Does the Business Suit Fit? Drivers for Economic Performance in Social Enterprises

Figures & data

Table 1. Measuring the performance of SEs.

Authors	Dataset	Research focus	Respondents	Measures of performance
Miles et al. (2013)	85 SEs (Australia)	Influence of entrepreneurial and social orientation on social and economic performance	Chief executives	Social performance measured by: Donor and service user satisfaction, representation of service users’ needs in society, socially responsible organisational leadership Economic performance measured by: Effectiveness of service delivery compared to competitors, increases in effectiveness and efficiency, improvements of the financial situation, financial sustainability
Liu, Takeda, and Ko (2014)	534 SEs (UK and Japan)	Link between entrepreneurial and market orientation and meeting economic and social targets	Managing directors	Economic performance measured by adapted items following Voss and Voss (2000): Revenue growth, proliferation of entrepreneurial activities Social performance measured by adapted items following Coombes et al. (2011) and Balabanis et al. (1997): Increased provision of social services, more social services for service users
Stevens, Moray, and Bruneel (2015)	270 SEs (Belgium)	Link between economic and social missions	CEOs	Economic mission measured by: Importance of economic goals*, self-focussed values, utilitarian identity Social mission measured by: Importance of social goals*, community-focussed values, normative identity * economic goals: 4 items on ROI maximisation and profitability * social goals: 4 items on addressing social problems and philanthropic responsibility
Newman et al. (2018)	169 staff members and 42 social entrepreneurs (Australia, Canada, UK)	Influence of servant leadership and entrepreneurial leadership on organisational commitment and innovative behaviour among staff	Social entrepreneurs and staff	2 measures of performance: Affective organisational commitment (for employees): based on a 6-item scale following Meyer et al. (1993), with statements like, e.g. ‘I would be very happy to spend the rest of my career at this organization’. Innovative behaviour (for social entrepreneurs): 5 items on the scale by Scott and Bruce (1994) with statements like, e.g. ‘This employee generates creative ideas’.
Miller-Stevens et al. (2018)	91 profit-oriented SEs, 132 non-profit organisations (USA)	Comparison of the values of profit-oriented SE managers with those of classic NPOs managers	Managers	Values: Entrepreneurship, innovation, responsiveness, service orientation, effectiveness, efficiency As well as: altruism, charity, transparency, justice, fairnessAnd: flexibility, integrity, trust, responsibility, generosity, freedom, equality, individualism
Bhattarai, Kwong, and Tasavori (2019)	164 SEs (UK)	Influence of market orientation and market disruptiveness capability on economic and social performance	Managers	Economic performance measured by: Profitability, revenue, growth, organisational performance, fulfilment of stakeholder expectations Social performance measured by: Implementation of the social strategy compared to competitors, fulfilment of the social mission, achievement of social goals
Shier, Handy, and Jennings (2019)	165 SEs (USA)	Influence of routine processes, staff commitment and organisational cohesion on social innovation	Managing directors	Social innovation via: transformative, product-related and process-related innovation (12 items based on the Human Services Social Innovation Scale by Shier and Handy ( 2015)
Alarifi, Robson, and Kromidha (2019)	303 SEs (Saudi Arabia)	Link between entrepreneurial orientation and organisational performance	Social entrepreneurs	Organisational performance measured by (one item for each): Achievement of pre-defined goals, adaptability to environmental changes, efficiency, stakeholder satisfaction

Figure 1. Research model.

Table 2. Dimensions of economic performance.

Measure of performance	Scale	Range	Median	N
DV1-Employer reputation	Quasi-metric with 10 steps	From 3 to 10	8	213
DV2-Stakeholders’ satisfaction	Quasi-metric with 10 steps	From 3 to 10	8	213
DV3-Market performance compared to competitors	Quasi-metric with 10 steps	From 1 to 10	8	210
DV4-Achieving growth targets (when their importance >3 of 10)	Quasi-metric with 10 steps	From 1 to 10	8	150
DV5-Proportion of market income	Ordinal with 5 steps	Strongly decreased 2% Decreased 8% Constant 57% Increased 26% Strongly increased 7%	const.	190
DV6-Staff resignations	% per year	From 0 to 40%	5%	187

Table 3. Hypothesised determinants of economic performance.

Determinants for performance	Measurement	Scale	Range	Mean
IV1-Entrepreneurial orientation	9 items (alpha = .74)	1–5	1.9–5.0	3.95
IV2-Strategic anchoring	3 items (alpha = .72)	1–5	1.0–5.0	3.89
IV3-Internal communication	5 items (alpha = .82)	1–5	1.8–5.0	4.30
IV4-Management consensus	3 items (alpha = .80)	1–5	1.0–5.0	4.43
IV5-External evaluation	1 item	1–5	1–5	2.40

Table 4. Non-parametric correlations between variables from economic performance, management culture and control variables.

		DV1	DV2	DV3	DV4	DV5	DV6	IV1	IV2	IV3	IV4	IV5	CV1	CV2	CV3	CV4	CV5	CV6	CV7	CV8	CV9	CV10	CV11
DV1	Employer reputation	1
DV2	Stakeholders’ satisfaction	.43**	1
DV3	Market success (vs. competitors)	.26**	.35**	1
DV4	Achieving growth targets	.14	.15	.30**	1
DV5	Increasing market income	.02	.02	.02	.14	1
DV6	Fewer staff resignations	.17*	.13	.22**	−.09	−.09	1
IV1	Entrepreneurial orientation	.13	.23**	.30**	.23**	.15*	.02	1
IV2	Strategic anchoring	.16*	.17*	.16*	.19*	.19**	−.03	.50**	1
IV3	Internal communication	.34**	.38**	.30**	.26**	.07	.15*	.42**	.52**	1
IV4	Management consensus	.14*	.21**	.23**	.13	.01	.01	.34**	.30**	.28**	1
IV5	External evaluation	.13	−.03	.10	.01	.02	.24**	.27**	.42**	.21**	.14	1
CV1	Formalisation and standardisation	.16*	.25**	.19**	.09	.04	−.15*	.27**	.40**	.25**	.25**	.13	1
CV2	Number of hierarchical levels	.08	.04	.16*	.06	.03	−.12	.19**	.14*	.11	.08	.05	.16*	1
CV3	Power supervisory board	−.08	−.05	.06	.02	.13	.18*	−.06	−.00	−.07	.03	.15*	.07	−.07	1
CV4	Power executive board	.12	.15*	.14*	.06	.08	−.06	−.03	−.05	−.01	−.04	−.24**	.11	−.07	−.02	1
CV5	Growth orientation	.02	.06	.11	.30**	.34**	−.01	.33**	.16*	.09	.05	.12	.12	.16*	−.02	.05	1
CV6	Profit orientation	−.09	.03	.06	.03	.30**	−.05	.20**	.09	.07	.00	.05	.10	.03	.16*	.16*	.33**	1
CV7	Organisation size (no. of staff)	−.03	−.01	.11	.11	.01	−.18*	.17**	−.01	−.01	.09	.12	.12	.39**	−.04	−.07	.14	.05	1
CV8	Proportion of market-based funding	−.13	−.02	−.06	.06	.16*	−.13	.09	.11	−.08	.04	−.09	.05	.20**	−.01	.01	.22**	.17*	.16*	1
CV9	Prop. of donation-based funding	−.12	−.11	−.19*	.01	.11	.01	.01	.04	−.09	.00	.10	−.06	−.01	.07	.00	.17*	.04	−.05	.12	1
CV10	Corporate legal form	−.06	−.03	−.01	.09	.22**	.03	−.03	−.03	.08	.03	.03	−.11	−.22**	.09	−.13	.08	.11	−.11	.02	−.13	1
CV11	French language region	−.06	−.07	−.11	−.12	.02	.14	−.01	−.17*	−.05	−.09	.12	−.13*	−.09	.21**	−.14*	.04	−.07	−.15*	−.01	.02	.07	1

Note. Non-parametric Spearman’s rho coefficients.

*Significant at the 5% level (two-way).

**Significant at the 1% level (two-way).

Table 5. Regression analyses for the various criteria of economic performance.

		DV1-Employer reputation	DV2-Stakeholders’ satisfaction	DV3-Market success compared to competitors	DV4-Achieving growth targets	DV5-Increasing market income	DV6-Few staff resignations
		Standardized beta coefficients
CV1	Formalization and standardization	0.11	0.08	−0.04	−0.13	0.04	−0.05
CV2	Number of hierarchical levels	−0.03	−0.08	0.12	−0.01	0.02	−0.06
CV3	Power supervisory board	−0.07	0.05	0.19*	0.10	0.06	0.16
CV4	Power executive board	0.07	0.11	0.11	0.13	0.08	0.00
CV5	Growth orientation	0.00	−0.04	0.02	0.24*	0.26**	−0.10
CV6	Profit orientation	−0.1	−0.02	−0.02	−0.09	0.09	−0.01
CV7	Organization size (no. of staff)	−0.07	0.01	−0.03	0.15	−0.06	−0.14
CV8	Proportion of market funding	−0.04	0.07	0.02	0.04	0.06	0.06
CV9	Prop. of donation-based funding	−0.13	−0.13^(*^)	−0.28**	−0.10	0.07	0.05
CV10	Corporate legal form	0.02	−0.07	0.07	0.05	0.20*	−0.16
CV11	French language region	−0.05	−0.06	−0.15^(*^)	−0.05	0.04	−0.03
IV1	Entrepreneurial orientation	0.07	0.09	0.29**	0.25*	0.05	−0.02
IV2	Strategic anchoring	−0.14	−0.15	−0.06	0.08	0.19^(*^)	−0.22
IV3	Internal communication	0.40**	0.56**	0.08	0.10	−0.08	0.35**
IV4	Management consensus	−0.03	0.12	0.10	0.01	0.03	0.06
IV5	External evaluation	0.17*	−0.03	0.06	−0.10	−0.02	0.27**
Adjusted R^2	Control variables (CV1-11)	0.03	0.04	0.09	0.05	0.20	−0.02
	CV1-11 + Entrepreneurial orient.			0.20	0.13
	CV1-11+ Strategic anchoring					0.22
	CV1-11 + Internal comm.	0.16	0.32				0.04
	CV1-11 + External eval.	0.05					0.02
	All CVs and IVs (total model)	0.16	0.33	0.19	0.11	0.21	0.08
Constant		5.08**	3.37**	1.73^(*^)	−0.03	2.33*	−2.96**
F-value		2.97**	6.07**	3.37**	1.96*	3.53**	1.76*
Sample size		163	164	163	119	157	148

