Entrepreneurial orientation in firms with a social mission - a mixed-methods approach

Figures & data

Table 1. Overview of the case companies

Case	Business	Social mission	Sales (th. €)	Year est.	No. of owners	Interviewees
A	Design product manufacturing from recycled material and retail	Recycling and offer work opportunities in Kenya	150	2009	2	2 owners
B	Software	Promote effective recycling	-	2011	10	CEO + 2 owners
C	Bakery and retail	Finance charity organization which helps poor children and families	80	2012	7	CEO, main owner
D	Transcription services	Employ blind people	260	2010	1	CEO
E	Restaurant and catering services	Finance four healthcare charity organizations	15000	1994	4	CEO

Table 2. Descriptives and reliability of the entrepreneurial orientation scales

	N	Min	Max	Mean	Std. Dev.	Items	Alpha
EO total	40	2.78	5.00	3.92	0.58	9	0.85
EO_innopro	40	2.83	5.00	4.10	0.58	6	0.83
EO_inno	40	2.50	5.00	4.09	0.65	4	0.81
EO_pro	40	2.50	5.00	4.14	0.59	2	0.34
EO_risk	40	2.33	5.00	3.54	0.76	3	0.73
SEO total	40	2.67	5.00	4.04	0.54	9	0.86
SEO_innopro	40	2.71	5.00	4.14	0.55	7	0.85
SEO_inno	40	2.75	5.00	4.09	0.60	4	0.78
SEO_pro	40	2.67	5.00	4.21	0.57	3	0.66
SEO_risk	40	2.50	5.00	3.68	0.70	2	0.56

Table 3. Paired samples t- test of EO and SEO items

Paired differences	Mean	Std.Dev.	Std.Err.	t	p
EO-SEO	-0.12	0.48	0.08	-1.58	0.121
EO innopro-SEO innopro	-0.04	0.51	0.08	-0.43	0.668
EO risk-SEO risk	-0.13	0.61	0.10	-1.39	0.172
EO inno-SEO inno	0.00	0.53	0.08	0.00	1.000
EO pro-SEO pro	-0.07	0.63	0.10	-0.71	0.483

Table 4. Correlations

	1.	2.	3.	4.	5.	6.	7.	8.	9.
1.EO total	1
2.EOinnopro	0.934**	1
3.EOinno	0.897**	0.968**	1
4.EOpro	0.792**	0.833**	0.667**	1
5.EOrisk	0.839**	0.588**	0.554**	0.524**	1
6.SEO total	0.635**	0.612**	0.619**	0.452**	0.503**	1
7.SEOinnopro	0.570**	0.591**	0.604**	0.423**	0.388*	0.972**	1
8.SEOinno	0.556**	0.604**	0.634**	0.393*	0.338*	0.933**	0.960**	1
9.SEOpro	0.512**	0.494**	0.480**	0.407**	0.405**	0.895**	0.921**	0.774**	1
10.SEOrisk	0.615**	0.478**	0.466**	0.390*	0.662**	0.762**	0.589**	0.565**	0.543**

*p<0.05, **p<0.01

Table 5. Responses to EO and SEO items

Case	EO total	EO inno	EO pro	EO risk	SEO total	SEO inno	SEO pro	SEO risk
A1 survey	4.1	4.3	4.5	3.7	3.4	3.3	3.7	3.5
A1 interview	4.2	4.3	4.5	4.0	4.2	4.3	4.3	4.0
A2 interview	4.2	4.5	4.0	4.0	4.6	4.8	4.0	5.0
B1 survey	4.4	4.5	4.5	4.3	3.8	3.5	4.3	3.5
B1 interview	4.2	4.3	4.5	4.0	4.0	4.0	4.0	4.0
B2 interview	4.6	4.8	4.5	4.3	4.2	4.0	4.7	4.0
B3 interview	2.9	3.0	2.5	3.0	3.2	3.3	3.7	2.5
C interview	4.4	4.3	4.0	5.0	4.7	4.5	4.7	5.0
D survey	3.4	3.5	4.0	3.0	3.9	4.0	4.7	2.5
D interview	3.6	3.5	4.0	3.3	3.7	3.3	4.0	4.0
E survey	3.8	3.8	3.5	4.0	3.9	3.8	3.7	4.5
E interview	4.4	4.5	5.0	4.0	2.7	2.8	2.7	2.5

Table

Dim.	Item	Mean	S.d.
Inno	We invest heavily in developing new products, services, and business practices	3.98	0.83
Inno	In our company, new ideas come up all the time	4.28	0.78
Inno	Continuous renewal and innovation are important for our company	4.40	0.63
Inno	Lately, we have launched many new products/services	3.70	0.97
Pro	We aim to be at the forefront of development in our business sector	4.43	0.68
Pro	Our company often acts before our competitors do	3.85	0.83
Risk	We prefer the cautious line of action even if some opportunity might be lost that way®	2.48	0.96
Risk	Bold action is necessary to achieve our company’s objectives	3.88	0.82
Risk	In uncertain situations, we are not afraid to take substantial risks	3.23	1.05
S_Inno	We invest heavily in developing new ways to increase our social impact	4.13	0.72
S_Inno	In our company, new ideas to solve social problems come up all the time	3.90	0.87
S_Inno	Continuous renewal and social innovation are important for our company	4.43	0.64
S_Inno	Lately, we have adopted new ways to serve our beneficiaries	3.90	0.84
S_Pro	We aim to be at the forefront of making the world a better place	4.48	0.68
S_Pro	Our company often acts before other companies do	3.88	0.76
S_Pro	We see opportunities where others see only social problems	4.28	0.78
S_Risk	We prefer the cautious line of action even if some social opportunity might be lost that way®	3.60	0.84
S_Risk	Bold action is necessary to achieve our company’s social mission	4.13	0.56
S_Risk	We are not afraid to take substantial risks when serving our social purpose	3.23	1.05

Table

Study	Country	N	Industries	Size	Means and std. deviations
					Inno	Pro	Risk	EO
Stenholm et al. 2016*	FIN	532	food, media, shipbuilding, subcontracting	all	2.46 1.15	3.18 0.91	2.54 1.00
Morgan et al. 2016*	SWE	108	metal, timber, IT, tourism	SME				2.77 0.83
Kajalo & Lindblom 2015	FIN	202	non-food retailers	SME	3.65 0.99	3.65 0.99	2.66 1.07
Patel et al. 2015*	SWE	147	high tech	SME				2.64 0.80
Soininen et al. (2012, 2013)+	FIN	193	multiple	SME	3.49 0.79	3.49 0.79	2.95 0.83	3.32 0.69
Ritala, Henttonen, Salojärvi, Sainio, & Saarenketo, 2013*	FIN	213	multiple	ML				3.19 0.76
Wales et al. 2013*	SWE	258	high tech	SME	2.73 0.61	2.76 0.64	2.62 0.68	2.70 0.63
Renko et al. 2009	FIN SWE	27	biotech	SME				3.63 0.54
Jantunen et al. 2005*	FIN	217	multiple	ML				2.96 0.53
Linton & Kask, 2017*	SWE	67	sporting goods retailers	all	2.32 1.01	2.64 1.23	2.24 0.88
Jansson et al., 2017 +	SWE	450	multiple	SME	3.04 1.00	3.04 1.00	2.81 0.98	2.96 0.86
Samuelsson, Andersén, Ljungkvist, & Jansson, 2016*	SWE	156	manufacturing	SME				2.98 0.71
Current study, EO	FIN	40	social enterprises	SME	4.09 0.65	4.14 0.59	3.54 0.76	3.92 0.58
Current study, SEO	FIN	40	social enterprises	SME	4.09 0.60	4.21 0.57	3.68 0.70	4.04 0.54
Miles et al., 2013, SEO	AUS	48	social enterprises	SME	3.57 0.89	3.32 0.88	3.70 0.89	3.53 0.89
Liu et al. 2014*	UK	297	social enterprises	all				2.84 0.94
Liu et al. 2014*	JPN	237	social enterprises	all				3.02 0.90

*values rescaled from 1–7 to 1–5, + innovativeness and proactiveness combined

Stenholm, P., Pukkinen, T., & Heinonen, J. (2016). Firm growth in family businesses – The role of entrepreneurial orientation and the entrepreneurial activity. Journal of Small Business Management, 54(2), 697–713. doi:10.1111/jsbm.2016.54.issue-2

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Morgan, T., Anokhin, S., & Wincent, J. (2016). Entrepreneurial orientation, firm market power and opportunism in networks. Journal of Business and Industrial Marketing, 31(1), 99–111. doi:10.1108/JBIM-03-2014-0063

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Kajalo, S., & Lindblom, A. (2015). ‘Market orientation, entrepreneurial orientation, and business performance among small retailers’. International Journal of Retail and Distribution Management, 43(7), 580–596. doi:10.1108/IJRDM-04-2014-0044

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Patel, P., Kohtamäki, M., Parida, V., & Wincent, J. (2015). Entrepreneurial orientation – As – Experimentation and firm performance: The enabling role of absorptive capacity. Strategic Management Journal, 36(11), 1739–1749. doi:10.1002/smj.2310

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Soininen, J., Puumalainen, K., Sjögrén, H., & Syrjä, P. (2012). ‘The impact of global economic crisis on SMEs – Does entrepreneurial orientation matter?. Management Research Review, 35(10), 927–944. doi:10.1108/01409171211272660

 Google Scholar

Soininen, J. (2013). Entrepreneurial orientation in small firms: A values-attitudes-behavior approach. International Journal of Entrepreneurial Behaviour & Research, 19(6), 611–632.

 Google Scholar

Ritala, P., Henttonen, K., Salojärvi, H., Sainio, M. L., & Saarenketo, S. (2013). Gone fishing for knowledge?: The effect of strategic orientations on the scope of open knowledge search. Baltic Journal of Management, 8(3), 328–348. doi:10.1108/BJOM-Apr-2012-0019

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Wales, W., Patel, P., Parida, V., & Kreiser, P. (2013). Nonlinear effects of entrepreneurial orientation on firm performance: The moderating role of resource orchestration capabilities. Strategic Entrepreneurship Journal, 7(2), 93–121. doi:10.1002/sej.1153

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Renko, M., Carsrud, A., & Brännback, M. (2009). The effect of a market orientation, entrepreneurial orientation, and technological capabilities on innovativeness: A study of young biotechnology ventures in the United States and in Scandinavia. Journal of Small Business Management, 47(3), 331–369. doi:10.1111/j.1540-627X.2009.00274.x

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Jantunen, A., Puumalainen, K., Saarenketo, S., & Kyläheiko, K. (2005). Entrepreneurial orientation, dynamic capabilities and international performance. Journal of International Entrepreneurship, 3(3), 223–243. doi:10.1007/s10843-005-1133-2

 Google Scholar

Linton, G., & Kask, J. (2017). Configurations of entrepreneurial orientation and competitive strategy for high performance. Journal of Business Research, 70(1), 168–176. doi:10.1016/j.jbusres.2016.08.022

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Jansson, J., Nilsson, J., Modig, F., & Hedvall, G. (2017). Commitment to sustainability in small and medium-sized enterprises; the influence of strategic orientations and management values. Business Strategy and the Environment, 26(1), 69–83. doi:10.1002/bse.1901

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Samuelsson, J., Andersén, J., Ljungkvist, T., & Jansson, C. (2016). Formal accounting planning in SMEs: The influence of family ownership and entrepreneurial orientation. Journal of Small Business and Enterprise Development, 23(3), 691–702. doi:10.1108/JSBED-12-2015-0167

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Miles, M., Verreynne, M., Luke, B., Eversole, R., & Barraket, J. (2013). The relationship of entrepreneurial orientation, Vincentian values and economic and social performance in social enterprises. Review of Business, 33(2), 91–102.

 Google Scholar

Liu, G., Takeda, S., & Ko, W. (2014). Strategic orientation and social enterprise performance. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 43(3), 480–501. doi:10.1177/0899764012468629

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar