyond. Both organisations engage in strategies of impact scaling, which have led them to follow partially diverging paths. Overall, on a spectrum extending between the extremes of scaling for breadth and scaling for depth, the SB sit closer to the breadth scaling end whilst the GLC are more intensively engaged in depth scaling pursuits (for an overview see Table 1 below). The scaling strategies employed by the SB primarily aim at increasing their reach, which is the most widely used strategy overall (Palomares-Aguirre et al. 2018). Expanding operations to other geographic locations to reach more beneficiaries (see Jolly, Raven, and Romijn 2012, 201; Scheuerle and Schmitz 2016, 130), the SB not only initiate new branches to provide affordable meals to more people, but also expand their network to persuade more individuals and organisations to support their mission and create new fundraising opportunities in order to gain a regular income. Therefore, one may argue, that the SB are doing well in terms of alleviating food poverty for an increasing number of people. However, the other dimension of their mission, i.e. to advance a better food waste management system, has so far been frustrated, despite considerable efforts. This dimension is closely intertwined with depth scaling efforts in terms of changing food waste disposal practices among food retailers and corporations. This failure has affected the SB’s progress on the pathway to SEO development as the envisioned initiatives, above and beyond enhancing the organisation’s depth impact, also implied a step towards generating a regular income and thus a sound financial basis for the organisation. The GLC, on the other hand, whilst making every effort to increase their reach, primarily scale for building a global community of non-waste foodies and initiating social change by raising awareness, sharing of information and advancing education. The combination of breadth and depth scaling strategies enables the GLC to generate a regular income to support their core mission and, in the process, fulfil their aim of promoting a more sustainable food system globally. At first sight, then, the GLC through their depth scaling strategies, seem to be more advanced in becoming a SEO than the SB which got trapped in breadth scaling.

Uvin (1995), however, argues that the breadth versus depth scaling distinction is far too simplistic to adequately capture upscaling practices across organisations. Therefore, in applying his continuum comprising quantitative, functional, organisational and political upscaling, it becomes evident that the scaling pathways of both organisations show more similarities than differences. Both the SB and the GLC engage in quantitative upscaling. As they push towards geographical expansion, the SB are focussed on the neighbourhood level while the GLC have the ambition to initiate a global movement.

As both organisations depend on private donations, the regularity of income, more than its volume, forms an ongoing challenge. The strategies they employ to generate donations on a more regular basis are remarkably similar. In terms of Uvin (1995) these strategies can be described as functional upscaling as they comprise higher value activities. This is in line with the literature asserting that impact is enhanced not so much through mere growth but by creating and sustaining social value through continuous learning (see Bloom and Chatterji 2009; Casasnovas and Bruno 2013; Desa and Koch 2014; Uvin, Jain, and Brown 2000). The meals supplied by the SB not only provide food, they also help combat social isolation and loneliness at a neighbourhood level and offer opportunities for locals to become involved as a volunteer. Similarly, the food-cycle markets and the no-waste weekly dinners organised by the GLC serve their multiple missions of reducing food waste while raising awareness and increasing their following. As an important bonus, the dinners present the attending international students with a chance to socialise and offer a home while away from home.

The functional upscaling measures embraced by both organisations coincide with what Uvin (1995) defines in terms of organisational upscaling. In their effort to offer more adequate products and services for more people, both organisations depend on the contribution of an army of volunteers. In return for their time and effort, these volunteers not only receive the benefit of free meals and social engagement, they are also offered training and support for the purpose of (self-)employment. Both organisations manage their expansion by way of social franchising creating jobs for volunteers who have an interest in initiating a new branch. Another dimension of organisational upscaling is to seek collaboration with like-minded organisations. The GLC operate in an environment where innovators are thriving. The building where they rent office space is developing into an incubator for enterprises in sustainable food systems. Similarly, the SB intend to establish themselves as food brokers in their urban environment to ensure that surplus food will be collected and distributed in a more efficient way.

The SB’s vision of their future converges with the GLC’s depth scaling strategies in addressing the structural causes of food poverty, social isolation and injustice, and environmental decline (Palomares-Aguirre et al. 2018). These are the characteristics of Uvin’s (1995) political upscaling which campaigns for social transformation and community empowerment. In view of the SB’s multiple unsuccessful depth scaling initiatives, the question remains as to why this organisation met with stagnation on their pathway to SEO development while the GLC are succeeding? The answer will be provided in the next section by an analysis of the way the organisations are embedded in their organisational and institutional environment.

Mixed embeddedness compared

The concept of embeddedness is a useful heuristic device to help understand the similarities and differences in the scaling pathways of the organisations under study. Conceptualising organisations as socially embedded phenomena (Drakopoulou Dodd and Anderson 2007; Granovetter 1985; Jack and Anderson 2002; Kalantaridis 2009; Swedberg 2012), the analysis focuses on ways in which these organisations are positioned in the opportunity spaces of a shared but multi-layered organisational and institutional environment. The mixed embeddedness perspective (Kloosterman 2003, 2010; Kloosterman and Rath 2001), in particular, differentiates between the micro-level (organisational structure, including the financial and human capital), the meso-level (social and collaborative networks), and the macro-level (the institutional environment) of embeddedness.

At a micro-level, NPOs commonly struggle to reconcile the need to fulfil their mission with the need to become financially sustainable (André and Pache 2016; Bauwens, Huybrechts, and Dufays 2020). The SB are an example of such an organisation. Whilst their scaling strategies are designed to advance their social mission of reducing food waste and eradicating food poverty, they also feel the pressure of generating a regular income. To mitigate this tension, the organisation got embedded in a social franchising structure (Tracey and Jarvis 2007) to be able to expand through opening new locations (Alter 2007). This process is formalised and structured. New franchisees undergo training at the SB Academy to become champions of the NPO’s social mission and contribute to their breadth impact (Bacq et al. 2015; Tracey and Jarvis 2007) or quantitative upscaling (Uvin 1995). The GLC follow a similar strategy of social franchising, but are less imperative in doing so. The organisational structure across locations differs and the constant improvement of the quality and depth of the learning experiences provided is more important than expanding their geographical reach. It seems that this organisation uses the franchise model as a means for organisational upscaling, i.e. building community at home and worldwide. After all, their volunteers are international students with only a temporary presence in the Netherlands. They may be instrumental in expanding the community abroad when returning home upon graduation.

At the meso-level, the embeddedness in social networks provides a supportive ecosystem for impact scaling as many studies have shown (Austin, Stevenson, and Wei-Skillern 2006; Huybrechts and Nicholls 2012; Johannisson and Nilsson 1989; Lechner and Dowling 2003; McKeever, Anderson, and Jack 2015; Peredo and Chrisman 2006; Smith and Stevens 2010). However, both organisations diverge in the way in which they engage with their multiple stakeholders. In the case of the SB, collaboration with stakeholders in their supportive network, such as starters4communities, is conducive to their breadth scaling activities (see Sakarya et al. 2012). Due to their established reputation among like-minded organisations, the SB have access, on a limited scale, to subsidiary funding from local government. The SB envision depth scaling activities as an opportunity to increase their income. So far, their thrust at a profit-making scheme has been ignored by the private sector. As the SB tried to develop higher value services as a local food broker, their attempts at functional upscaling failed to mobilise cross-sector partnerships. The GLC, on the other hand, are activist in their political engagement and would not work in partnership with non-compatible stakeholders such as the corporate sector. Their supportive network is largely focussed on organisations with similar goals and activist mindsets. This type of collaboration may limit their capacity for quantitative upscaling, but increases their potential at political upscaling (Uvin 1995) and creates deeper social impact (Austin, Stevenson, and Wei-Skillern 2006).

At the macro-level, the scaling pathways of the two organisations resonate with the institutional environment - as suggested by the literature (Austin, Stevenson, and Wei-Skillern 2006; Bloom and Smith 2010; Dahles et al. 2020; Kerlin 2006; Mair, Martí, and Ventresca 2012; Martin and Osberg 2007; Scheuerle and Schmitz 2016). However, both organisations do so in different ways and at different levels. The SB operate in low socio-economic local neighbourhoods, among the urban poor and the vulnerable. This NPO engages with issues that can be considered the result of a failing capitalist system. The receding Dutch welfare state creates ‘opportunity spaces’ (Mair and Martí 2009) for organisations such as the SB to compensate for market failures and resolve social issues within the current system in accordance with their core values and goals - or institutional logic as Pache and Chowdhury (2012) would argue. In so doing, the SB operate as a CSE (Newey 2018). As their core strength is the establishment of new branches to reach more people, their focus on breadth scaling strategies makes sense. The GLC, on the other hand, offer a podium for a highly educated and privileged social group of international students who may become economic and political leaders in the future. Their presence marks the role of the city as a centre for international higher education. In this institutional environment, the ambitions of the GLC are soaring, seeking political upscaling in order to transform a flawed social system. In so doing, this organisation can be considered a TSE (Newey 2018).

