Responding to the imprecisions of social enterprise identity: considering the role of participatory governance

Depósito de investigación de la Universidad de Sevilla https://idus.us.es/ “This is an Accepted Manuscript of an article published by Elsevier in European Business Review on 2024, available at: https://doi.org/10.1108/EBR-04-2023- 0099.” 2 Responding to the Imprecisions of Social Enterprise Identity: Considering the Role of Participatory Governance Teresa Savall Morera Departamento de Economía Aplicada, Universidad de Valencia, Valencia, Spain [email protected] https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7464-7961 Marta Solórzano-García Departamento de Organización de Empresas Universidad Nacional de Educación a Distancia (UNED) Madrid, Spain [email protected] https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5318-7820 Carmen Guzmán Department of Applied Economics I University of Seville, Seville, Spain [email protected] https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5290-8841 (corresponding author) Acknowledgments: The authors sincerely thank Jacques Defourny and Marthe Nyssens for their thought-provoking comments in the development of this article. They also thank the Editor and two anonymous reviewers for their valuable suggestions and feedback to improve this research. Conflicts of interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest. 3 Responding to the Imprecision of Social Enterprise Identity: Considering the Role of Participatory Governance Abstract Purpose: This study aims to understand the importance of participatory governance in the identity of social enterprises (SEs). To this end, this paper provides a framework by means of the value co-creation process and by drawing from the service-dominant logic perspective and the stakeholder theory. An explanation is also provided regarding the opportunity to include fundamental issues in defining SE collective identity, such as those related to an organisation’s participatory nature of involving the stakeholders affected by its activities, the exercise of democratic decision-making and its autonomy from the state and market. Methodology: On the statistical exploitation of a large international data set, the authors approach the conceptualisation of social enterprises by providing an index to measure their social, economic and governance characteristics, thereby enabling these enterprises to be categorised into different groups. Findings: This study found that the inclusion of the governance dimension in the research incorporates the greatest variability between the various models of SE, thereby justifying participatory governance as the raison d’être of the two fundamental schools in SE, namely, Anglo-Saxon and European. Originality: This study justifies the value of incorporating participatory governance as a 4 distinctive dimension for the definition of categories of SEs. Furthermore, an index to craft taxonomies of SEs is developed based on social, economic and governance indicators, which provides a framework that facilitates the empirical research of the SE. Practical implications: This research offers a tool to policymakers to be used as a criterion of classification and hierarchical organisation for public procurement. It enables the various organisations to be ordered and takes social and cultural influence into consideration. This tool would be highly useful as a support of social entrepreneurship from the public environment, especially at the local level. Keywords: Social Enterprise; Participatory Governance; Stakeholder engagement; Democratic decision-making; Categories; International analysis. The phenomenon of social enterprise (SE), and its contribution to the creation of economic and societal value, has increasingly gained prominence in policy planning, and in practitioner and scholarly interest (Dwivedi and Weerawardena, 2018; Saebi, Foss and Linder, 2019). Much of the social enterprise literature has focused on definitions and on the adaption of theories to explain the emergence of social enterprise (Morris et al., 2021; Nicholls, 2010); however, no clear and unique concept of social enterprise has been established (Dacin et al., 2010; Mswaka et al., 2016). Indeed, various tentative meanings have been proposed, but with a lack of a shared understanding of SE, there are only two common denominators of the definitions: (a) the primacy of social and/or environmental aims; and (b) the enterprise orientation, which means that the primary activity involves trading goods and services (Peattie and Morley, 2008; Young and Lecy, 2014). Another characteristic feature of many social enterprises is related to the adoption of forms of governance that allow shared ownership and democratic participation of stakeholders in 5 the strategic decisions of the organisation (Cornforth, 2004; Galera and Borzaga, 2009; Teasdale, 2012). The concept of organisational identity was originally constructed around the central, distinctive, and enduring attributes (CDE attributes) of an organisation (Albert & Whetten, 1985). These are understood as the referents of the identity of an organisation, which characterise it as a unique social space. In practice, CDE attributes work as organisational identity referents for the members of an organisation when they act or speak on its behalf, and they are highly likely to be called upon as part of the organisational discourse when dealing with situations in which they have to assert the collective understanding of who they are as an organisation (Whetten, 2006). Since the identity of social enterprises is a hybrid of the attributes of the for-profit and non-profit sectors (Low, 2015), the governance of the different models of social enterprises should be understood as a combination of elements of the stewardship model, normally associated with the private corporate sector, and of the stakeholder model, associated with the social and solidarity economy model (Cornforth, 2003; Sepúlveda et al., 2020). It is therefore intuitive that the governance of social enterprises plays a major role in managing the hybrid nature of social enterprises. Existing research on the governance of social enterprises has focused on the effectiveness of governance models in balancing their economic and social missions (Bruneel et al., 2016; Doherty et al., 2014), and on how stakeholders can be represented and involved in formal governance structures (Cornforth, 2020; Fazzi, 2012; Kopel and Marini, 2016; Low, 2015; Sacchetti and Borzaga, 2021; Zollo et al., 2022). However, there is a gap in the research literature regarding the actual implementation and practices of participatory governance and, in particular, regarding how it is reflected in the various 6 typologies of social enterprises (Cornforth, 2004; Defourny and Nyssens, 2017; Pestoff and Hulgard, 2016; Sacchetti and Catturani, 2021; Spear et al., 2009). This leads us to discuss whether the type of governance of social enterprises may be employed as an additional criterion when defining a common collective identity of social enterprises. In this setting, it seems appropriate to consider the following research questions: Is participatory governance an essential attribute of SE identity? If this is not the case, then could participatory governance be a key characteristic in distinguishing typologies of SEs? Although all definitions of social enterprise argue for the identity of social enterprise in its dual objective of creating social and economic value, there is a significant shortcoming in this reasoning: a lack of clarity in the concept of social value. In order to fill this gap, this paper contributes towards an understanding of the identity of social enterprises through the analysis of their value co-creation processes. To this end, an analytical framework that combines service dominant logic (Vargo and Lusch, 2004, 2008a, 2008b, 2008c; Vargo et al., 2008) and stakeholder theory (Donaldson and Preston, 1995; Freeman and Reed, 1983; Goodpaster, 1991) is provided in order to understand the role of economic, social, and governance dimensions in defining social enterprise collective identity. This framework therefore addresses the differences between SEs and for-profit enterprises and between different types of SEs. Furthermore, this paper addresses the lack of a valuation instrument for the capture of the dimensions of social enterprises by providing a scientifically robust indicator that could interpret the position of a particular social enterprise correlated to economic, social, and governance criteria and compare it to other conventional and social enterprises. The approach taken is through a solid theoretical foundation, which allows different social enterprise models to be considered in the framework of economic-social- 7 governance dimensions within various countries and across countries. A strong empirical basis is assumed, which is the result of the statistical exploitation of a database obtained through a common interview conducted in forty countries worldwide. With this research, the authors not only empirically demonstrate that the organisational identity of the social enterprise is defined by the attributes through which it creates social and economic value, but also justify the richness and necessity of incorporating participatory governance as a dimension containing the attributes to propose a typology of social enterprises: this dimension underlines the relevance of cultural and social context in social enterprise identity. Theoretical Background Service-dominant logic as a framework to understand social enterprise identity Service-dominant (S-D) logic redefines the notion of value creation as the joint creation of value between users, providers, and all the members involved in the relational networks surrounding service provision (Vargo and Lusch, 2008a). This servicedominant logic defends the "value creation with" perspective, according to which individuals or organisations cannot create value for other individuals or organisations, but value is always co-created and exclusively determined by the beneficiary (Vargo et al., 2020). According to the service-dominant logic, the co-creation of value is related to the idea of mutually interconnected actors cooperating, either directly or indirectly, to gain access to and combine resources that they consider instrumental for their own performance or for the change they seek to bring about. Social enterprises interact with other actors to achieve their goals, by configuring networks embedded in service systems. In this paper, the authors analyse the identity of the social enterprise by examining the processes of co-creation of social and economic value with suppliers, customers, social 8 actors, and other enterprises in the market, thereby illustrating the intertwining of its economic dimension with its social sphere. The concept "value co-creation" is employed to encompass "the full scope of interconnectedness with other actors" (Frow and Payne, 2019, p. 82), and implies "coengagement, co-responsibility, and shared commitments and meanings, aiming at the benefit of the other party and one's own benefit” (Haase, 2021, p. 500). This translates into the need to carry out participatory processes that enable the interrelation between the different stakeholders to facilitate this collaboration. In this respect, in order to understand the identity of the social enterprise, it is insufficient to understand only the economic and social sphere of its value co-creation process, but it is also necessary to incorporate how the process is governed in order to reflect the contribution of stakeholders (Vargo et al., 2008) and to reshape value. Furthermore, service-dominant logic posits actors as “resource integrators” (Vargo and Lusch, 2008c) and it can be postulated that they form part of a social context with other actors. This social context involves norms and values that have a profound influence on both the exchange of services and the process of value co-creation (Edvardsson et al., 2011). It would therefore not be possible to identify a single social enterprise identity since that meaning is to be understood within social structures and systems, and the explicit inbuilt meaning is dependent upon how humans interpret social interactions. Hence, it is possible to envisage that the identity of the social enterprise is not unique, but depends on how the actors that integrate/constitute its social system and context endow it with meaning by participating in its value-creating activities. 9 Social enterprise identity: Social and Economic Value Creation Based on competing conceptualisations, a social enterprise can be considered a controversial concept, since these different conceptualisations express conflicting beliefs on numerous issues: unit of observation, relationship between the social mission and the products and services it provides, legal structure, the importance of innovation, profit distribution, income generation, and governance (Hoogendoorn et al., 2010). The only consensus that exists on the nature of social enterprise is that social enterprises are organisations that combine a social purpose with pursuit of financial success in the private marketplace (Dacin et al., 2010; Santos, 2012; Thompson and Doherty, 2006; Young and Lecy, 2014). These characteristics are common to all the academic literature and all definitions point out that the social mission is their main priority, which benefits from the economic activity (Chell, 2007; Defourny and Nyssens, 2010). When focusing on the social and economic dimension, social enterprise can be conceptualised as occurring along a continuum ranging from the purely philanthropic to the purely commercial (Alter, 2007; Dees, 1998; Dees & Anderson, 2006). At one end of the spectrum are non-profits relying on philanthropic capital and concerned exclusively with social returns. At the other extreme are for-profits relying on commercial capital and concerned with financial returns. Between these two poles lie a range of organisational forms that are concerned with both social and economic value that reflect combinations of profit-making and social purpose. Indeed, many combinations between social and market goals are plausible and there is likely to be certain tension between these two aspirations. 16 three dimensions recognised by the EMES approach. The variables used here to analyse all the conditions of the ideal type of social enterprise are as follows: Economic variables: ● A continuous activity producing goods and/or selling services: this variable takes value ‘1’ if the organisation has a specific legal form and ‘0’ otherwise, since it is understood that informal organisations carry out activity only sporadically. ● A significant level of economic risk: this variable takes the percentage of income coming from sales expressed in times one. The reason for choosing this variable is related to the exposure to change that the income of an organisation experiences when it depends solely on market forces, such as changes that may arise in the environment or in the sector, which may affect its activity. The more resources that come from sales (and consequently less from subsidies and/or donations), the greater the risk the organisation has to bear. ● A minimum amount of paid work: This variable takes the value ‘0’ if the organisation has no workers and ‘1’ if it has at least one full-time or part-time worker. Social variables: ● An explicit aim to benefit the community: This variable takes the value ‘0’ if the production/provision of the main goods or services is not related to the social mission of the SE, value ‘0.5’ if the provision is related to the social mission, and value ‘1’ if the provision of the goods or services is the central mission. Although the authors are aware that many organisations carry out economic activity that is unrelated to their social mission in order to obtain sufficient income to maintain said mission, they have taken this relation of economic activity with social 17 mission because it is the only way to capture the ‘explicit objective of benefit to the community’ variable. This choice is justified since, having consulted other researchers and professionals in the sector, the survey was applied to companies chosen by the researchers, all of which were selected because they had a social mission. ● An initiative launched by a group of citizens or a civil society organisation: This variable takes value ‘1’ if the initiative has been launched by a group of workers/inhabitants of a neighbourhood/citizens/individuals/a social movement/an association/a non-profit or voluntary organisation/a foundation or a cooperative, and value ‘0’ otherwise (an individual/a private business/a governmental agency). ● A limited profit distribution: This variable takes value ‘1’ if the SE has rules that regulate the distribution of the net income and reinvest the benefits in the SE, ‘0.5’ if the SE has no rules but reinvest the profits, and ‘0’ otherwise. Governance variables: ● A high degree of autonomy: This variable takes value ‘0’ if the final decision is made by the parental organisation and ‘1’ otherwise. ● A decision-making power not based on capital ownership: This variable takes value ‘1’ if the decisions are made by a General Assembly and ‘0’ otherwise. ● A participatory nature, which involves various parties affected by the activity: Every SE was asked about the presence of different collectives on its board or other governance body. Each collective participant such as workers, users/customers, suppliers/providers, managers, volunteers, investors, donors, experts, citizens, and others were rated ‘0.1’ and the final value was the sum of the scores with a maximum value of 1. 18 The descriptive statistics of indicators included in the analysis are presented in Table 2. TABLE 2 AROUND HERE Data Analysis The data has been put to use in three steps. Firstly, a confirmatory factor analysis has been carried out to verify whether the different variables suggested to measure the economic, social, and governmental aspects are correct. In other words, the authors ascertain whether the model suggested is valid. Secondly, a different index has been constructed for each of the economic, social, and governmental fields in order to reduce all the information to just three figures per organisation. And thirdly, with these three variables, a hierarchical clustering analysis has been performed to test whether different social enterprise models exist. a) First step: confirmatory factor analysis In order to carry out the confirmatory factor analysis, a structural equation model was developed using the IBM SPSS Amos Graphics software. In order to prevent the model remaining unidentified due to the number of items or variables for each factor, it has been necessary to impose restrictions on two slopes of a specific factor (continuous producing activity and economic risk, from the economic factor). The imposition of these slopes has been carried out based on the results obtained through a previous exploratory factor analysis and the estimated slopes of the items on the factor obtained in said exploratory analysis. b) Second step: construction of indices The second phase involves the construction of indices, and, as can be inferred from the previous section, the value 1 is given to the variable when the response of the 19 SE reflects maximum compliance with the corresponding indicator according to the ideal type of social enterprise as stated by EMES, and 0 otherwise. Hence, by applying Equation 1, it is possible to construct three different indices for the economic, social, and governance dimensions of each company in the sample. In the same way, these indices also take values between 0 and 1 for each dimension. The highest values are for those social enterprises whose economic, social, and governance dimensions place them closer to the ideal type of SE, and the lowest values are for those social enterprises whose characteristics distance them from the classification of social enterprise as proposed by this article. 𝑊𝑖 = 𝛽1𝑍𝑖1 + 𝛽2𝑍𝑖2 + 𝛽3𝑍𝑖3 𝐸𝑞𝑢𝑎𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛 1 where 𝛽𝑖= 𝑍 𝑖𝑗 𝑍 𝑖1+𝑍 𝑖2+𝑍 𝑖3 c) Third step: hierarchical cluster Once all the information on the various dimensions has been simplified into a single figure, the hierarchical clustering methodology could be applied through the SPSS Statistics software program to test whether there are different social enterprise models. This hierarchical cluster procedure was used using Ward’s distance measurement (Everitt, Landau and Leese, 2009). To determine the optimal number of clusters, a visual examination of the dendrogram and an application of the variance ratio criterion (VRC) (Calinski and Harabasz, 1974) were carried out. This procedure, which is obtained through an ANOVA test and a post-hoc analysis with Scheffe's pairwise mean comparison, has allowed us to achieve intra-cluster homogeneity and inter-cluster heterogeneity. To calculate the VRC, Equation 2 was applied, where BGSS is the 20 between-group sum-of-squares, WGSS the within-group sum-of-squares, k the number of clusters, and n the number of samples. 𝐸𝑞𝑢𝑎𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛 2 𝑉𝐶𝑅 = 𝐵𝐺𝑆𝑆 𝑘 − 1 +𝑊𝐺𝑆𝑆 𝑛 − 𝑘 The results obtained are presented in the following section. Results a) First step: confirmatory factor analysis The confirmatory factor analysis concerning the economic, social, and governmental aspects was performed on a structural equation model presented in Figure 1. As can be observed, the covariances between the three factors remain very low (0.000; 0.001, and 0.002), which means that the three factors or fields (economic, social, and governmental) are unrelated and, consequently, they should be studied separately. Regarding the goodness of fit of the model, the results obtained confirm the validity of the model, since the goodness-of-fit index (GFI) and the GFI adjusted for degrees of freedom (AGFI) both exceed 0.9 (Joreskog & Sorbom 1981), attaining 0.964 and 0.935, respectively. In addition, the root mean square residual (RMR) is less than 0.05, standing at 0.005, which indicates a reasonable model fit (Joreskog & Sorbom, 1981; Brown, 2006). FIGURE 1 AROUND HERE Therefore, the model proposed regarding the variables around economic, social, and governmental aspects in social enterprises is confirmed. b) Second step: construction of indices 21 Once Equation 1 was applied to the economic, social, and governance dimension fields, three indices were obtained for each observation. The characteristics of these indices are shown in Table 3. As can be observed, the means of the three indices are high, (the means of the different indicators are presented in Table 2), which signifies that the sample chosen, in general terms, coincides with the indicators that define social enterprise according to EMES. TABLE 3 AROUND HERE These indices constitute the variables to be included in the third stage of the analysis, which is the hierarchical clustering procedure. c) Third step: hierarchical cluster First of all, the dendrogram is inspected (reading from left to right) (Figure 2) and it is possible to observe that some of the segment merging occurs within the distance 0-5 (horizontal axis), which is the lowest solution of the analysis in this space of 7 clusters. However, from this point (distance 5-10) the merging of this segment continues, and gives rise to groups of 6, 5, 4, and 3 clusters. To obtain the optimal number of clusters, the variance ratio criterion is studied (Table 4), which indicates that a six-cluster solution proves optimal at producing inter-cluster heterogeneity and intra-cluster homogeneity, as the figure of the Sum of VRC is the highest. In relation to this, the ANOVA test proves that the F statistic is significant, which indicates that all the variables included in the analysis are useful for the classification of observations (Table 5). Finally, the post-hoc analysis through the Scheffe pairwise comparison of means also confirms that practically all the clusters differ at a 95% level of confidence in all three variables included in the analysis (Annex 1). FIGURE 2 AROUND HERE 22 TABLE 4 AROUND HERE TABLE 5 AROUND HERE Ultimatelly, the characteristics of the six clusters are presented in Table 6. As shown in the table, a large proportion of the observations are included in cluster number 6 (41% of the sample), which is, in turn, the group with the highest means in the three indices (0.9018, 0.8383, and 0.9211). This indicates, once again, that most of the social enterprises interviewed for the ICSEM project were selected following the criteria of the EMES ideal type and that, consequently, the three indices proposed in this article meet the EMES objective. Furthermore, if the index scale is divided into terciles following the criteria that 0-0.33 is low, 0.33-0.66 is medium, and 0.66-1 is high, then it is possible to regroup the clusters in the following way: − Clusters 2, 4, and 6: focusing on the means of the three indices in the three groups, it is possible to detect that they all give equal importance to economic and social aspects, since the values of both these indices are high (over 0.66). However, the governance index varies depending on the group: high in Group 6 (0.9211), medium in Group 2 (0.5837), and low in Group 4 (0.0106). − Clusters 1 and 5: both groups attribute high importance to the economic sphere (with economic index levels of 0.9053 and 0.8864, respectively) and average importance to social aspects (the respective values are 0.4097 and 0.4149). Again, the governance index changes according to the group, whereby it is medium in Cluster 1 (0.5803) and high in Cluster 5 (0.9197). − Cluster 3: this group is significantly different from the other clusters, ion that it gives an average importance to the social and economic dimensions (0.4599 and 23 0.6398, respectively), while the importance of the governance aspects is relatively high (0.7160). TABLE 6 AROUND HERE Conclusions This article analyses whether the social enterprise identity is determined by its participatory governance along with the attributes through which it creates social and economic value, and whether participatory governance may be considered as a criterion for social enterprise categorisation. To this end, having conducted a confirmatory factor analysis to examine the validity of the defining variables of the social enterprise, three different indices have been developed which refer to the economic, social, and governance dimensions that define and delimit social enterprises, while applying them to a sample of international data on social enterprises. Based on these indices, a hierarchical cluster analysis has been carried out to obtain a categorisation of social enterprises. On the evidence of the results, two major conclusions can be drawn. Firstly, it has been empirically confirmed that social value creation and economic value creation are essential attributes of SE identity. The understanding of this duality can be enhanced through the S-D logic. This perspective does not conceive the supplier as creating value for the consumer, but rather as making value propositions, understood as the value that the enterprise wants to provide to its target market (Anderson et al., 2006; Austin et al., 2006; Kraus et al., 2014). Although the value proposition that the social enterprise makes to its stakeholders contains the dual dimension of social value and economic value, when these are combined and understood as one value, the process of co-creation of value can take place from this shared understanding. 24 Secondly, it has been empirically confirmed that participatory governance is not an essential attribute of SE identity. Although, according to the stakeholder theory, a participatory governance would increase the social mission of the enterprises, this kind of governance is not always present at the same level in all organisations. Moreover, in the light of service-dominant logic, and considering that value is intersubjective, collective, and that it is its context that endows it with meaning, it is necessary to consider the identity of the social enterprise not in an abstract way, but within a context. This idea would reinforce the existence of an ideal type of social enterprise offered by EMES, according to which, a variety of real degrees of social enterprise would exist (Defourny et al., 2021). In this respect, this study contributes to the specific literature on social enterprise by clarifying the role that participatory governance plays in social enterprise identity (Byrne, 2022). This justifies and reinforces the distinctness between the Anglo- Saxon and European schools of thought under the same umbrella. Thirdly, it is concluded that, although participatory governance is not present as a CDE attribute, it remains a key characteristic in distinguishing typologies of SEs. However, once the different typologies are determined, the three major groups obtained are defined through economic and social criteria, whereas participatory governance incorporates the variability therein. The three major groups are: Group (1), composed of SEs with high levels of economic and social indices; Group (2), composed of SEs with a high economic index and medium social index; and Group (3), composed of SEs with medium economic and social indices. This would be in accordance with other previous contributions in the specific literature on social enterprise that characterises social and economic missions in the heart of social enterprises, with participatory governance appearing as an additional characteristic (Domenico et al., 2010; Kolk and Lenfant, 2016; Granados and Rosli, 2020; Defourny et al., 2021). 25 From the Service-dominant (S-D) logic perspective, value is a consequence of the social embeddedness of value creation and is not independent from the service ecosystem in which it occurs (Meynhardt et al., 2016). Values are shared among members of a group or community, and the process of valuation “occurs within particular relationships and social contexts” (Meynhardt et al., 2016, p. 2983). Related to the idea above, it seems that, while social and economic issues are widely accepted in practice by the social enterprise itself, the issue of participatory governance is not equally well established among SEs in a comparable manner. Therefore, a universe is found where some organisations carry out this strategic governance, whereas, at the same time, there are many of these organisations that appear unaware of the impact that a democratic and collective strategy can have on their actions (Michaud and Audebrand, 2022). Therefore, in accordance with the wish of these enterprises to increase their social value creation, the incorporation of this participatory governance would remain a pending task for these organisations. However, this idea led us to the fact that many social enterprises are called as such due to the good image they grant the organisation, thereby fulfilling their social mission at a minimum level without attaining the opportunity to increase their social value creation in both internally and externally (e.g., giving a voice to the different stakeholders) (Solórzano-García et al., 2018). Consequently, if their social spirit is absent beyond their specific social mission, then it should not be surprising that they fail to put a democratic and participatory governance into practice. On the other hand, this research also has different practical implications, which can be described as belonging to one of two fields. First, in the academic field, this research contributes towards introducing a certain order in the social enterprise approach. To be precise, the creation of this new tool based on indices helps to delimit the realities in order to study the social enterprise area. In this respect, quantifying the characteristics 32 Granados, M. L., & Rosli, A. (2020). Fitting in’vs.‘Standing out’: How social enterprises engage with stakeholders to legitimize their hybrid position. Journal of Social Entrepreneurship, 11(2), 155-176. Haase, M. (2021), Social value cocreation: a mode of value cocreation, Social Enterprise Journal, 17(4), 493-512. Hatch, M. J. & Schultz, M. (2004). Organizational identity: A reader. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Hoogendoorn, B., Pennings, E., & Thurik, R. (2010). What do we know about social entrepreneurship: An analysis of empirical research. ERIM Report Series Reference No. ERS-2009-044-ORG. Retrieved July 20, 2021 from https://ssrn.com/abstract=1462018 Hoogendoorn, B., E. Pennings, and A. R. Thurik. (2010). What Do We Know about Social Entrepreneurship: An Analysis of Empirical Research. International Review of Entrepreneurship, 8(2): 1–42. Hota, P. K., Subramanian, B., & Narayanamurthy, G. (2020). Mapping the intellectual structure of social entrepreneurship research: A citation/co-citation analysis. Journal of Business Ethics, 166, 89-114. Jensen, M. (2001). Value maximisation, stakeholder theory, and the corporate objective function. European financial management, 7(3), 297-317. Joreskog, K. G., & Sorbom, D. (1981). LISREL: Analysis of linear structural relationships by the method of maximum likelihood (Version V). Chicago: National Educational Resources, Inc. Kast, F. E. & Rosenzweig, J. E. (1970). Organization and Management Theory: A Systems Approach, New York: McGraw-Hill Book Company. Kolk, A., and F. Lenfant. (2016). Hybrid Business Models for Peace and Reconciliation. Business Horizons 59(5): 503–524. 