Examining the impact of control and ownership on social enterprises’ public value creation using integrative publicness theory

ABSTRACT

This study examined the impact of publicness on public value creation in social enterprises from the perspective of integrative publicness. Our findings show that internal control is positively associated with all variables of a social enterprise’s public value creation. Ownership is also partially associated with the public value creation of social enterprises, while external control does not show any significant relationship. This study provides policymakers and social enterprise managers with the practical implications of the relationship between social enterprise publicness and its social outcomes. This study also contributes to strengthening the relevance of the integrative publicness framework by demonstrating the impact of dimensional publicness on public value creation in the context of social enterprises.

KEYWORDS:

• Social enterprise
• dimensional publicness
• public value creation

Disclosure statement

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

Notes

1. Considering that uncertified social enterprises are not entities that refuse to be certified but ones at the pre-stage of certification, they may 1) have a certain level of preference towards the standards set by the Korean government, 2) be in the process of calculating the advantages and disadvantages of being involved in the certification system, and/or 3) not yet be ready to satisfy the government standard. Although in this study we focus only on two types of social enterprises – certified and uncertified – based on the dichotomous variable, further research needs to deepen our understanding of the differences between certified social enterprises, pre-stage social enterprises, and entities that refuse to be institutionalized by the certification system but seek social mission with business activities. For example, further research can employ qualitative methods to uncover what encourages organizations to become certified and what discourages or hinders them.

2. First, innovation (Cronbach’s alpha = 0.745) is measured by the average of three questionnaire items: (1) ‘Social entrepreneurs within my organisation develop new products or services rather than work efficiently in the conventional way’, (2) ‘Social entrepreneurs within my organisation increase efficiency and productivity by leading creative and big changes rather than making minor changes to existing policies, services or products’, and (3) ‘Social entrepreneurs within my organisation induce organisational change by developing new technologies, products, and services within the organisation rather than adopting existing best practices’. Second, proactiveness (Cronbach’s alpha = 0.786) is operationalized by the average of three other questionnaire items: (1) ‘Social entrepreneurs within my organisation act more proactively than their counterparts rather than acting in response to the initiatives of their peers’, (2) ‘Social entrepreneurs within my organisation introduce new ways of working or services more proactively than other existing companies’, and (3) ‘Social entrepreneurs within my organisation are willing to work on new programs that are different from other companies in order to generate profits in the future’. Third, risk-taking (Cronbach’s alpha = 0.701) is measured by the average of these three questionnaire items: (1) ‘Social entrepreneurs within my organisation generally prefer projects that can create high profitability rather than stability’, (2) ‘Regardless of the general practice of peer companies, social entrepreneurs within my organisation choose a new business approach to achieve organisational goals even though it requires risk-taking’, and (3) ‘Social entrepreneurs within my organisation actively and boldly engage in business activities to maximise profits’. Organizational culture (Cronbach’s alpha = 0.831) is measured by the average of five questionnaire items: (1) ‘Employees are well matched with each other’, (2) ‘There is a strong loyalty to the organisation of the employees’, (3) ‘There is good unity among the employees’, (4) ‘It is important that we keep rules well in our organisation’, and (5) ‘The employees place great importance on the procedures in order to handle the work’.

Additional information

Notes on contributors

Donwe Choi

Donwe Choi is an assistant professor of the Department of Political Science Texas Tech University. He obtained his PhD from the Askew School of Public Administration and Policy at Florida State University. His research interests involve social enterprise and entrepreneurship, public policy process and theory, public value governance, co-production, basic income policy, and social equity. E-mail: [email protected]

Keon-Hyung Lee

Keon-Hyung Lee is a Professor of Public Administration and Public Health in the Askew School of Public Administration and Policy, Florida State University. His work focuses on performance management, social enterprises, publicness, employee satisfaction, hospital competition, hospital choice analysis, and the uninsured. He has published in public administration and health services administration journals. E-mail: [email protected]

Hyungjo Hur

Hyungjo Hur is an assistant professor of the Department of Public Administration at the Dankook University. His research interests are the social policy, human resource management, workforce development, and co-creating social value through cross-sector collaboration. E-mail: [email protected]