Social Enterprise Research Colloquium Australasia 2016 

Theme: What organisational and environmental factors enable social enterprises to scale 

their social impacts? 

Examining organizational features of long‐term survival social enterprises: Findings from 

Vietnam 

Anh Truong, Jo Barraket. 

 

Abstract 

What organizational factors enable social enterprises (SEs) to maintain their nature and to 

grow? This paper presents findings from research examining SEs in Vietnam ‐ a developing 

country where the SE phenomenon has emerged recently (Smith & Darko 2014). This is a 

response to the pressing call for further research on the role of organizational factors in 

different contexts of social enterprise (SE) in preventing the risk of mission drift, while being 

sustainable (Battilana & Dorado 2010). 

Employing a multiple‐case study design, we examine four prominent and well‐established SEs in 

Vietnam. Among these SEs, the youngest was founded in 2007, and the oldest was established 

in 1995. They operate in different fields, although each has a focus on children or young people 

in their mission. 

The research is based on 27 semi‐structured interviews with founders, managers, employees 

including both volunteers and paid staff, other stakeholders; observational notes; and archival 

documents relating to each case. Data were analysed using thematic analysis due to its 

advantages of theoretical freedom and flexibility (Braun & Clarke 2006) to examine shared 

organizational characteristics among those SEs. The findings reveal that, self‐motivated social 

entrepreneurs, mission loyalty, continuous learning environment, product/service quality 

orientation, and democratic and family environment are the important organizational factors 

that contribute to the sustainability of prominent SEs in Vietnam. 

The paper may benefit the social enterprise community in Vietnam as well as other developing 

countries, which still struggle to build strong internal environments. It also responds to the lack 

of empirical research on SE in general (Zahra, Newey & Li 2014), and in diverse world contexts 

in particular (Granados et al. 2011). 

References 

Battilana, J & Dorado, S 2010, ‘Building Sustainable Hybrid Organizations: The Case of Commercial Microfinance Organizations’, Academy of Management Journal, vol. 53, no. 6, pp. 1419–1440. 

Braun, V & Clarke, V 2006, ‘Using thematic analysis in psychology’, Qualitative Research in Psychology, vol. 3, no. 2, pp. 77–101. 

Granados, ML, Hlupic, V, Coakes, E & Mohamed, S 2011, ‘Social enterprise and social entrepreneurship research and theory’, Social Enterprise Journal, vol. 7, no. 3, pp. 198–218. 

Smith, W & Darko, E 2014, Social enterprise: constraints and opportunities – evidence from Vietnam and Kenya. 

Zahra, SA, Newey, LR & Li, Y 2014, ‘On the Frontiers: The Implications of Social Entrepreneurship for International Entrepreneurship’, Entrepreneurship: Theory & Practice, vol. 38, no. 1, pp. 137–158. 

 

 

 

 

 

Extended Abstract Alejandro AGAFONOW

1

Social Enterprise Research Colloquium Australasia 2016

Dr. Alejandro Agafonow

Monash University Business School, Australia

The Organizational Economics of Social Enterprises

Word count: 495

Paper’s aim

This paper constitutes an attempt at cross-fertilization between organizational economics and

management scholarship, in a bid to lay a basis for the organizational economics of social

entrepreneurship. A solution-focused strategy of knowledge production is adopted, addressing the

gaps of both disciplinary perspectives in their account of patrons such as stakeholders and

disadvantaged customers. The aim is to produce a theoretical synthesis with a distinctive

organizational economics imprint. The preliminary outcome is that the more proprietary-centered the

creation of value, the lower the governance costs of economizing on bounded rationality to protect

patrons from the hazard of opportunism. Since not all productive activities can be organized within the

range of the lowest governance costs, a discrete structural analysis will be developed, with different

ranges of governance costs suitable for different purposes depending on the kinds of value creation

intended and the class of patrons to be protected. Thus, accepting higher governance costs is justified

by preventing the exploitation of informational advantage at the expense of selected classes of patrons,

subject to what is feasible (i.e. O. Williamson’s remediableness standard).

Expected findings and contributions

Extended Abstract Alejandro AGAFONOW

2

Organizational economics developed a discrete structural analysis which avoids supporting a one-size-

fits-all solution to organizing efficiently. Just as each governance mechanism (hierarchies, markets

and hybrids) is suitable for different purposes depending on the degree of asset specificity involved,

this research agenda proposes a novel framework to analyze social-purpose hierarchies (e.g. benefit

corporations, low-profit limited liability companies, social enterprises, social businesses and

commercial nonprofits) suitable for different objective functions depending on the kind of value

creation intended and the class of patrons to be protected. Higher governance costs are justified in

social-purpose hierarchies because of the chance of exploiting informational advantage at the expense

of vulnerable patrons. The blend is brought about neither by the combination of hierarchy and market

nor different institutional logics only, but by the combination of selected classes of patrons and the

governance costs incurred to tackle the hazard of opportunism.

In a kernel, it is expected that this research’s findings show that the lower governance costs which

come with proprietary enterprises are due to better enfranchisement and alignment of interest among

shareholders, and this is evident in the case of a sole proprietor. When attention shifts toward

stakeholder enterprises epitomized by benefit corporations, aligning the interests of a wide array of

stakeholders is more costly. Some stakeholders (such as customers and communities) would be best

served if they accepted the higher cost of increasing quality and internalizing negative externalities,

which can be achieved at the expense of resources that serve the interest of internal stakeholders:

employees and proprietors. Building consensus among all these different patrons also consumes

resources. Should the nominal control of the firm be only granted to disadvantaged customers

interested in higher quality and affordability, costs come with the disenfranchisement of this class of

patrons (who are poor and concerned with making ends meet) and hence difficulties in enforcing

effective control over the firm arise.