Note. ⁽*⁾p(t) < 0.10, *p(t) < 0.05, **p(t) < 0.01.

Miles, M., M. L. Verreynne, B. Luke, R. Eversole, and J. Barracket. 2013. “The Relationship of Entrepreneurial Orientation, Vincentian Values and Economic and Social Performance in Social Enterprise.” Review of Business 33 (2): 91–102.

 Google Scholar

Liu, G., S. Takeda, and W. W. Ko. 2014. “Strategic Orientation and Social Enterprise Performance.” Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly 43 (3): 480–501. doi:https://doi.org/10.1177/0899764012468629.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Voss, G. B., and Z. G. Voss 2000. “Strategic orientation and firm performance in an artistic environment.” Journal of Marketing 64 (1): 67–83. doi:https://doi.org/10.1177/0899764012468629.

 Google Scholar

Coombes, S. M., M. H. Morris, J. A. Allen, and J. W. Webb. 2011. “Behavioural Orientations of Non‐profit Boards as a Factor in Entrepreneurial Performance: Does Governance Matter?” Journal of Management Studies 48 (4): 829–856. doi:https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-6486.2010.00956.x.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Balabanis, G., R. E. Stables, and H. C. Phillips. 1997. “Market Orientation in the Top 200 British Charity Organizations and Its Impact on Their Performance.” European Journal of Marketing 31 (8): 583–603. doi:https://doi.org/10.1108/03090569710176592.

 Google Scholar

Stevens, R., N. Moray, and J. Bruneel. 2015. “The Social and Economic Mission of Social Enterprises: Dimensions, Measurement, Validation, and Relation.” Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice 39 (5): 1051–1082. doi:https://doi.org/10.1111/etap.12091.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Newman, A., C. Neesham, G. Manville, and H. H. Tse. 2018. “Examining the Influence of Servant and Entrepreneurial Leadership on the Work Outcomes of Employees in Social Enterprises.” The International Journal of Human Resource Management 29 (20): 2905–2926. doi:https://doi.org/10.1080/09585192.2017.1359792.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Meyer, J. P., N. J. Allen, and C. A. Smith. 1993. “Commitment to Organizations and Occupations: Extension and Test of a Three-Component Conceptualization.” Journal of Applied Psychology 78 (4): 538–551. doi:https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.78.4.538.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Scott, S. G., and R. A. Bruce. 1994. “Determinants of Innovative Behavior: A Path Model of Individual Innovation in the Workplace.” Academy of Management Journal 37 (3): 580–607. doi:https://doi.org/10.5465/256701.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Miller-Stevens, K., J. A. Taylor, J. C. Morris, and S. E. Lanivich. 2018. “Assessing Value Differences Between Leaders of Two Social Venture Types: Benefit Corporations and Nonprofit Organizations.” VOLUNTAS: International Journal of Voluntary and Nonprofit Organizations 29 (5): 938–950. doi:https://doi.org/10.1007/s11266-017-9947-9.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Bhattarai, C. R., C. C. Kwong, and M. Tasavori. 2019. “Market Orientation, Market Disruptiveness Capability and Social Enterprise Performance: An Empirical Study from the United Kingdom.” Journal of Business Research 96: 47–60. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2018.10.042.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Shier, M. L., F. Handy, and C. Jennings. 2019. “Intraorganizational Conditions Supporting Social Innovations by Human Service Nonprofits.” Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly 48 (1): 173–193. doi:https://doi.org/10.1177/0899764018797477.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Shier, M. L., and F. Handy. 2015. “From Advocacy to Social Innovation: A Typology of Social Change Efforts by Nonprofits.” VOLUNTAS: International Journal of Voluntary and Nonprofit Organizations 26 (6): 2581–2603. doi:https://doi.org/10.1007/s11266-014-9535-1.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Alarifi, G., P. Robson, and E. Kromidha. 2019. “The Manifestation of Entrepreneurial Orientation in the Social Entrepreneurship Context.” Journal of Social Entrepreneurship 10 (3): 307–327. doi:https://doi.org/10.1080/19420676.2018.1541015.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar