The Ethics and Social Mission of Workers and their Relationship to Social Intrapreneurship

• 137 • Anduli Revista Andaluza de Ciencias Sociales ISSN: 1696-0270 • e-ISSN: 2340-4973 THE ETHICS AND SOCIAL MISSION OF WORKERS AND THEIR RELATIONSHIP TO SOCIAL INTRAPRENEURSHIP LA ÉTICA Y LA MISIÓN SOCIAL DE LOS TRABAJADORES Y SU RELACIÓN CON EL INTRAEMPRENDIMIENTO SOCIAL Esthela Galván-Vela CETYS Universidad, México [email protected] https://orcid.org/ 0000-0002-8778-3989 Victor Mercader CETYS Universidad, Mexico victor[email protected] https://orcid.org/ 0000-0002-7586-1062 Rafael Ravina-Ripoll Universidad de Cádiz, España rafael.ravina@ juntadeandalucia.es https://orcid.org/ 0000-0001-7007-3123 Abstract Intrapreneurship (i.e., entrepreneurship arising within established organizations) is key to the development of the entities that generate it. This is why highly positive results have been attributed to it. This construct has been analyzed for more than three decades; however, social intra-entrepreneurship, which arises from the need of companies to be recognized as entities that generate social value from their mission, still lacks sufficient scientific background. Therefore, for the first time, this study empirically evaluates social mission and business ethics as determinants of social intrapreneurship. A questionnaire was used to gather data from 603 professionals from different Baja, California, and Mexico companies. Among the data analysis techniques, descriptive statistics were used to verify the univariate composition of the data, and inferential statistics were used to determine the reliability and validity of the measurement scales. The data indicate a highly significant relationship between corporate social mission and social intrapreneurship; however, the data indicate that business ethics is not related to acts of social intrapreneurship. Keywords: Ethics; Social Intrapreneurship; Social Mission; Business; Human Capital. Resumen El intraemprendimiento (es decir, el espíritu empresarial que surge dentro de organizaciones establecidas) es clave para el desarrollo de las entidades que lo generan. De ahí que se le atribuyan resultados altamente positivos. Este constructo ha sido analizado durante más de tres décadas; sin embargo, el intraemprendimiento social, que surge de la necesidad de las empresas de ser reconocidas como entidades que generan valor social a partir de su misión, carece aún de suficiente bagaje científico. Por ello, por primera vez, este estudio evalúa empíricamente la misión social y la ética empresarial como determinantes del intraemprendimiento social. Se utilizó un cuestionario para recopilar datos de 603 profesionales de diferentes empresas de Baja California y México. Entre las técnicas de análisis de datos, se utilizó estadística descriptiva para verificar la composición univariada de los datos, y estadística inferencial para determinar la confiabilidad y validez de las escalas de medición. Los datos indican una relación altamente significativa entre la misión social corporativa y el intraemprendimiento social; sin embargo, los datos indican que la ética empresarial no está relacionada con los actos de intraemprendimiento social. Palabras clave: Etica; intraemprendimiento social; Misión social; Negocio; Capital Humano. Como citar este artículo/ citation: Galván-Vela, Esthela; Mercader,Víctor; Ravina-Ripoll, Rafael (2023).The Ethics and Social Mission of Workers and their Relationship to Social Intrapreneurship. ANDULI 23 (2023) pp.137-157. http://doi.org/10.12795/anduli.2023.i23.09 Recibido: 01-04-2022. Aceptado: 01-10-2022. Publicado: 10.01.2023. http://doi.org/10.12795/anduli.2023.i23.09 Anduli • Revista Andaluza de Ciencias Sociales Nº 23 - 2023 • 138 • 1. Introduction The competitive conditions of today’s markets, the rapid development of the information society and the changes brought about by the knowledge-based economy (Galván-Vela et al., 2021a) has highlighted the leading role of entrepreneurs in the development of companies and their communities, as they are considered the main drivers of change in terms of innovation and proactivity, as well as practical problem solving (Ezlegini et al., 2017). It is because of the above, that during the last decade’s entrepreneurship has been considered a priority topic in the research agendas (Galván-Vela & Sánchez, 2017, 2018; Gawke et al., 2017; Turró et al., 2014) and, within its classifications, social entrepreneurship is the one that has recently interested researchers (Chou, 2018) as it represents a relatively novel topic whose differentiating element focuses on the fact that the nature of the action is a substantive improvement to society, leading to the generation of economic and social impacts (Capella-Peris et al., 2020; Rey-Martí et al., 2016). It is then that social entrepreneurship can be seen as an act of personal or collective initiative that enables the development of a more sustainable and fairer society (Rahdari et al., 2016), while social intrapreneurship, as a variant of entrepreneurship, represents an act of initiative that can be formal or informal and is led by employees of some company, where opportunities in the environment are identified and exploited and sustainable solutions are delivered to address social problems (Circle of Intrapreneurs, 2021; Elisa & Thijs, 2019). Actually, social intrapreneurship has been studied from different fields, among which stand out studies on social innovation, corporate social responsibility, environmental studies, public policy, strategic management, organisational theory, Paradox theory, the sharing economy, the circular economy or the Sustainable Development Goals. In this sense, the challenges in the study of social intrapreneurship are focused on its definition, the development of a substantive theory, the measurement of its impact, the analysis of its practices and organisation. Thus, within the latter field, a call for research on the subject tries to answer the question: what are the organisational facilitators and inhibitors of corporate social intrapreneurship? (McGaw & Malinsky, 2020). This study proposes two determinants of social intrapreneurship, such as ethics and individual social mission. First, since the set of values that identify individuals is a driver for their decision making, so the application of these values would be expected in the analysis of dilemmas and structuring of thoughts that guide the substantive improvement of society, beyond the economic benefits that a social initiative can generate (Castell-Gydesen & Lugo, 2020); as well as its necessity to be applied in all areas of business and social intervention (Mercader, 2017; Mercader et al., 2021). Second, since social entrepreneurs seek a balance between their financial and social objectives while presuming the existence of a social mission as their primary normative purpose (Muñoz & Kimmitt, 2019), so it would be expected that employees with initiatives aimed at solving social problems from their company have an individual social mission. Concerning these approaches, we sought to answer the following research question: What is the relationship between ethics and the social mission of workers with social entrepreneurship? Hence, the objective was: To analyse the relationship between ethics and social mission of workers with social intra-entrepreneurship. In this sense, Artículos • Esthela Galván Vela, Victor Mercader, Rafael Ravina Ripoll • 139 • we can ensure that this study fulfilled its objective, and this process is detailed in the following sections: The first corresponds to a literature analysis where the hypotheses are stated. The second describes the method and tools implemented in the study. The third section presents the descriptive and inferential analysis of the variables. The fourth section discusses the results and makes new proposals to develop theory in social intrapreneurship. 2. Literary Review 2.1. The social mission Social mission is a construct that, in recent years, has been empirically analysed in the management sciences (Stevens et al., 2015). It can be stated that there is a consensus in recognition of social mission as a fundamental element of social entrepreneurship (Bruder, 2020). From a business point of view, the social mission combines elements of financial sustainability in the framework of social business and the need for innovations that address social problems from social entrepreneurship (Beckmann et al., 2014). This construct can be understood as the logic of positive social change. Through the market, dynamics prioritises the company’s role in solving problems (Muñoz & Kimmitt, 2019). At the business level, the social mission can also be defined as the company’s reason for creating value for the common good (Stevens et al., 2015). This construct is strongly linked to business ethics and its efforts to pursue innovations as part of its intrapreneurial actions (Bruder, 2020). Some authors, such as Berbegal-Mirabent et al. (2021) and Muñoz and Kimmit (2019), argue a logical relationship between social mission and social entrepreneurship and the latter with business development. Other authors such as Cornforth (2014) and Raišienė and Urmanavičienė (2017) mention that some companies, when trying to achieve a social mission, may lose their way and orient their balance towards the economic benefits they can obtain after exploiting their social sense, ultimately relegating the reason why the mission was initially drawn, so the social mission must be constantly analysed in terms of the social value it generates (Ramus &Vaccaro, 2017). The social mission at the organisational level has different aspects. It is related to firm performance (Berbegal-Mirabent et. al., 2021; Muñoz & Kimmitt, 2019); to business ethics (Bruder, 2020); to business growth (Cacciolatti et al., 2020; Kannothra et al., 2018); to the generation of social value (Ramus & Vaccaro, 2017); to the promotion of entrepreneurial capital (Gerleve et al., 2019); with the promotion of individual values (Stevens et al., 2015); with social intrapreneurship (Bruder, 2020); with the team cooperation effect (Chen et al., 2020); and with economic achievement and socialeconomic nexus (Osorio-Vega, 2019). Another theme in the study of this phenomenon in companies is the competition between them by creating a social mission and showing it as an attribute or label of success which generates a competition that enhances social intrapreneurship (Vilá & Bharadwaj, 2017), which generates social benefits innovatively and differently. Generally, the social mission is analysed at the organisational level from the company’s culture, philosophy, and management methods. However, several authors have tried Anduli • Revista Andaluza de Ciencias Sociales Nº 23 - 2023 • 140 • to discover how the social mission acts individually (Jeworrek & Mertins, 2021). Also, different empirical contributions show differences between the characteristics of forprofit organisations and employees of non-profit organisations and have found that the latter care much more about the social mission of their respective workplaces (Winter & Thaler, 2016). In this regard, it can say that a fundamental aspect of the individual social mission is entrepreneurial passion and the entrepreneur’s psychological capital (Gerleve et al., 2019). Even the individual social mission has led workers in non-profit organisations to accept a lower salary for their work since the corporate social mission is related to the psychological well-being generated by the knowledge that they are contributing to the creation of collective benefits and the effect of payment below the average market salary allows companies to select more appropriate human resources that are more congruent and focused on genuinely contributing to the fulfilment of the organisation’s social mission (Chen et al., 2020). Under another perspective, the social mission is sometimes seen in a malleable game, referring to the so-called mission drift in hybrid companies or organisations when working with a social and economic vision together (Ebrahim et al., 2014; Staessens et al., 2019). This aspect generates controversy and doubts with investors and social entrepreneurs (Sanders & McClellan, 2014). Hence, there are authors with studies on social enterprises focused on different areas that try to investigate the complex balance that impacts the social mission and generates tensions without losing the required coherence (Best et al., 2021; Siegner et al., 2018), which tends to be achieved by implementing innovative behaviour, taking calculated risks and maintaining the spirit of proactivity and motivation (Syrjä et al., 2019). However, in the study of the individual social mission, the contributions are scarce, since most of the studies analyse this element at the organisational level, so, due to the lack of contributions in the study of this construct, the individual social mission will be understood, for this analysis, as “the orientation of an individual to make social contributions that generate psychological well-being”. 2.2. Social Intrapreneurship Intrapreneurship is a topic that has recently gained a place in research agendas due to the social and economic impact of the entities that promote it (Galván-Vela et al., 2018; Galván-Vela & Sánchez, 2017, 2018). Intrapreneurship is the entrepreneurial act that arises within organisations and not individually. It leads the company to assume the risk of developing new products or new businesses created by employee initiatives; risks usually correspond to assume the typical entrepreneur, in the case of carrying entrepreneurship on their own (Galván-Vela et al., 2022). On a formal level, this construct can be defined as: “...the entrepreneurial practice or behaviour in companies, regardless of their turn or size, characterised by a philosophy of openness to change, as well as a general vision aimed at exploring and/or exploiting the opportunities of the environment through an adequate combination of resources and the development of proactive and innovative activities, such as the creation and/or substantial improvement of products, services, internal organisational methods, processes, technologies and markets...” (Galván-Vela& Sánchez, 2018, p.173). The results of intrapreneurship in the development of the company are numerous; several studies have enunciated positive results in the relative and absolute growth of the business (Antoncic, 2007); revitalisation of the company (Deprez et al., 2018); in Artículos • Esthela Galván Vela, Victor Mercader, Rafael Ravina Ripoll • 141 • the improvement of the competitive capabilities and employee engagement (Pandey et al., 2021); in strategic renewal behaviour and venture behaviour (Do &Luu, 2020); in increasing the innovative capacity of the firm (Bierwerth et al., 2015) and in obtaining successful innovation outcomes (Marques et al., 2021). Within this scenario, it can be stated, according to Cacciolatti et al. (2020), that innovation with a social purpose is strictly linked to entrepreneurship, intra-entrepreneurship and economic development, thus contributing to the social mission of the companies that generate it. For its part, social intrapreneurship is a topic little addressed in research agendas. It can be understood as the act of intrapreneurship that leads established companies to take advantage of and help with opportunities favouring society, positively impacting it (Alt & Geradts, 2019). Its outstanding feature is that it has the virtue of being able to connect profitable profit opportunities in social solutions with positive results, both in the social core involved and for the company (Conger et al., 2018); a topic that, in recent years, has generated interest to researchers (Kuratko et al., 2017), this is how these authors examine the social value that originates the actors and the consequences of these actions for companies. In this context, Gamble et al. (2020) introduced a new typology and measurement called social and environmental mission integration (SEMI), applicable to hybrid organisations that generate social value. It is important to note that social intrapreneurship can also refer and apply to other types of institutions such as educational and university institutions (Kuran, 2017); and this is how Cabana et al. (2018) analyse it based on their results regarding its impact on variables such as social innovation, loyalty and willingness to achieve. In public organisations and private companies, and even in the educational system, the social intrapreneurship of the people involved impacts their performance. In addition to the results of intrapreneurial behaviour, some authors attribute dimensions such as innovativeness, proactiveness, risk-taking, strategic renewal and corporate venturing to intrapreneurship (Galván-Vela& Sánchez, 2018; GalvánVela et al., 2018, 2022; Kearney et al., 2013; Kuratko & Audretsch, 2013; Turró et al., 2014). Others such as Neesen et al. (2019) consider innovativeness, risk-taking, proactiveness, opportunity recognition and internal-external networking. However, the dimensions associated with social intrapreneurship are expanded with behaviours related to social innovation and social change (Schmitz & Scheuerle, 2012). Given the diversity of dimensions of intrapreneurship and social intrapreneurship, creating standards for their identification becomes present and necessary (Okun et al., 2020). It can be summarised with the association and differentiation of social entrepreneurship and social intrapreneurship with social value creation and social innovation, all of which apply to social work (Nandam et al., 2019). Thus, it is appreciated the need to generate a culture with greater awareness in the principle of intrapreneurship in companies to create greater involvement with adequate support from each department, which can reach and impact social needs (Prexl, 2019). From there, Social intrapreneurship appears when it is focused on collaborative purposes and social sense. That comes from social entrepreneurship related to social business, differences and similarities analysed by Beckmann et al. (2014). 2.3. Ethics related to the social mission and social intrapreneurship The articles on ethics are countless, given that ethical values are present, by their application or lack thereof, in all sciences of knowledge and, therefore, also with the administrative and managerial sciences or business leadership. However, it is very Anduli • Revista Andaluza de Ciencias Sociales Nº 23 - 2023 • 142 • relevant to mention the existing short bibliography about ethical aspects involved in the social mission and social intrapreneurship (Venn & Berg, 2013). However, as Mercader (2006; 2021) mentions, ethical values are the activators, identifiers, and supports of ethics. Entrepreneurship is a core generator of companies or organisations, a posterior, companies generate acts of intrapreneurship, which is the entrepreneurship that arises within established companies; however, for this intrapreneurship can be considered “social” would have to attend to a social mission that implicitly should start from a genuine recognition of social needs, that is where ethics is presented (Venn & Berg, 2013). The ethical dilemmas of companies arise since the market demands more inclusive businesses, which are not only oriented to generate income but combine them with a social value, be it ecological sustainability, responsible consumption, decent work, among other acts of an ethical nature and in favour of sustainable development (GalvánVela et al., 2021b). Companies are no longer limited to mere acts of philanthropy but seek recognition based on the impact of their actions in the communities (Venn & Berg, 2013), therefore, when talking about social mission, social entrepreneurship or social intrapreneurship, values are latent in its application by common sense, but there are no studies about it in its analysis, as it seems to be given as a fact. Hence, the taxonomy of (Mercader 2006, 2021), which summarises 28 values, is presented as an expression of ethics since this is given by the application of ethical values in what is thought, said and done in companies, families and society that concentrate the expressions of the good life of the human being. In this study, these values are analysed from the constructs of social mission and social intrapreneurship, where the presence of the values or virtues of the taxonomy would be expected (Table 1a). Table. 1a (Theoretical).Taxonomy of Ethical Values (Mercader, 2006) Social, behavioural values Values of growth and self-improvement Friendship/Union Kindness/Attention Equity/Justice Honesty Integrity Respect Responsibility Self-discipline/Temperance Self-motivation Communication Knowledge/Learning Compliance/Diligence Decision making Vision/ Objectivity Personal talent values Inner or spiritual values Good mood Creativity Enthusiasm Spirit of service Generosity Perseverance/Hardworking Courage Love Appreciation/Gratitude Compassion/Forgiveness Understanding Humility Patience Tolerance Own elaboration. A fundamental point to note is that, in the theoretical review, no studies have been found that combine the ethical values of the taxonomy with the most significant factors obtained from the social mission and social intra-entrepreneurship; for this, the following tables are shown. Artículos • Esthela Galván Vela, Victor Mercader, Rafael Ravina Ripoll • 143 • Table. 1b (Theoretical). Significant factors that emerge from the theoretical study of social mission Factors associated with the Social mission Authors Accountability challenges Cornforth, 2014 Business competence Vilá & Bharadwaj, 2017; Muñoz & Kimmitt, 2019 Business Development Kannothra et al., 2018 Business Ethics Mercader et al., 2021 Business performance Cacciolatti et al., 2020; Raišienė & Urmanavičienė, 2017 Cooperative teams Chen et al., 2020 Entrepreneurial passion Gerleve et al., 2019 Financial sustainability Beckmann et al., 2014; Ramus & Vaccaro , 2017 Mission drift Cornforth, 2014; Ebrahim et al., 2014; Raišienė & Urmanavičienė, 2017; Ramus & Vaccaro , 2017 Motivation and active decision Jeworrek & Mertins, 2021; Winter & Thaler, 2016 Normativity aspects Chen et al., 2020; Stevens et al., 2015 Psychological capital Gerleve et al., 2019; Pandey et al., 2021 Shared value Osorio-Vega, 2019 Social business Beckmann et al., 2014; Berbegal-Mirabent et al., 2021; Kannothra et al., 2018 Social entrepreneurship Beckmann et al., 2014; Ebrahim et al., 2014; Muñoz & Kimmitt, 2019 Social innovation Beckmann et al., 2014; Cacciolatti et al., 2020; Gerleve et al., 2019 Social passion and attitude Gerleve et al., 2019; Jeworrek & Mertins, 2021; Winter & Thaler, 2016 Social problems Bruder, 2020; Social sense and goals Ramus & Vaccaro , 2017; Stevens et al., 2015 Social value Bruder, 2020; Muñoz & Kimmitt, 2019; Osorio-Vega, 2019 Own elaboration. Table. 1c (Theoretical). Associated factors that emerge from the theoretical study of social intrapreneurship. Factors associated with social intrapreneurship Authors Autonomy and rewards Galván-Vela& Sánchez, 2017 Competitive capabilities Deprez et al., 2018 Financial issues Beckmann et.al., 2014; Venn & Berg; 2013 Anduli • Revista Andaluza de Ciencias Sociales Nº 23 - 2023 • 144 • Factors associated with social intrapreneurship Authors Modelling studies and methods Antoncic, 2007; Bierwerth et al., 2015; Hair et al., 2011 Intrapreneurial behavior and action Alt & Geradts, 2019; Cabana et al., 2018; Do & Luu, 2020; Galván-Vela et al., 2018 Initiative and opportunities in the environment Deprez et al., 2018 Risks assumed Cabana et al., 2018 Social impact Do & Luu, 2020; Venn & Berg; 2013 Social Innovation Beckmann et.al., 2014; Cabana et al., 2018; Marques et al., 2021; Schmitz & Scheuerle, 2012 Social sense Elisa & Thijs, 2019. Social value Alt & Geradts, 2019; Kuratko et al., 2017; Nandan et al., 2019; Schmitz & Scheuerle, 2012 Strategic Behaviour Galván-Vela& Sánchez, 2017 Work engagement Gawke et al., 2017 Work ethics, well being Ezlegini et al., 2017; Gardiner & Debrulle, 2021 Own elaboration. On the other hand, if there is a study that focuses on an almost unstudied relationship in intrapreneurship is its relationship with trust, ethical value, which tends to generate long-term prosperity (Elert et al., 2019), especially when there is high job autonomy as it generates a positive effect. Therefore, the literature review indicates that social entrepreneurship is still in force in the last decade as a source of research. Some studies integrate ethical factors, but not correctly with social intrapreneurship. In contrast, although research in social intrapreneurship has increased in recent years, no authors have related them to ethical values, which gives this study a crucial, encouraging and novel meaning. 3. Methodology It is quantitative research. It has a non-experimental design in the sense that the conditions of the independent variables of this study were not modified, and the data collection had a transversal character; that is to say, it was carried out in a single moment in time. The scope of the study is correlational since it is not possible to presume an explanatory relationship from a model limited in the number of variables in the study. The type of sampling was non-probabilistic and at the convenience of the researchers. A total of 610 observations were collected, of which 603 were retained for the study since some had missing values in the dependent variable. A questionnaire was applied to professionals from different companies in Northern Mexico who voluntarily agreed to participate in this research. It was decided to use a questionnaire in practicality in terms of data collection for the study. It is a recurrent measurement technique for latent variables such as those in this study. The questionnaire design reviewed the theoretical and empirical content of the three variables of interest (listed in Table 2). These were the reference for the development Artículos • Esthela Galván Vela, Victor Mercader, Rafael Ravina Ripoll • 145 • and validation of the scales for measuring ethics, individual social mission and social intrapreneurship, as shown in Table 2. An example of an item for the ethics variable was “I practice responsibility in my work as a rule of life” or “I am trying to learn more every day and apply the acquired knowledge”. An example of items considered in the individual social mission was “I want to mitigate social problems in my community” or “I care deeply about the results that my social mission can have”. An example of an item used in the measurement of social intrapreneurship was “The company I work for would support me in any idea to do good for the community” or “The company I work for would reward me for having ideas to support the community”, both of which point to aspects of the organisational support and reward dimensions of conventional intrapreneurship models (e.g. Kurakto et al., 2014). Table 2. Composition of the measuring instrument Variable Items and scale Theoretical foundation Ethics Nine items, Likert of 7 points 1. I practise responsibility in my life and work as a rule of life. 2. I believe that the basis of trust that others have in me is due to my example and integrity. 3. I am visionary and objective in what I set out to do. 4. I motivate my colleagues, friends and family on a regular basis and I am able to motivate myself. 5. I am trying to learn more every day and apply the knowledge I have acquired. 6. I feel enthusiasm in what I am involved in and do, feeling good. 7. When I set out to achieve a goal I have the perseverance and resilience necessary to reach it. 8. I consider that I appreciate and am grateful for what is happening in my life and work and I learn to constantly improve. 9. I try to understand others regardless of their level and I am able to put myself in their shoes. Mercader (2006) Individual social mission Six items, Likert of 7 points 1. I desire to mitigate social problems in my community. 2. I recognise opportunities to serve my social mission. 3. I care deeply about the results that my social mission can have. 4. I am engaged in a process of improvement related to my mission. 5. I am exhibiting a greater sense of accountability to the groups served by my mission. 6. I am participating in a continuous learning process related to my mission. Dwivedy and Weerawardena, (2018) Social intrapreneurship Four items, Likert of 7 points 1. 2. The company is able to identify and address social needs. 3. The company in which I work is concerned about the welfare of society. 4. The company in which I work puts forward its philosophy for the social good. 5. My company promotes a culture of attention to social needs. Cabana et al., (2018); Dwivedy and Weerawardena, (2018); GalvánVela et al., (2017, 2018) Own elaboration. Anduli • Revista Andaluza de Ciencias Sociales Nº 23 - 2023 • 152 • management (Ravina-Ripoll et al., 2021a), which has been analysed in greater depth in recent years (Nuñez-Barriopedro et al., 2019), as a result of the need for a more holistic view of the topic of social intrapreneurship in the era of Industry 5.0, 2019), as a result of the need to develop and implement people-oriented management models and the pursuit of subjective well-being for the development of human talent and the promotion of leadership and collaborative work (Ravina-Ripoll et al., 2019a). In the same vein, researchers are invited to articulate models that empirically demonstrate the effects of developing a positive organisational climate on trust, safety, individual capability development, employee satisfaction, and psychological well-being (Ravina-Ripoll et al., 2019b, 2021c). Based on this approach, emerging scientific work can be carried out to empirically test unpublished theoretical models that revolve around the concepts above and social intrapreneurship. Such findings can be beneficial for administrations to design new public policies aimed at tackling social and environmental problems under the innovation and happiness developed within corporations. In this way, social intrapreneurship stimulates their human capital (Ravina-Ripoll et al., 2021b). References Alt, E., & Geradts, T. (2019). Social intrapreneurship: Unique challenges and opportunities for future research. Academy of Management Proceedings, 1,188. https://doi. org/10.5465/AMBPP.2019.188. https://doi.org/10.5465/AMBPP.2019.188 Antoncic, B. (2007). Intrapreneurship: a comparative structural equation modelling study, Industrial Management & Data Systems, 107(3), 309-325. https://doi. org/10.1108/02635570710734244 Beckmann, M., Zeyen A. & Krzeminska A. (2014). Mission, Finance, and Innovation: The Similarities and Differences Between Social Entrepreneurship and Social Business. In A. Grove, & G. Berg G. (Eds). Social Business. Springer. https://doi. org/10.1007/978-3-642-45275-8_2 Berbegal-Mirabent, J., Mas-Machuca, M., & Guix, P. (2021). Impact of mission statement components on social enterprises’ performance. Review of Managerial Science, 15, 705-724. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11846-019-00355-2 Best, B., Miller, K., McAdam, R., & Moffett, S. (2021). Mission or margin? Using dynamic capabilities to manage tensions in social purpose organisations’ business model innovation. Journal of Business Research, 125, 643-657. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. jbusres.2020.01.068 Bierwerth, M., Schwens, C., Isidor, R., & Kabst, R. (2015). Corporate entrepreneurship and performance: A meta-analysis. Small Business Economics, 45(2), 255-278. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11187-015-9629-1 Bruder, I. (2020). A Social Mission is Not Enough: Reflecting the Normative Foundations of Social Entrepreneurship. Journal of Business Ethics, 1-19. https://doi.org/10.1007/ s10551-020-04602-5 Cabana, Segundo R., Cortés, Felicindo H., Aguilera, Mauricio I., & Vargas, Felipe A. (2018). Determinant Factors for Social Intrapreneurship: The Case of Engineering Students at the University of La Serena, Chile. Formación Universitaria, 11(2), 87-98. https://dx.doi.org/10.4067/S0718-50062018000200087. Artículos • Esthela Galván Vela, Victor Mercader, Rafael Ravina Ripoll • 153 • Cacciolatti, L., Rosli, A., Ruiz-Alba, J. L., & Chang, J. (2020). Strategic alliances and firm performance in startups with a social mission. Journal of Business Research, 106, 106-117. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2019.08. Capella-Peris, C. Gil-Gómez, J., Martí-Puig, M., & Ruíz-Bernardo, P. (2020) Development and Validation of a Scale to Assess Social Entrepreneurship Competency in Higher Education. Journal of Social Entrepreneurship, 11(1), 23-39. https://doi.org/10.1080/1 9420676.2018.1545686 Castell-Gydesen, C., & Lugo, J. (2020). Ethics in entrepreneurship: Understanding how entrepreneurs solve dilemmas, their perception of ethical considerations and the structures used during the resolution process. Department of Business Administration. https://lup.lub.lu.se/student-papers/search/publication/9013170 Chen, C. X., Pesch, H. L., & Wang, L. W. (2020). Selection Benefits of Below-Market Pay in Social-Mission Organisations: Effects on Individual Performance and Team Cooperation. Accounting Review, 95(1), 57-77. https://doi.org/10.2308/accr-52416. Chou, D.C.. (2018). Applying design thinking method to social entrepreneurship project. Computer Standards & Interfaces, 55, 73-79. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.csi.2017.05.001. Circle of Intrapreneurs (2021). Social Intrapreneurship. What it is, why it matters and what it means for you.https://www.circleofintrapreneurs.com/ Conger, M., McMullen, J. S., Bergman Jr, B. J., & York, J. G. (2018). Category membership, identity control, and the reevaluation of prosocial opportunities. Journal of Business Venturing, 33(2), 179-206. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusvent.2017.11.004. Cornforth, C. (2014). Understanding and combating mission drift in social enterprises. Social Enterprise Journal, 10(1), 3-20. https://doi.org/10.1108/SEJ-09-2013-0036. Deprez, J., Leroy, H., & Euwema, M. (2018). Three chronological steps toward encouraging intrapreneurship: Lessons from the Wehkamp case. Business Horizons, 61(1), 135-145. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bushor.2017.09.013. Dwivedi, A., & Weerawardena, J. (2018). Conceptualizing and operationalizing the social entrepreneurship construct. Journal of Business Research, 86, 32-40. https://doi. org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2018.01.053 Do, TTP, &Luu, D.T. (2020). Origins and consequences of intrapreneurship with behaviourbased approach among employees in the hospitality industry. International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, 32(12), 3949-3969. https://doi.org/10.1108/ IJCHM-05-2020-0491. Ebrahim, A., Battilana, J., & Mair, J. (2014). The governance of social enterprises: Mission drift and accountability challenges in hybrid organisations. Research in Organisational Behaviour, 34, 81-100.https://doi.org/10.1016/j.riob.2014.09.001. Elert, N., Henrekson, M., & Sanders, M. (2019). The entrepreneurial society: a reform strategy for the European Union. Springer Nature. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-662-59586-2 Elisa, A., & Thijs, G. (2019). Social Intrapreneurship: Unique Challenges and Opportunities for Future Research. Academy of Management Proceedings, 1. https://doi. org/10.5465/AMBPP.2019.188 Escobedo, M. T., Hernández, J. A., Estebané, V., & Martínez, G. (2016). Modelos de Ecuaciones Estructurales: Características, Fases, Construcción, Aplicación y Resultados. Ciencia & Trabajo, 18 (55), 16-22. Anduli • Revista Andaluza de Ciencias Sociales Nº 23 - 2023 • 154 • Ezlegini, G., Kheirandish, M., & Asgari, N. (2017). The Impact of Knowledge Sharing on Intrapreneurship through Studying the Moderating Role of Work Ethics in Tose’s Credit Institute. International Journal of Business, Humanities and Technology, 6(4), 46-56. Galván-Vela, E., & Sánchez, M. L. (2017). Autonomy and rewards as organizational triggers of intrapreneurial activity. Revista Ciencias Administrativas, Teoría y Praxis, 2(13), 237-249. Galván-Vela, E., & Sánchez, M. L. (2018). Conceptualization and characterization of intrapreneurship: an exploratory study. Revista Dimensión Empresarial, 2(16), 161-176. https://doi.org/10.15665/dem.v16i2.1538. Galván-Vela, E., Sánchez, M.L., & Santos, G. (2018). Determinants of intrapreneurial behaviour in companies in the northeastern of Mexico: an exploratory study. Journal of Psychology and Behavioral Sciences of the Academic Unit of Juridical and Social Sciences, 9(2), 6-29. https://doi.org/ 10.29365/rpcc.20181207-69 Galván-Vela, E., Arango Herrera, E., Sorzano Rodríguez, D. M., & Ravina-Ripoll, R. (2021a). State-of-the-Art Analysis of Intrapreneurship: A Review of the Theoretical Construct and Its Bibliometrics. Journal of Risk and Financial Management, 14(148), 1-16. https://doi.org/10.3390/jrfm14040148 Galván-Vela, E., Ravina-Ripoll, R., & Tobar-Pesantez, L.B. (2021b). A Structural Equations Model of Job Disengagement from the Constructs of Organisational Justice, Job Satisfaction, Innovation And Trust In The Era of Industry 5.0. Journal of Legal, Ethical and Regulatory Issues, 24(1), 1-12. Galván-Vela, E., Sánchez, Y., Sánchez, M.L. & Ravina-Ripoll, R. (2022). Intrapreneuship model in software industry. Quality and Quantity, 1(1), 1-29. https://doi.org/10.1007/ s11135-021-01309-1. Gardiner, E., & Debrulle, J. (2021). Intrapreneurship and Wellbeing in Organisations. SAGE publications. Gamble, E. N., Parker, S. C., & Moroz, P. W. (2020). Measuring the integration of social and environmental missions in hybrid organisations. Journal of Business Ethics, 167, 271-284. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-019-04146-3. Gawke, J.C., Gorgievski, M.J., & Bakker, A.B. (2017). Employee intrapreneurship and work engagement: A latent change score approach. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 100, 88-100. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvb.2017.03.002. Gerleve C. V. H., & Flatten, T. C. (2019). Developing Entrepreneurial Passion for Social Mission. Academy of Management Annual Meeting Proceedings, 1, 200-205. https:// doi.org/10.5465/AMBPP.2019.37. Hair, J. F., Bush, R. P., & Ortinau, D. J. (2008). Marketing research. McGraw-Hill Higher Education. https://doi.org/10.5585/bjm.v17i5.4173 Hair, J. F., Ringle, C. M., & Sarstedt, M. (2011). PLS-SEM: Indeed a silver bullet. Journal of Marketing Theory and Practice, 19(2), 139-152. https://doi.org/10.2753/ MTP1069-6679190202 Hair Jr, J. F., Sarstedt, M., Hopkins, L., & Kuppelwieser, V. G. (2014). Partial least squares structural equation modelling (PLS-SEM): An emerging tool in business research. European Business Review. 26(2), 106-121. https://doi.org/10.1108/EBR-10-2013-0128 Artículos • Esthela Galván Vela, Victor Mercader, Rafael Ravina Ripoll • 155 • Jeworrek, S., & Mertins, V. (2021). Mission, motivation, and the active decision to work for a social cause. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 1-19. https://doi. org/10.1177/08997640211007206 Kannothra, C., Manning, S., & Haigh, N. (2018). How Hybrids Manage Growth and SocialBusiness Tensions in Global Supply Chains: The Case of Impact Sourcing. Journal Business Ethics, 148, 271-290. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-017-3585-4. Kearney, C., Hisrich, R.D., & Antoncic, B. (2013). The mediating role of corporate entrepreneurship for external environment effects on performance. Journal of Business Economics and Management, 14 (1), 328-357. https://doi.org/10.3846/16111699.201 2.720592. Kotabe, M., Martin, X., & Domoto, H. (2003). Gaining from vertical partnerships: knowledge transfer, relationship duration, and supplier performance improvement in the US and Japanese automotive industries. Strategic Management Journal, 24(4), 293-316. https://doi.org/10.1002/smj.297. Kuran, O. (2017). Contribution of Seam to the Alignment of Student Affairs Mission with the University Social Mission. Academy of Management. Annual Meeting Proceedings, 1, 1-6.https://doi.org/10.5465/AMBPP.2017.98. Kuratko, D. F., & Audretsch, D. B. (2013). Clarifying the domains of corporate entrepreneurship. International Entrepreneurship and Management Journal, 9 (3), 323-335. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11365-013-0257-4. Kuratko, D. F., McMullen, J. S., Hornsby, J. S., & Jackson, C. (2017). Is an organisation conducive to the continuous creation of social value? Toward a social corporate entrepreneurship scale. Business Horizons, 60(3), 271-283. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. bushor.2016.12.003. Marques, C.S., Lopez, C., Braga, V., Ratten, V., & Santos, G. (2021). Intuition and rationality in intrapreneurship and innovation output: The case of health professionals in primary health care. International Entrepreneurship and Management Journal. https:// doi.org/10.1007/s11365-021-00761-7. McGaw, N., & Malinsky, E. (March,2020). Unlocking the Potential of Corporate Social Intrapreneurship: A Call to Scholars. Aspen, USA. http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3577762 Mercader, V. (May 2006). Study of ethical values of college students. Florida, USA. https:// digitalcommons.usf.edu/etd/2629 Mercader, V. M. (2017). Relationship of Productivity, Ethics, Decision Making and Happiness. International Journal of Management and Finance. 10(6),87-104. Mercader, V., Vela, E. G., Ravina-Ripoll, R., & Popescu, C. R. (2021). A focus on ethical value under the vision of leadership, teamwork, effective communication and productivity. Journal of Risk and Financial Management, 14(11), 522. https://doi.org/10.3390/ jrfm14110522. https://doi.org/10.3390/jrfm14110522 Muñoz, P., & Kimmitt, J. (2019). Social mission as competitive advantage: A configurational analysis of the strategic conditions of social entrepreneurship. Journal of Business Research, 101, 854-861. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2018.11.044 Nandan, M., Singh, A., & Mandayam, G. (2019). Social Value Creation and Social Innovation by Human Service Professionals: Evidence from Missouri, USA. Administrative Sciences, 9(4), 86. https://doi.org/10.3390/admsci9040086 Anduli • Revista Andaluza de Ciencias Sociales Nº 23 - 2023 • 156 • Neessen, P.C., Caniëls, M.C., Vos, B. et al. (2019). The intrapreneurial employee: toward an integrated model of intrapreneurship and research agenda. International Entrepreneurship and Management Journal, 15(2), 545-571.https://doi.org/10.1007/ s11365-018-0552-1 Núñez-Barriopedro, E., Ravina-Ripoll, R., & Ahumada-Tello, E. (2020). Happiness perception in Spain, a SEM approach to evidence from the sociological research center. Quality & Quantity, 54(3), 761-779. Okun, O., Arun, K., & Begec, S. (2020). Intrapreneurship and expectations constraints. Entrepreneurial Dimension, 18(2). https://doi.org/10.15665/dem.v18i2.2181. Osorio-Vega, P. (2019). The Ethics of Entrepreneurial Shared Value. Journal Business Ethics, 157, 981-995. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-018-3957-4. Pandey, J., Gupta, M., & Hassan, Y. (2021). Intrapreneurship to engage employees: role of psychological capital. Management Decision, 59(6) 1525-1545.https://doi.org/10.1108/ MD-06-2019-0825 Prexl, K. (2019). The intrapreneurship reactor: how to enable a start-up culture in corporations. Elektrotechnik & Informationstechnik, 136(3). 234–240. https://doi.org/10.1007/ s00502-019-0727-7 Rahdari, R.A., Sepasi, S., & Moradi, M. (2016). Achieving sustainability through Schumpeterian social entrepreneurship: The role of social enterprises. Journal of Cleaner Production, 137. 347-360. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2016.06.159.y. Raisiene, A., & Urmanavičienė, A. (2017). Mission drift in a hybrid organisation: How can social business combine its dual goals? Ekonomski vjesnik: Review of Contemporary Entrepreneurship, Business, and Economic Issues, 30(2), 301-310. Ramus, T., & Vaccaro, A. (2017). Stakeholders matter: How social enterprises address mission drift. Journal of Business Ethics, 143(2), 307-322. https://doi.org/10.1007/ s10551-014-2353-y Ravina Ripoll, R., Tobar Pesantez, L. B., Núñez-Barriopedro, E. (2019a). Happiness Management and creativity in the XXI century. Editorial. Comares Granada Ravina-Ripoll, R., Núñez-Barriopedro, E., Evans, R. D., & Ahumada-Tello, E. (2019b, June). Employee happiness in the industry 4.0 era: insights from the Spanish industrial sector. In 2019 IEEE Technology & Engineering Management Conference (TEMSCON) (pp. 1-5). IEEE. Ravina-Ripoll, R., Foncubierta-Rodríguez, M. J., & López-Sánchez, J. A. (2021a). Certification Happiness Management: an integral instrument for human resources management in post-COVID-19 era. International Journal of Business Environment, 12(3), 287-299. https://doi.org/10.1504/IJBE.2021.116606 Ravina-Ripoll, R., Tobar-Pesantez, L. B., Galiano-Coronil, A., & Marchena-Domínguez, J. (Eds), (2021b). Happiness Management and Social Marketing: A Wave of Sustainability and Creativity. Peter Lang. Ravina-Ripoll, R., Nunez-Barriopedro, E., Almorza-Gomar, D., & Tobar-Pesantez, L. B. (2021c). Happiness Management: A Culture to Explore From Brand Orientation as a Sign of Responsible and Sustainable Production. Frontiers in Psychology, 12. Artículos • Esthela Galván Vela, Victor Mercader, Rafael Ravina Ripoll • 157 • Rey-Martí, A., Ribeiro-Soriano, D., & Palacios-Marqués, D. (2016). A bibliometric analysis of social entrepreneurship. Journal of Business Research, 69. 1651-1655. https://doi. org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2015.10.033 Sanders, M. L., & McClellan, J. G. (2014). Being business-like while pursuing a social mission: Acknowledging the inherent tensions in US nonprofit organising. Organisation, 21(1), 68-89. https://doi.org/10.1177/1350508412464894. Schmitz, B., & Scheuerle, T. (2012). Founding or Transforming? Social Intrapreneurship in three German Christian-based NPOs. ACRN Journal of Entrepreneurship Perspectives, 1(1), 13-33. Siegner, M., Pinkse, J., & Panwar, R. (2018). Managing tensions in a social enterprise: The complex balancing act to deliver a multi-faceted but coherent social mission. Journal of Cleaner Production, 174, 1314-1324. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.11.076 Staessens, M., Kerstens, P. J., Bruneel, J., & Cherchye, L. (2019). Data envelopment analysis and social enterprises: Analysing performance, strategic orientation and mission drift. Journal of Business Ethics, 159(2), 325-341. https://doi.org/10.1007/ s10551-018-4046-4. Syrjä, P., Puumalainen, K., Sjögrén, H., Soininen, J., & Durst, S. (2019). Entrepreneurial orientation in firms with a social mission-a mixed-methods approach. Cogent Business & Management, 6(1), 1-25. https://doi.org/10.1080/23311975.2019.1602016. Stevens, R., Moray, N., & Bruneel, J. (2015). The social and economic mission of social enterprises: Dimensions, measurement, validation, and relation. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 39(5), 1051-1082. https://doi.org/10.1111%2Fetap.12091 Turró, A., Urbano, D., & Peris-Ortiz, M. (2014). Culture and innovation: The moderating effect of cultural values on corporate entrepreneurship. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 88, 360-369. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2013.10.004 Venn, R., & Berg, N. (2013). Building competitive advantage through social intrapreneurship. South Asian Journal of Global Business Research, 2(1), 104-127. https://doi. org/10.1108/20454451311303310. Vilá, O., & Bharadwaj, S. (2017). Competing on Social Purpose: Brands That Win by Tying Mission to Growth. Harvard Business Review, 95(5), 94-101. Winter, V., & Thaler, J. (2016). Does motivation matter for employer choices? A discretechoice analysis of medical students’ decisions among public, nonprofit, and for-profit hospitals. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 45(4), 762-786. https://doi. org/10.1177/0899764015597784 © 2023 por los autores. Licencia a ANDULI, Editorial Universidad de Sevilla. Es un artículo publicado acceso abierto bajo los términos y condiciones de la licencia “Creative Commons Atribución-NoComercial-SinDerivar 4.0 Internacional”