Conclusions and implications

In comparing and contrasting two Dutch NPOs campaigning for a more sustainable food system, this article addresses the ways in which scaling strategies level pathways to social enterprise development. Identifying the role of impact scaling for the purpose of social enterprise development is the first important contribution of this article to the body of knowledge on social entrepreneurship (Bradach 2003; Desa and Koch 2014; Lyon and Fernandez 2012). As the evidence compellingly shows, the transition to social entrepreneurship is not a linear pathway lined by a successful switch to commercialisation in tandem with a constant expansion of reach. Instead, organisations follow a multiplicity of pathways, some of which can fast-track SEO development, whilst others are strewn with obstacles. Organisations, such as in this case study, may make an effort to grow by mixing various breadth scaling with depth scaling strategies. In view of the widely acknowledged dominance of breadth scaling practices, the above findings indicate that quantitative upscaling does not necessarily advance SEO development. Strikingly, scaling strategies designed to increase an organisation’s reach may inhibit the development of parallel strategies more tuned to the generation of income. As this study is based on two cases – a major limitation for generalising the results - more research on a larger scale is required to understand the factors underlying priorities set by organisations and the impact this has on their pathways to social enterprise development.

Extending the existing body of knowledge of embeddedness into the domain of social entrepreneurship is the second important contribution of this article. Looking at NPOs from an organisational and institutional perspective, the article probes into ways in which the mixed nature of their embeddedness affects their scaling strategies in response to a specific institutional environment (Ram, Theodorakopoulos, and Jones 2008). It is shown that the way in which organisations position themselves by means of their collaborations defines the success and failure of their scaling strategies. Organisations commonly embed themselves in networks conducive to their cause. Whilst this strategy benefits an organisation in various ways, it may also inhibit change. Inclusion in close-knit local networks can support a charity by easing access to donations and smaller grants, but may prevent them from being perceived as a business partner in commercial ventures, as this study exemplifies. Further research is called for to better understand how the embeddedness in social networks affects pathways to SEO development (Smith and Stevens 2010).

Including in the analysis the specific political and social context within which scaling for SEO development occurs, is the third important contribution of this paper to the growing theoretical foundation of the field of social entrepreneurship (Kerlin 2006; McKeever, Anderson, and Jack 2015). The institutional environment, as this study convincingly shows, does not exert a uniform effect on organisations within its boundaries. Instead, the same institutional environment can have varying, even contrasting, impacts on SEO development, as the above two cases exemplify. Whilst both organisations rise to the challenge of filling the gaps of a receding welfare state in the Netherlands, one NPO does so in a truly compensatory fashion, successfully tackling local issues but experiencing stagnation on their pathway to SEO development. The other organisation, beyond their local engagement, operate in a global opportunity space aiming at social transformation as the big issues of global capitalism, such as failing food systems, increasing (food) poverty and climate change figure prominently in their program.

In conclusion, future research on impact scaling for SEO development should be more cognisant of including a mixed embeddedness perspective in order to avoid lop-sided analyses. In addition, it should be appreciated that the mixed embeddedness perspective also offers useful practical insights for organisations to consider when undertaking SEO development. As the above cases exemplify, aspiring SEOs have to be aware of the pitfalls implied by their scaling strategies. Building a strong reputation as a charity, for example, may lead stakeholders to expect an organisation to keep expanding their reach and, thus, encourage breadth scaling. Tied down by close-knit local networks, the organisation may be hampered to change direction and pursue commercial opportunities for depth scaling purposes. Organisations need to be reflective of their stakeholders’ perceptions and the impact this may have on their prospects for social enterprise development. Similarly, organisations require a balanced strategy in stakeholder management. As the above case study shows, the exclusion from fundraising activities of particular stakeholder categories deemed incompatible with an organisation’s mission or worldview may make sense in terms of political upscaling. This, however, may deprive a budding SEO of an opportunity to persuade private companies to embrace change.

Conversely, these findings have social and policy implications to be considered by stakeholders. In European welfare states, for lack of systematic policies, NPOs have traditionally been taking care of the delivery of basic goods and services to vulnerable people. The demise of the welfare state implies that there is more need for CSEs. Consequently, national and local governments need to establish policies that encourage and support enterprises engaging with social issues. In this vein, the example of the municipality of Amsterdam, currently rolling out a comprehensive program to strengthen ‘impact entrepreneurship’ in the city, deserves to be emulated across the Netherlands and beyond. However, with a focus on measurable impact, the question has to be raised where this leaves aspirant TSEs? In view of burgeoning environmental and social issues, TSEs with their focus on alternative lifestyles, green technologies and social transformation come to play more pertinent roles in society. TSEs, whilst critical and perhaps even opposed to institutional dependence, nevertheless require structural support for their work. Governments, the private sector and universities have a responsibility to provide opportunity spaces, such as innovation hubs, where fresh initiatives can thrive to give rise to the next generation of social enterprises.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).

Appendix

Table A1. Overview of data collection

Type of data	Date	Location
Document:
Document strategy day at the SB	31-3-2019	Community centre
Annual report SB (2017-2018)	20-4-2019	Online
Annual report GLC	25-4-2019	Online
Field notes taken at:
Meeting with local and central board member of the SB	3-3-2019	Coffee place
Meeting local board member of the SB	4-3-2019	SB office
Meeting with corporate organisation for collaboration	8-3-2019	Amsterdam business district
Monthly meeting with the central board of the SB	12-3-2019	SB office
Volunteering	30-3-2019	SB location west
Strategy day SB	31-3-2019	Community centre
Volunteering	1-4-2019	SB location east
Meeting GLC	1-4-2019	GLC office
Monthly meeting with the central board of the SB	9-4-2019	SB office
Volunteering	16-4-2019	GLC office
Weekly meeting core team	23-4-2019	GLC office
Eating as a guest	24-4-2019	GLC
Meeting central board member SB	26-4-2019	by phone
Additional meeting with central board of the SB	30-4-2019	Coffee place
Volunteering	11-5-2019	SB location west
Monthly meeting with the central board of the SB	21-5-2019	SB office
Weekly meeting with the core team	21-5-2019	GLC office
Volunteering	22-5-2019	GLC dinner
Volunteering	27-5-2019	Food pickup GLC
Meeting central board of the SB	27-5-2019	Coffee place
Weekly meeting core team of the GLC	28-5-2019	GLC office
Volunteering	31-5-2019	Festival GLC
Volunteering	1-6-2019	Festival GLC
Meeting central board member of the SB	11-6-2019	Coffee place
Collaboration meeting SB	12-6-2019	University
Meeting central board member SB	16-6-2019	Coffee place
Weekly meeting core team	18-6-2019	GLC office
Monthly meeting with the central board of the SB	18-6-2019	SB office
Meeting board member SB	24-6-2019	Coffee place
Weekly meeting core team of the GLC	25-6-2019	GLC office
Eating as a guest	26-6-2019	GLC dinner
Meeting central board member of the SB	8-7-2019	Coffee place

Table A2. Overview of Semi-structured Interviews

Number	Participant	Date	Location
#1	Local board member of the SB	21-4-2019	Informal setting in the park
#2	Local board member of the SB	11-5-2019	Informal setting at SB location west
#3	Volunteer of the SB and GLC	14-5-2019	Informal setting in library
#4	Volunteer of the SB	16-5-2019	Coffee place
#5	Volunteer of the GLC	21-5-2019	GLC office
#6	Central board member of the Social Bite	26-5-2019	Coffee place
#7	Central board member of the SB	28-5-2019	Coffee place
#8	Coordinator of the GLC	28-5-2019	GLC office
#9	Intern/volunteer of the GLC	1-6-2019	GLC office

Table A3. Interview topic guide.

Main topic	Sub-items
The organisation	Background Position in market Members Motivations
Internal process of organising	Volunteering Management Decision-making Members’ collaboration Daily activities Events
External collaborations	The stakeholders involved Types of collaborations Reciprocity and power balance Community building
Challenges and successes	In internal organising In external collaborations
Food waste	Definition Personal experiences Perspective Role and relevance of the organisation
Sustainability	Definition Personal experiences, Manifestations in the organisation Tensions Sustainability of commercial activities
The future of the organisation, the sector and society	Expectations and aspirations regarding Growth, Activities, Collaborations, Food waste and sustainability