33 Kopel, M., & Marini, M. (2016). Organization and governance in social economy enterprises: An introduction. Annals of Public and Cooperative Economics, 87(3), 309– 313. Kraus, S., Filser, M., O'Dwyer, M. and Shaw, E. (2014). Social entrepreneurship: an exploratory citation analysis. Review of Managerial Science, 8, 275– 292. Laville, J. & Nyssens, M. (2001). The social enterprise: Towards a theoretical socioeconomic approach. In C. Borzaga & J. Defourny (Eds.), The emergence of social enterprise (pp. 312–332). London, New York: Routledge. Low, C. (2015). The role of governmental decision makers in hybridization. International Studies of Management & Organization, 45(3), 226–240. Meynhardt, T., Chandler, J. D., & Strathoff, P. (2016). Systemic principles of value cocreation: Synergetics of value and service ecosystems. Journal of Business Research, 69(8), 2981-2989. Michaud, M., & Audebrand, L. K. (2022). One governance theory to rule them all? The case for a paradoxical approach to co-operative governance. Journal of Co-operative Organization and Management, 10(1), 100151. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcom.2021.100151 Montgomery, A. W., Dacin, P. A., & Dacin, M. T. (2012). Collective social entrepreneurship: Collaboratively shaping social good. Journal of Business Ethics, 111(3), 375-388. Monzón, J. L. (2006). Economía Social y conceptos afines: fronteras borrosas y ambigüedades conceptuales del Tercer Sector. CIRIEC-España, Revista de Economía Pública, Social y Cooperativa, (56), 9-24. Monzón, J. M. & Chaves, R. (2017). Recent evolutions of the Social Economy in the European Union. European Economic and Social Committee, Bruxelles. 34 Morris, M. H., Santos, S. C., & Kuratko, D. F. (2021). The great divides in social entrepreneurship and where they lead us. Small Business Economics, 57, 1089– 1106. doi:10.1007/s11187-020-00318-y Mswaka, W., Armindo dos Santos de Sousa, T., Cai, H. and Louws, M. (2016). Understanding social enterprises in the United Kingdom: the case of South Yorkshire. European Business Review, 28 (6), 676-689. Navis, C., and M. A. Glynn. (2010). How New Market Categories Emerge: Temporal Dynamics of Legitimacy, Identity, and Entrepreneurship in Satellite Radio, 1990–2005. Administrative Science Quarterly, 55(3), 439–471. doi:10.2189/asqu.2010.55.3.439. Nicholls, A. (ed.) (2006) Social Entrepreneurship. New Models of Sustainable Social Change, New York: Oxford University Press. Nicholls, A. (2010). The legitimacy of social entrepreneurship: Reflexive isomorphism in a pre–oparadigmatic field. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 34(4), 611-633. Olson, M. (2009). The Logic of Collective Action: Public Goods and the Theory of Groups. Second Printing with a New Preface and Appendix (Vol. 124). Harvard University Press. Peattie, K., & Morley, A. (2008) Social enterprises: Diversity and dynamics, contexts and contributions. London: Social Enterprise Coalition. Pestoff, V. (1998). Beyond the market and state. Civil democracy and social enterprises in a welfare society. Aldershot: Ashgate. Pestoff, V., & Hulgård, L. (2016). Participatory governance in social enterprise. VOLUNTAS: International Journal of Voluntary and Nonprofit Organizations, 27, 1742–1759. 35 Ruebottom, T. (2013). The Microstructures of Rhetorical Strategy in Social Entrepreneurship: Building Legitimacy through Heroes and Villains. Journal of Business Venturing, 28(1): 98–116. Sacchetti, S., & Catturani, I. (2021). Governance and different types of value: A framework for analysis. Journal of Co-operative Organization and Management, 9(1), 100133. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcom.2021.100133 Sacchetti, S., Borzaga, C. (2021) The foundations of the “public organisation”: governance failure and the problem of external effects. Journal of Management Governance, 25, 731–758. Saebi, T., Foss, N. J., & Linder, S. (2019). Social entrepreneurship research: Past achievements and future promises. Journal of Management, 45(1), 70-95. Sanchez Gil, M. (1969). Naturaleza y Evolución de la Función Empresarial, Madrid: ed. Aguilar. Santos, F.M. (2012). A positive theory of social entrepreneurship. Journal of Business Ethics, 111(3), 335-351. Sepulveda, L., Lyon, F. & Vickers, I. (2020). Implementing Democratic Governance and Ownership: The Interplay of Structure and Culture in Public Service Social Enterprises. Voluntas 31, 627–641. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11266-020-00201-0 Solórzano-García, M., Guzmán Alfonso, C., Savall Morera, T., & Villajos Girona, E. (2018). The identity of the social enterprise in Spain: Analysis from four different socioeconomic realities. CIRIEC-España, Revista de Economía Pública, Social y Cooperativa, 92, 155-182. Spear, R. (2006). Social entrepreneurship: A different model?.International Journal of Social Economics, 33(5), 399-410. 36 Spear, R., Cornforth, C., & Aiken, M. (2009). The governance challenges of social enterprises: Evidence from a UK empirical study. Annals of Public and Cooperative Economics, 80(2), 247-273. Sternberg, E. (1997). The Defects of Stakeholder Theory. Corporate Governance: An International Review, 5, 3-10. Teasdale, S. (2012). What’s in a name? Making sense of social enterprise discourses. Public Policy and Administration, 27(2), 99-119. Thompson, J., & Doherty, B. (2006). The diverse world of social enterprise: A collection of social enterprise stories. International Journal of Social Economics, 33(5/6), 361-375. Vargo, S. L., & Lusch, R. F. (2004). Evolving to a new dominant logic for marketing. Journal of Marketing, 68(1), 1–17. Vargo, S. L., & Lusch, R. F. (2008a). From goods to service(s): Divergences and convergences of logics. Industrial Marketing Management, 37(3), 254–259. Vargo, S. L., & Lusch, R. F. (2008b). Why “service”? Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 36(1), 25–38. Vargo, S. L., & Lusch, R. F. (2008c). Service-dominant logic: continuing the evolution. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 36(1), 1–10. Vargo, S.L., Koskela-Huotari, K., and Vink, J. (2020), Service-dominant logic: foundations and applications, in Bridges, E. and Fowler, K. (Eds), The Routledge Handbook of Service Research Insights and Ideas, Routledge, London and New York, NY, pp. 5-23. Vargo, S. L., Maglio, P. P., & Akaka, M. A. (2008). On value and value co-creation: A service systems and service logic perspective. European Management Journal, 26(3), 145–152. Weisbrod, B.A. (1988). The Nonprofit Economy. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press. 37 Whetten, D. A. (2006). Albert and Whetten revisited: Strengthening the concept of organizational identity. Journal of Management Inquiry, 15(3), 219-234. Young, D. R., & Lecy, J. D. (2014). Defining the universe of social enterprise: Competing metaphors. VOLUNTAS: International Journal of Voluntary and Nonprofit Organizations, 25 (5), 1307-1332. Young, D. & Salamon, L.M. (2002). Commercialization, Social Ventures, and For-Profit Competition. In Salamon, L.M. (ed.), The State of Nonprofit America, Washington DC: Brookings Institution, 423-46. Zollo, L., Pellegrini, M.M., Faldetta, G. et al. (2022) How to combine multiple identities and gaining stakeholders legitimacy in hybrid organizations? An organizational design response. Journal of Management Governance. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10997-022- 09644-7 38 FIGURE 1. Structural equation model of social enterprise characteristics Source: figure by authors 39 FIGURE 2. Rescaled Distance Cluster Combine Source: figure by authors 40 TABLE 1. EMES definition of social enterprise CRITERIA OF SOCIAL ENTERPRISE CONTRIBUTIONS Economic and entrepreneurial dimension A continuous activity producing goods and/or selling services Kast and Rosenzweig, 1970; Sánchez Gil, 1969 A significant level of economic risk Doherty et al, 2014; Laville and Nyssens, 2001; Sánchez Gil, 1969 A minimum amount of paid work Bueno, 2010; Sánchez Gil, 1969 Social dimension An explicit aim to benefit the community Dees, 1998; Young and Salamon, 2002; Defourny and Nyssens, 2010; Di Zhang and Swanson, 2013 An initiative launched by a group of citizens or civil society organisation Montgomery et al. 2012; Olsom, 2009; Spear, 2006; Nicholls, 2006 A limited profit distribution Monzón, 2006; Monzón and Chaves, 2017; Weisbrod, 1988; Díaz, 1988; Durán and Guadaño, 2002 Participatory governance A high degree of autonomy Sánchez Gil, 1969; Froelich, 1999; Pestoff and Hulgard, 2016 A decision-making power not based on capital ownership Monzón, 2006; Monzón and Chaves, 2017; Pestoff and Hulgard, 2016 A participatory nature, which involves various parties affected by the activity Ebrahim et al., 2014; Austin, 2000; Pestoff, 1998; Pestoff and Hulgard, 2016 Source: Table by authors 41 TABLE 2. Descriptive statistics of indicators IDEAL-TYPE FIELDS INDICATORS Mean SD Minimum Maximum Economic variables A continuous activity producing goods and/or selling services 0.9278 0.25904 0.00 1.00 A significant level of economic risk 0.5441 0.39449 0.00 1.00 A minimum amount of paid work 0.9889 0.10482 0.00 1.00 Social Variables An explicit aim to benefit the community 0.7725 0.29626 0.00 1.00 An initiative launched by a group of citizens or civil society organisation 0.6865 0.46422 0.00 1.00 A limited profit distribution 0.5693 0.42579 0.00 1.00 Governmental variables A high degree of autonomy 0.9723 0.16434 0.00 1.00 A decision-making power not based on capital ownership 0.5770 0.49438 0.00 1.00 A participatory nature 0.1642 0.13661 0.00 0.60 Source: Table by authors TABLE 3. Descriptive statistics of dimensions Mean Standard Deviation Minimum Maximum Economic Index 0.8675 0.13989 0.22 1.00 Social Index 0.6864 0.23401 0.00 1.00 Governmental Index 0.7617 0.20490 0.00 0.96 Source: Table by authors 1 About the authors Teresa Savall Morera is an Assistant Professor in Applied Economics Department at University of Valencia (Spain). She has a degree in economics and a master’s degree in social economy. She was a beneficiary of a governmental scholarship and completed her doctorate on Social Economy at the University of Valencia (Spain). Savall has participating in different national and international projects and has publications in internationals journals. Her research is focussed on social economy. https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7464-7961. Teresa Savall Morera is the corresponding author and can be contacted at: [email protected] Marta Solórzano García is a Professor of Business Administration in the Organisation Studies Department at UNED Business School. Her research focusses on organizational design and change, social entrepreneurship, social enterprise and social impact. Professor Solórzano has participated in several research projects with the Chamber of Commerce of Madrid, with the Ministry of Employment and Immigration, the Department of Finance and Public Administration and several European projects. And she has several publications in international journals too. https://orcid.org/ 0000-0002-5318-7820. Carmen Guzmán is an Assistant Professor in the Department of Applied Economics I at the University of Seville (Spain). She was a beneficiary of a governmental scholarship and completed her doctorate on Economic Development and Social Entrepreneurship at the University of Huelva (Spain). She has being visiting research in the Centre of Social Economy from the University of Liege (Belgium) and in the Westminster Business School (London, UK). Her research is mainly focused on social entrepreneurship and social economy. She is currently participating in different international and national 2 research projects and has publications in several international journals. https://orcid. org/0000-0002-5290-8841.