Social Enterprises in Regional Innovation – A View from Rural Tasmania A/Prof Robyn Eversole, Institute for Regional Development, University of Tasmania  

While policymakers seek in vain to harness the drivers of national innovation, the literature on regional innovation systems (RIS) argues that they may in fact be looking for innovation in the wrong places.  This literature proposes that innovation is ultimately driven not at the national level, but at the subnational or regional level (European Commission 2006, Cooke 2001).  At regional scale, localised interactions among people and organisations in on‐the‐ground social and institutional contexts create the knowledge spillovers that spark innovation (Storper 1995, Harmaakorpi & Pekkarinen, 2003a; Harmaakorpi et al., 2011),  The literature on RIS suggests three propositions that are directly relevant to understanding the innovation role of social enterprises. First, it proposes that innovation – universally hailed as a key driver of economic growth, as well as a potential way forward for social challenges – is ultimately a social process (Cooke et al. 2000).  Next, it proposes that innovation can be intentionally catalysed by social actors, by intentionally working together across boundaries to share knowledge and ‘construct’ sources of regional advantage (Harmaakorpi & Pekkarinen, 2003b, Eversole and McCall 2014).  Finally, it proposes that these social processes work best where there are opportunities for regular interactions among social actors – that is, interactions ‘in place’ (Storper 1995 and others).  Work conducted with rural social enterprises in Tasmania suggests that social enterprises can be understood through a RIS lens as a manifestation of place‐based innovation processes.  First, this work suggests that Tasmanian social enterprises are a response by particular social actors to meeting unmet needs in new ways (Eversole, Barraket and Luke 2013, Eversole 2013, Duniam and Eversole in press).  Social enterprises thus arise from processes of social problem solving.  Further, work in Tasmania suggests that they solve problems by taking an explicitly cross‐sectoral, cross‐boundary approach: intentionally leveraging multiple resources from multiple sectors to generate development outcomes (ibid).  Finally, studies to date highlight that rural enterprises in Tasmania have a strong place‐based focus, with a clear focus on leveraging local resources and meeting local needs (ibid.).  It is encouraging to observe these processes of place‐based, cross‐boundary social problem solving at work.  At the same time, it is instructive to consider cases where social enterprises have not emerged in response to needs and gaps.  This paper presents two cases of recent projects that documented a failure of innovative social solutions to emerge organically at the local or regional level in rural Tasmania, despite clear evidence of both need and existing resources.  One case involved cross‐sectoral workforce development initiatives on the West Coast of Tasmania; the other, local government council responses to housing issues for older Tasmanians.  The failure of local social actors to generate enterprising solutions to social problems in these cases is theorised with reference to the concept of connectivity deficits in RIS (European Commission 2006, Eversole and MCall 2014).   In each of the two cases, the ingredients (resources) for innovative solutions were present, but not mobilised.  In each case, the key limiting factor was identified as a lack of knowledge spillovers across sectors and localities: expertise and other resources were present, but not visible to key local actors.  Following Eversole and McCall (2014), this suggests that it may be necessary to actively facilitate knowledge spillovers, particularly in isolated rural settings, in order to catalyse the emergence of enterprising local solutions.       

 References  Cooke, P., Boekholt, P. and Tödtling, F. (2000) The Governance of Innovation in Europe. Regional Perspectives on Global Competitiveness. London, Pinter. 

Cooke, P. (2001) ‘Regional Innovation Systems, clusters, and the knowledge economy’, Industrial and Corporate Change, 10 (4): 945‐974. 

Duniam, M and R Eversole (in press) Social Enterprises in Rural Community Governance: Evidence from Tasmania in Critical Reflections on Interactive Governance eds. I.F. van Meerkerk and J. Edelenbos. Edward Elgar. 

European Commission (2006) Constructing Regional Advantage – Principles, Perspectives, Policies. Report. Brussels: European Commission. 

Eversole, R. (2013) ‘Social enterprises as local development actors: Insights from Tasmania’, Local Economy 28(6): 567–579. 

Eversole, R. and T. McCall (2014) ‘Constructing Advantage in the Cradle Coast Region, Tasmania: Knowledge partnering as a regional development platform approach’, Regional Science Policy and Practice, 6(3): 251‐264. 

Eversole, R, J. Barraket and B. Luke (2014) ‘Social enterprises in rural community development’ in Community Development Journal, 49(2): 245‐261. 

Harmaakorpi, V & Pekkarinen, S (2003a) Defining a core process in a Regional Innovation System—case: Lahti age business core process. Paper presented at the Conference of Regional Studies Association, Pisa, 12–15 April. 

Harmaakorpi, V. & Pekkarinen, S. (2003b) The Concept of the Regional Development Platform and RDPM as a tool for Regional Innovation Policy, 43rd Annual Conference of European Regional Science Association, Finland. 

Harmaakorpi, V., Tura, T. and Melkas, H.(2011) ‘Regional Innovation Platforms’ in Cooke, P., Asheim, B., Boschma, R. et al. (ed) Handbook of Regional Innovation and Growth, Cheltenham, UK, Edward Elgar. 

Storper, M. (1995) The resurgence of regional economies, ten years later: the region as nexus of 

untraded interdependencies, European Urban and Regional Studies, 2: 191‐221. 

 

 

Legal Professionals as Intermediaries Supporting Sustainable and Resilient Social Enterprise Initiatives Bronwen Morgan, Joanne McNeill and Isobel Blomfield This paper explores the question: what role does legal professional advice play in enabling or constraining the creation of small-scale sustainable economy initiatives? It draws on a mix of data sources: primary research conducted by Bronwen Morgan and Declan Kuch from 2013-2015 into community-based sustainability initiatives and grass-roots innovations responding to climate change challenges, across a continuum from social activism to social enterprise; the Australian component of the International Comparative Social Enterprise Models (ICSEM) project; the Social Enterprise Legal Models Working Group (LMWG) report; a review of eight existing cognate sources of legal professional advice supporting SSEIs; a review of law firm websites; and targeted discussions with nine social-enterprise-related capacity-building programs around Australia. The first of the above data sources focused in broad measure on the legal and regulatory frameworks that helped or hindered these innovative small-scale sustainable economy initiatives (SSEIs). SSEIs were viewed as socially innovative insofar as they reconfigured economies and established alternatives to unsustainable practices. Their capacity to make a positive contribution to the overall social fabric and to the building of resilient communities depends in important ways on how they negotiate shifts from vision to early experimentation and then to stable operation. These shifts are shaped in important ways by law and regulation. One of the key indirect findings of the first data source was that features of legal professional advice mattered as much, if not perhaps even more than, the content and design of legal and regulatory frameworks. This finding highlights the way in which effective innovation supporting SSEIs is constrained by the current structural relationship between commercial law and legal professional services. Conceptually, this means that enabling rather than constraining innovation in this sphere requires us to move away from an inherently regulatory response that effectively bolts social (and environmental) goals onto the edifice of commercial exchange as a protective afterthought. A more productive approach is to rework the tacit legal underpinnings of commercial activities. Creative use of commercial and transactional legal strategies has the potential to weave social and ecological values ‘from the inside out’ into the heart of exchange. This conceptual finding has three major practical implications for developing an effective eco-system of professional legal support for SSEIs, which this paper develops by drawing on the other data sources listed above. First, it is important to cultivate innovative hybrid legal entity models that transcend not-for-profit/profit dichotomies. Secondly, significant gaps in legal professional services exist related to i) issues of culture and values, ii) specific technical skills sets, and iii) the cost and accessibility of commercial advice for small-scale organisations. Thirdly, even if these gaps are filled, the systematic inclusion of non-legal personnel, strategies and organisations that help to soften bright lines between ‘legal’ and ‘non-legal’ dimensions of the broader ecosystem will nourish the exciting possibilities presented by SSEIs. The literature focusing specifically on legal services and social enterprise is extremely thin but we aim to contribute to and bolster the following:

Hart, C. (2011) ‘Sustainable regional, rural and remote legal practice in Queensland: The

importance of innovation in alliances and the use of information technology’, Deakin Law Review, 16(1), 225-263.

Hauber, L. (2007) ‘Promoting Economic Justice Through Transactional Community-Centered Lawyering’, Saint Louis University Public Law Review, 27(3), 3-43.

Morgan, Bronwen and Declan Kuch (2015), ‘Radical Transactionalism: Legal Consciousness, Diverse Economies, and the Sharing Economy’ (2015) Journal of Law and Society 42:4, 556-87

Morgan, Bronwen (2015) “Legal Imagination and the Sharing Economy”, STIR Magazine, Issue 9, Spring 2015, lead article, also available online at http://stirtoaction.com/pre-order-spring-2015-issue-25-off/

Morgan, Bronwen (forthcoming), “Transcending the Corporation: Social Enterprise, Cooperatives and Commons-Based Governance”, forthcoming in Clarke and O’Brien (eds) Handbook on the Corporation (Oxford University Press 2016)

 

Social Enterprise Research Colloquium Australasia 2016 

Developing Social Enterprise in an Innovation Ecosystem: Evidence, Opportunities and Challenges. 

 

 

Reflexivity in social enterprise through Polanyian applications. 

Michael Roy – Glasgow Caledonian University, Scotland 

Suzanne Grant – University of Waikato, New Zealand 

Michelle Hackett – University of Western Australia, Australia  

 

Amid increased interest in social enterprise, entrepreneurship and innovation in Australasia we are 

now seeing new and emerging forms of organisation, and increasingly public policy that may (or may 

not) facilitate further development of both social enterprise concepts and practice.  The call for 

papers for this Colloquium encourages us to consider the role of social innovation within broader 

innovation agendas, and the implications for establishing supportive social enterprise ecosystems. 

Our response to this call is to encourage greater reflexivity of the way(s) in which social enterprise is 

conceptualised, encouraging scholars, practitioners and policy makers to exercise reflexivity in their 

research, practice and policy. Reflexivity encompasses critical, hermeneutic and post modern 

orientations (Alvesson & Sköldberg, 2000), so that we might be more aware of influences such as 

power and politics. With public policy in Australia and New Zealand firmly entrenched in the 

ideology of neoliberalism (see for example Boston, Martin, Pallot, & Walsh, 1991; Kelsey, 1997, 

2002), the risk of uncritically accepting market based approaches to SE is very real. To do so may 

constrain the emancipatory potential of social enterprise and innovations. To facilitate such critical 

consideration , we present conceptual tools based on the work of Karl Polanyi (1944, 1957, 1992) to 

extend the contributions of SE scholars such as Humphries and Grant (2005), Curtis (2008), Seanor 

and Meaton (2007), Parkinson and Howorth (2008), Dey and Steyaert (2010, 2012), Mason (2012), 

Dey and Teasdale (2013, 2015)  and Teasdale (2012).  

We begin this conceptual paper by introducing the three dominant schools of thought recognised by 

scholars as shaping SE scholarship; the ‘earned income’ and ‘social innovation’ schools (Dees, 2012; 

Dees & Anderson, 2003)  which both project a strong Anglo‐American influence and the EMES 

conceptualisation which is based on European communitarian traditions (Defourny & Nyssens, 2006, 

2010).  We then present three of Polanyi’s (1944, 1957) key concepts – the ‘substantive economy’, 

the ‘double movement’ thesis and the notion of ‘embeddedness’ and consider how critical 

consideration of these SE frameworks informed by each Polanyian concept might help us better 

understand the influences at play in SE. In this instance our applications highlight the normative 

potential for both the earned income and social innovation schools of thought to promote and 

further entrench the neoliberal mindset, whilst these same applications within an EMES framework 

might help challenge dominant market assumptions. Overall however, applications such as those 

demonstrated here provide another tool in a critical tool box, further enabling scholars and 

practitioners to be reflexive; alert to and conscious of political and/or normative forces which shape 

our understanding of SE and associated concepts ‐ including the frameworks themselves! 

References 

 

Alvesson, M., & Sköldberg, K. (2000). Reflexive methodology: New vistas in qualitative research. London: Sage Publications. 

Boston, J., Martin, J., Pallot, J., & Walsh, P. (1991). Reshaping the state. New Zealand's bureaucratic revolution. Auckland: Oxford University Press. 

Curtis, T. (2008). Finding that grit makes a pearl. A critical re‐reading of research into social enterprise. International Journal of Entrepreneurial Behaviour and Research, 14(5), 276‐290. 

Dees, J. G. (2012). A tale of two cultures: Charity, problem solving and the future of social entrepreneurship. Journal of Business Ethics, 111(3), 321‐334. 

Dees, J. G., & Anderson, B. B. (2003). Sector‐bending: Blurring lines between nonprofit and for‐profit. Society, 40(4), 16‐27. 

Defourny, J., & Nyssens, M. (2006). Defining social enterprise. In M. Nyssens (Ed.), Social Enterprise: At the crossroads of market, public policies and civil society (Vol. 3‐26). London: Routledge.  

Defourny, J., & Nyssens, M. (2010). Conceptions of social enterprise and social entrepreneurship in Europe and the United States: Convergences and divergences. Journal of Social Entrepreneurship, 1(1), 32‐53. 

Dey, P., & Steyaert, C. (2010). The politics of narrating social entrepreneurship. Journal of Enterprising Communities:People and Places in the Global Economy, 4(1), 85‐108. 

Dey, P., & Steyaert, C. (2012). Social entrepreneurship: Critique and the radical enactment of the social. Social Enterprise Journal, 8(2), 90‐107. 

Dey, P., & Teasdale, S. (2013). Social enterprise and dis/identification. Administrative Theory and Praxis, 35(2), 248‐270. 

Dey, P., & Teasdale, S. (2015). The tactical mimicry of social enterprise strategies: Acting 'as if' in the everyday life of third sector organisations. Organization, 1‐20. 

Humphries, M., & Grant, S. (2005). Social enterprise and re‐civilization of human endeavours: Re‐socializing the market metaphor or encroaching colonization of the lifeworld? Current Issues in Comparative Education, 8(1), 41‐50. 

Kelsey, J. (1997). The New Zealand experiment. A world model for structural adjustment? Auckland: Auckland University Press. 

Kelsey, J. (2002). At the crossroads. Three essays. Wellington: Bridget Williams Books. Mason, C. (2012). Up for grabs: A critical analysis of social entrepreneurship discourse in the United 

Kingdom. Social Enterprise Journal, 8(2), 123‐140. Parkinson, C., & Howorth, C. (2008). The language of social entreprenuers. Entrepreneurship & 

Regional Development, 20(3), 285‐309. Polanyi, K. (1944). The Great Transformation: The political and economic origins of our time.  (Vol. 

Second Beacon Paperback Edition published 2001.). Boston, MA: Beacon Press. Polanyi, K. (1957). The economy as instituted process. In K. Polanyi, C. M. Arensberg & H. W. Peason 

(Eds.), Trade and market in the early empires: Economies in history and theory (pp. 243‐269). Glencoe, IL: Free Press.  

Polanyi, K. (1992). The economy as instituted process. In M. S. Granovetter & R. Swedberg (Eds.), The sociology of economic life (pp. 29‐52). Boulder CO.: Westview Press.  

Seanor, P., & Meaton, J. (2007). Making sense of social enterprise. Social Enterprise Journal, 3(1), 90‐100. 

Teasdale, S. (2012). What's in a name? Making sense of social enterprise discourses. Public Policy and Administration, 27(2), 99‐119. 

 

Insights on building social entrepreneurial ecosystems Anne de Bruin1 and Alex Hannant2 1Professor of Economics and Director, New Zealand Social Innovation and Entrepreneurship Research Centre, Massey University, New Zealand 2Chief Executive, The Ākina Foundation, New Zealand  Abstract 

Background

Entrepreneurial ecosystems have become a buzz phrase. They are frequently referred to in policy and practitioner circles, however, as a theoretical concept have not been explored in any depth though this appears to be now changing. Most recently, Spigel (2015) sets out the attributes of a regional ecosystem to highlight their complex interconnected and complex relationships and demonstrates the different configurations possible with case studies of two successful ecosystems in Canada.

Reference to the ecosystem increasingly features in the social enterprise and entrepreneurship discourse too. Despite this popular usage of ecosystem terminology there is no clarity on what it all means. The purpose of this paper is to add conceptual clarity by identifying the key elements of a social enterpreneurial ecosystem (SEE). Bloom and Dees (2008: 49) urge social entrepreneurs to ‘create a map of their ecosystem that identifies all of the players and environmental conditions along with the relationships between them’. Their ecosystem notion mainly pertains to the organizational level. In this paper we take a more macro level stance to examine SEEs. We examine different paths and patterns in the development SEEs at the national level. We focus on the efforts in New Zealand to design the ecosystem to grow and support its budding social enterprise sector. We compare and contrast the evolving New Zealand experience and emerging SEE with other national SEEs.

Our first research question is: What are the key elements of SEEs? To frame our answer to this question we engage with place- and resource-based perpectives. Under resources we also include symbolic capital which we show is important to growing the legitimacy of the social enterprise sector. As a corollary we will also answer: what are the interdependencies and the means of coordination in SEEs?

Our second reseach question is: What are the trajectories in the emergence and development of SEEs? In answering this question we discuss a SEE typology in relation to contrived versus organic development paths.

We conclude with policy implications and future research recommendations.

Method

Our paper is mainly conceptual. It is informed by the extant literature on business entrepreneurial ecosystems and innovation systems. We draw on our ‘feel’ for the SEE process and especially the second author’s reflective practitioner and observation stance (Schön 1983). We engage with formative and knowledge generation evaluation

of New Zealand’s SEE (Patton 1996, 2011). Participation in conversations with key informants also enriches our discussion. ReferencesBloom, P.N. & Dees, J. G. (2008) ‘Cultivate your ecosystem’, Stanford Social Innovation Review Winter: 47-53. Patton, M. Q. (1996). A world larger than formative and summative. American Journal of Evaluation, 17(2), 131-144. Patton, M. Q. (2011). Developmental evaluation: Applying complexity concepts to enhance innovation and use. New York, London, Guilford Press. Schön, D. A. (1983). The reflective practitioner: How professionals think in action Spigel,B.(2015),TheRelationalOrganizationofEntrepreneurialEcosystems.EntrepreneurshipTheoryandPractice.doi:10.1111/etap.12167

Title: Social enterprises and diversity in the circular economy Ruth Lane, Monash University Abstract Social enterprises are key actors in the already existing circular economy yet new governance initiatives such as the co-regulated product stewardship for computers and televisions in Australia assume commercial businesses as the source of innovation, and focus on technologies for end-of-life destructive materials recycling as the main strategy for promoting a circular economy. However there are many other circuits taken by products and materials in the existing circular economy, and social enterprises are involved in many of these. This paper draws on the example of used electronics to advance two key arguments: 1) that diversity is critical if non-technical innovations are to flourish, and 2) that more attention is needed to the issue of labour and livelihoods in the circular economy.  

 Experimentation from the Eye of the Beholder:  Evolutionary Processes within Social Enterprise Ecosystems  Elaine Mosakowski Professor of Community Entrepreneurship Institute for Regional Development University of Tasmania Cradle Coast Campus  Just like beauty, what is considered innovative, experimental, or novel lies in the eye of the beholder.  Yet for social enterprises, there is no single pair of eyes (such as those of consumers) evaluating the innovativeness of what they achieve.  Instead, social enterprises operate in multiple contexts, with multiple goals, seeking to achieve outcomes of value to multiple stakeholders.  To understand how social enterprises innovate within their ecosystems, the current paper adopts a theoretical perspective based on organizational ecology and, more specifically, Lamarckian evolution to study the processes of variation, selection, and retention (VSR) (Campbell, Baum, and McKelvey, 1999).  My central arguments are that experimentation – which is sometimes equated with variation alone – is central to all three VSR processes for social enterprises and that these processes should be considered from the ecosystem level, instead of the organization level.  The paper also discusses the practical implications for managing innovation and change in social enterprises.  The central arguments derive from the unique circumstances of social enterprises.  Their collage‐like qualities, with market‐based revenues funding the pursuit of social missions (Austin, Stevenson, and Wei‐Skillern, 2006), lead to social enterprises straddling more than one ecological niche. In addition, the environments associated with social enterprises’ multiple niches often vary dramatically, from cut‐throat competitive marketplaces to more cooperative social sectors. Finally, embeddedness in communities breaks down boundaries between social enterprises and other organizations, institutions, and actors, making the frontiers between organizations and their environments permeable and indistinct.  These characteristics influence the nature of VSR processes in social enterprises. Variations are introduced as a result of pressures to experiment within, and adapt to, multiple ecological environments.  Variations will originate from both inside and outside of social enterprises.  Ecological selection must be done with an eye toward the achievement of multiple objectives across multiple stakeholders, and experimentation is a systematic means of assessment (J‐Pal Europe, 2011).   Finally, retention processes require the sharing of successful variations across multiple ecological environments and across diverse types of actors, often requiring experimentation to develop new types of boundary‐spanning processes that diffuse innovations broadly.  To ground these arguments, this paper briefly reviews extant applied research on experimentation within social enterprises, which highlights the reluctance of the social sector 

to embrace experimentation as necessary for its survival and vitality.  While encouraged by advances in applying techniques such as lean (or quick) innovation to the social sector (Murray and Ma, 2015), I argue for further adaptation of these techniques to the unique circumstances of social enterprises, with specific suggestions offered.  In addition, experimentation is likely to take multiple and diverse forms in social enterprises, including techniques for rapid experimentation, systematic experimental assessment to observe longer‐term outcomes, and experimentation around processes that aid in the diffusion and consumption of new ideas. Throughout the paper, examples of innovations such as the One‐for‐One business model and recent variations on this model (Knowledge@Wharton, 2015) are offered as illustrations.    References  Austin, James, Howard Stevenson, and Jane Wei‐Skillern. (2006) “Social and Commercial Entrepreneurship: Same, Different, or Both?”, Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice 30(1): 1‐22.  Campbell, Donald Thomas, Joel A. C. Baum, and Bill McKelvey. (1999) Variations in Organization Science, Sage.  J‐Pal, Europe. (2011) A Guide to Social Experimentation, prepared for the Wroclaw conference on “Innovative responses to the crisis”, September 26, 2011.  Knowledge@Wharton. (2015) “The One‐for‐One Business Model: Avoiding Unintended Consequences,” The Wharton School, University of Pennsylvania, http://knowledge.wharton.upenn.edu/article/one‐one‐business‐model‐social‐impact‐avoiding‐unintended‐consequences/  Murray, Peter and Steve Ma. (2015) “The Promise of Lean Experimentation,” Stanford Social Innovation Review. 

1  

Manager-Employee Dynamics in Social Enterprises: The Influence of Leadership on Work Outcomes

Presentation based on a study by Cristina Neesham (Swinburne), Alex Newman (Deakin) and

Graham Manville (East Anglia)

Abstract Over the last decade, social entrepreneurship has emerged as an important cultural and economic phenomenon (Dacin et al, 2010; Dacin, Dacin & Tracey, 2011). Despite the growth of the social enterprise sector in both developed and emerging economies, there is increasing recognition that much more needs to be done to support its development. In particular, leadership has been cited as a critical factor which determines the success of social enterprises more specifically (Prabhu, 1999), and entrepreneurial ventures more generally (Kuratko, 2007). However, there is a lack of research on what constitutes effective leadership in social enterprises, given their unique mix of social and commercial objectives. Using data from 163 employees in 42 social enterprises across three countries, the present study makes examines the relative influence of two distinctive but complementary styles of leadership on employees’ innovative behaviour and organizational commitment. More specifically, it focuses on entrepreneurial leadership, i.e. a leadership style which influences and directs followers towards the achievement of organizational goals that involve identifying and exploiting entrepreneurial opportunities (Renko et al, 2015), and servant leadership, i.e. a leadership style which focuses on the development of followers and stresses to them the importance of serving others (Greenleaf, 2002). We have selected these two leadership styles given the dual mission of social enterprises to serve the community and, at the same time, develop innovative products and services that will allow them to be economically self-sustainable.

Our findings indicate that, although both styles of leadership were positively related to employees’ organizational commitment, servant leadership was more so than entrepreneurial leadership. In contrast, whilst we found evidence that entrepreneurial leadership was positively related to employees’ innovative behaviour, the relationship between servant leadership and employees’ innovative behaviour was insignificant. The data suggests that desire to serve a social purpose is a better predictor of a social enterprise employee’s commitment to their organisation, and innovative behaviour can be predicted to a significant extent in employees exhibiting entrepreneurial leadership but not in employees engaging in servant leadership. These findings are consistent with both social exchange and social learning theories, and provide us with a detailed understanding as to which styles of leadership are effective in promoting employees’ work attitudes and behaviours, be they related to an entrepreneurial orientation or a service orientation, in the social enterprise sector.

2  

By examining these issues, our research makes two theoretical contributions. First, it provides an insight into the relative effectiveness of different leadership styles in promoting follower work attitudes and behaviours in social enterprises. Secondly, it demonstrates the importance of leadership over and above followers’ pro-social motivation or creative self-efficacy (Grant et al, 2008; Tierney & Farmer, 2002). The practical implications of the present findings are also being considered in this study. By better understanding which styles of leadership are more effective in promoting followers’ work attitudes and behaviours in social enterprises, social entrepreneurs will be better able to both retain committed employees and enhance their engagement in innovative behaviour in the workplace. In turn, commitment and innovative behaviour outcomes are likely to improve the sustainability of social enterprises. Keywords: social entreprise, entrepreneurial leadership, servant leadership, innovative

behaviour, organizational commitment

References

Dacin, P. A., Dacin, M. T. & Matear, M. (2010). Social entrepreneurship: Why we don’t need a new theory and how we move forward from here. Academy of Management Perspectives, 24(3), 37-57.

Dacin, P. A., Dacin, M. T. & Tracey, P. (2011). Social entrepreneurship: A critique and future directions. Organization Science, 22(5), 1203-1213.

Grant, A. M., Dutton, J. E. & Rosso, B. D. (2008). Giving commitment: Employee support programs and the prosocial sensemaking process. Academy of Management Journal, 51(5), 898-918.

Greenleaf, R. K. (2002). Servant leadership: A journey into the nature of legitimate power and greatness (25th anniversary ed.), New York, Paulist Press.

Kuratko, D. F. (2007). Entrepreneurial leadership in the 21st century. Journal of Leadership and Organizational Studies, 13(4), 1-11.

Prabhu, G. N. (1999). Social entrepreneurial leadership. Career Development International, 4(3), 140-145.

Renko, M., El Tarabishy, A., Carsrud, A.L. & Brannback, M. (2015). Understanding and measuring entrepreneurial leadership style. Journal of Small Business Management, 53(1), 54-74.

Tierney, P. & Farmer, S. M. (2002). Creative self-efficacy: Its potential antecedents and relationship to creative performance. Academy of Management Journal, 45(6), 1137-1148.

 

Untangling policy discourse: a discursive institutional analysis of social enterprise policy in England and Australia Chris Mason*, Centre for Social Impact Swinburne, Swinburne University of Technology. Michael Moran, Centre for Social Impact Swinburne, Swinburne University of Technology. Abstract This paper applies Discursive Institutional (DI) theory to the case of social enterprise policy-

making in England and Australia. Our study is premised on the fact that DI is an under-used

theoretical and analytical framework, compared with other institutional theories. Using a

comparative case study approach, we explain the discursive trajectories of two social

enterprise policy-making discourses. Successive English governments have dedicated

significant resources to social enterprise – when measured by public investment, enabling

policy and legislation as well as by its place in the social policy narrative of influential policy-

makers (Nicholls, 2010; Teasdale, 2012). By contrast, Australian governments, particularly at

the Federal level, were late to engage with social enterprise, with substantive interventions

occurring from around 2008, several years after England.

These differential levels of interest between England and Australia with respect to social

enterprise policy are perceived to set these countries uncommonly apart with respect to

public policy (Lyons and Passey, 2006). Both countries have followed a broadly similar

trajectory with respect to engagement with welfare reform as ‘liberal regimes’ (Epsing-

Anderson, 1990), chiefly influenced by a paradigm shift from Keynesianism to neo-liberalism.

The ‘third sector’ – non-profit, voluntary sector and community organisations and in official

definitions of English policy-makers, social enterprise (OTS, 2006, 10) – has played a large part

in these reform processes.

Given this perceived divergence we begin by asking: has the differential level of investment

manifested in distinctive social enterprise policy discourses? Furthermore, how does social

enterprise, when analysed as a policy idea, travel between different institutional contexts? Do

governments interpret policy ideas through processes of policy learning that leads to

divergent or convergent policy discourses?

In an attempt to understand why the respective governments have attempted social enterprise

development in distinctive ways we begin by reviewing the four major strands of new

institutional theory as they relate to social enterprise: rational choice, historical, sociological,

and discursive (Schmidt, 2008). To further unpack this we frame our two case studies with an

overview of DI, followed by a detailed account of the two case studies, England and Australia,

according to engagement with Schmidt’s (2008) three-level analytical framework –

philosophies, programmes and policies. We interpret and compare key government publications,

to explore the presence and effect of cognitive and normative discourses, and how foreground

discursive and background ideational abilities are enacted by policy actors. Exploring the

presence and contestation of ideas in policy discourses helps to unravel the role of policy

actors in shaping discourses.

We propose two ideational terms to classify the discrepancies in policy transfer, polythetic and

monothetic. Furthermore, we show how coordinative and communicative discourses have

been enacted at different levels to shape social enterprise discourses. Thus we contribute to

developing DI as an important institutional analytical approach, through a novel analysis of

policy transfer in an important context, social enterprise policy-making. We conclude that

actors’ foreground discursive and background ideational abilities require more nuanced

analysis to further advance knowledge on policy transfer.

1

Multiple Microfinance Institution Memberships and

Corporate Social Responsibility Outreach Activities

Christine Jubb*

Mohshin Habib

and

Zakir Morshed

Swinburne University of Technology

ABSTRACT

For many, corporate social responsibility in the context of microfinance means acting ethically and

sustainability and in the best interests of clients within financial intermediation activities. This study

goes beyond this type of social obligation to examine other financial benefits (e.g. death benefits)

provided by a microfinance association besides microcredit. Access to these financial benefits is

likely to be of great benefit to the vulnerable poor and the temptation to be eligible for access,

especially in the context of multiple borrowings from other financial institutions is likely to be strong.

This study examines whether members of a microfinance institution who are concurrently members

of at least one other such institution disproportionately access financial benefits offered by the

microfinance institution besides access to microcredit. Consistent with Schick (2013) who finds that

multiple microfinance institution membership is not a material problem in relation to client over-

indebtedness, this study finds a significant association between take-up of incremental financial

benefits and membership of only the institution offering these benefits. This finding attests to both

the internal governance practices of the microfinance institution concerned plus the non-

opportunistic nature of the microfinance clients.

1 

 

Social Enterprise Research Colloquium Australasia (SERCA) 

Developing Social Enterprise in an Innovation Ecosystem: Evidence, Opportunities & Challenges 

Swinburne University of Technology, Melbourne, June 8th 2016 

 

Joanne McNeill, HDR Student & Senior Research Officer 

Institute for Culture & Society, Western Sydney University 

J.McNeill@westernsydney.edu.au  |  0402 200 816 

 

The paper will present material developed through a doctorate study that  is exploring relationships between 

public sector policymaking, social innovation and social procurement. The paper will not attempt to summarise 

the complete thesis, nor to delve into the case studies included in the study, but will rather focus on presenting 

the overarching conceptual framework for the project.  

Social procurement: A new public governance approach to enabling social innovation 

Abstract 

Policy  interest  in  social  innovation  continues  to  accelerate  at  a  rapid  rate  globally  (Moulaert, 

MacCallum, Mehmood &  Hamdouch  2013; Murray,  Caulier‐Grice & Mulgan  2010; Mulgan  2012; 

Puttick et al. n.d.; Tiesinga & Berkhout 2014), and in this context there is urgency growing around the 

need for finer grained understandings of its dimensions, opportunities and limitations (Howaldt et al. 

2014). In particular, locating its most useful place in policymaking frameworks is critical if it is not to 

become dominated by a ‘grand narrative’ that presents its processes and practices monologically (Dey 

& Steyaert 2010) and dilutes  its potential through representation as a panacea for a wide range of 

complex social issues (Moulaert, MacCallum & Hillier 2013; Klein 2013).  

To this end, I extend the recent work of Barraket, Keast & Furneaux (2016) on social procurement to 

also  locate social  innovation within the new public governance framework they develop.  I build on 

their  characterisation, which  identifies  the  technical  practice  of  social  procurement  as  inherently 

hybrid, and focus on direct forms (Furneaux & Barraket 2014) ‐ which I suggest best exemplify new 

public governance in action through the diverse assemblies of entities involved. The attention to both 

process  and  outcome  central  to  designing  and  implementing  effective  direct  social  procurement 

strategies are also characteristic of these two intertwined dimensions of social innovation (Moulaert, 

MacCallum, Mehmood & Hamdouch 2013; Defourney & Nyssens 2013; Nicholls & Murdock 2012; 

Mulgan 2012).  I suggest that it is through stepping out the linkages between these three domains of 

2 

 

policymaking that the iterative and complex nature of social procurement policy and practice can be 

normalised within a broader policy framework.   

The study on which the paper is based is qualitative, exploratory and descriptive in nature. The initial 

research  question  formulated  to  guide  the  process  at  the  outset was: How  do  public  policy  and 

programs enable social  innovation activity  that contributes  to more sustainable  forms of  local and 

regional  development?  The  inductive  analysis  process  used  the  Diverse  Economies  Framework 

(Gibson‐Graham 2006; Gibson‐Graham, Cameron & Healy 2013) as a  ‘thinking  tool’  that helped  to 

narrow this broad topic over the course of the candidature, and resulted in a clear focus on the three 

domains outlined above. Through the process some implications for local and regional development 

policies and programs, particularly around alternative organisation concepts (Parker & Lightfoot 2014; 

Pike et al. 2011), have also been identified and will be included in the final thesis. 

The research motivation and design are grounded in professional and personal experience (Corbin & 

Strauss 2008), and are premised on an  interest  in  ‘learning rather than  judging’,  in  ‘experimenting 

rather  than  confirming what  is  already  known  (Gibson‐Graham  2008; Gibson‐Graham &  Roelvink 

2009). The study design therefore focuses on shedding light on the ‘little narratives’ (Dey & Steyaert 

2010) that contribute to social innovation activity and reflects an intentionally generative focus (Law 

& Urry 2004; Babbie 2013). To this end, the final thesis aims to assist with positioning social innovation 

enabling  policy  generally,  and  social  procurement  strategies  specifically, more  effectively  within 

broader policy frameworks and thereby strengthen and legitimate these efforts.  

 

References (abstract) 

Babbie, E. (2013). The Practice of Social Research, 13th Ed. Belmont, USA: Wadsworth Cengage Learning 

Barraket, J., Keats, R. & Furneaux. C. (2016). Social procurement and New Public Governance. London: Routledge 

Corbin, J. & Strauss, A. (2008). Basics of Qualitative Research 3e. London: Sage Publications 

Defourney,  J. & Nyssens, M.  (2013).  Social  innovation,  social economy  and  social enterprise: What  can  the 

European debate tell us? In: Moulaert, F., MacCallum, D., Mehmood, A. & Hamdouch, A. (eds.) The international 

handbook on social innovation: Collective action, social learning and transdisciplinary research. Cheltenham, UK: 

Edward Elgar 

Dey,  P.  &  Steyaert,  C.  (2010).  The  politics  of  narrating  social  entrepreneurship.  Journal  of  Enterprising 

Communities, 4 (1), 85‐108 

Furneaux, C., & Barraket, J. (2014). Purchasing social good(s): A definition and typology of social procurement. 

Public Money & Management, 34 (4), 265‐272, DOI: 10.1080/09540962.2014.920199 

3 

 

Gibson‐Graham, J.K. (2006). A postcapitalist politics. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press 

Gibson‐Graham, J.K. (2008). Diverse economies: Performative practices for  'other worlds'. Progress in Human 

Geography, 32 (5), 613‐632 

Gibson‐Graham, J.K., Cameron, J. & Healy, S. (2013). Take back the economy: An ethical guide for transforming 

our communities. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press 

Gibson‐Graham, J.K. & Roelvink, G. (2009). An economic ethics for the Anthropocene. Antipode, 41 (1), 320‐346 

Howaldt, J., Butzin, A., Domanski, D. & Kaletka, C. (2014). Theoretical approaches to social innovation – A critical 

literature  review. A deliverable of  the project: “Social  innovation: Driving  force of social change  (SI‐DRIVE)”. 

Dortmund: Sozialforschungsstelle 

Klein, J‐L. (2013). Introduction: social innovation at the crossroads between science, economy and society. In: 

Moulaert, F., MacCallum, D., Mehmood, A. & Hamdouch, A. (eds.) The international handbook on social 

innovation: Collective action, social learning and transdisciplinary research. Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar 

Law, J. & Urry, J. (2004). Enacting the social. Economy and Society, 33 (3), 390–410 

Lightfoot,  G.  (2014).  Imagining  alternatives.  In:  Parker, M.,  Cheney,  G.,  Fournier,  V. &  Land,  C.  (eds.)  The 

Routledge Companion to alternative organization. London: Routledge 

Moulaert, F., MacCallum, D., Mehmood, A. & Hamdouch, A. (2013). General introduction: The return of social 

innovation  as  a  scientific  concept  and  a  social  practice.  In: Moulaert,  F., MacCallum,  D., Mehmood,  A. & 

Hamdouch, A.  (eds)  The  international  handbook  on  social  innovation:  Collective  action,  social  learning  and 

transdisciplinary research. Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar  

Moulaert,  F., MacCallum, D., & Hillier,  J.  (2013).  Social  innovation:  Intuition,  precept,  concept,  theory  and 

practice. In: Moulaert, F., MacCallum, D., Mehmood, A. & Hamdouch, A. (eds.) The international handbook on 

social innovation: Collective action, social learning and transdisciplinary research. Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar 

Mulgan, G. (2012). The theoretical foundations of social innovation. In: Nicholls, A. & Murdock, A. (eds.) Social 

Innovation: Blurring boundaries to reconfigure markets. Basingstoke, UK: Palgrave Macmillan 

Murray, R., Caulier‐Grice, J. & Mulgan, G. (2010, March). The open book of social innovation ‐ Social innovator 

series: Ways to design, develop and grow social innovation. London: NESTA & The Young Foundation 

Nicholls, A. & Murdock, A. (2012). The nature of social innovation. In: Nicholls, A. & Murdock, A. (eds.) Social 

Innovation:  Blurring boundaries to reconfigure markets. Basingstoke, UK: Palgrave Macmillan 

Pike, A., Rodriguez‐Pose, A. & Tomaney, J. (2007, December). What kind of local and regional development and 

for whom? Regional Studies, 41.9, 1253‐1269 

Puttick, R., Baeck, P. & Colligan, P . (no date). I‐teams: The teams and funds making innovation happen around the world. London: NESTA & Bloomberg Philanthropies

Tiesinga, H. & Berkhout, R. (2014, July). Labcraft: How innovation labs cultivate change through experimentation 

and collaboration. London: Labcraft Publishing 

 

 

Understanding institutional complexity in the Australian impact investment market: Mapping market-level activity and performance

Erin Castellas – Monash University School of Social Sciences

Jarrod Ormiston – University of Sydney Business School This paper examines the nature of institutional complexity in the emerging Australian impact investment ecosystem. Context Impact investment is an emerging field of investment activity with origins in three traditionally separate sectors. The field has roots in the social economy (focused on mutuality, civil society, and gift-giving), distributive government policies (focused on welfare through state spending), and mainstream notions of investment (focused on financial markets and asset management) (Nicholls, 2010). Leading practitioners and academics differentiate the field from both traditional investing and philanthropy by emphasising the explicit focus on creating measurable impact for society (social, economic, cultural, environmental) alongside the desire to achieve some level of financial return for investors (Addis et al., 2013; Höchstädter & Scheck, 2014; Nicholls, 2010; O'Donohoe et al., 2010). This paper seeks to understand how impact investment is shaped by its origins in these diverse sectors by examining how practitioners measure and track their social and financial returns. Research questions The following questions guide the research:

(i) How are diverse institutional origins shaping the institutional logics of impact investment?

(ii) How do practitioners cope with institutional complexity in impact investment? a. How do impact investors measure and track their social and financial returns? b. What do these measurement practices reveal about the way impact investors

are responding to institutional complexity? Theory This paper adopts theories of institutional complexity and hybridity to understand the institutional logics of impact investment. ‘Institutional complexity’ refers to situations where organisations face multiple institutional logics that are in conflict (Friedland & Alford, 1991; Greenwood et al., 2011), requiring them to play “two or more games at the same time” (Kraatz & Block, 2008, p. 2). Emerging fields such as impact investment are more likely to experience institutional complexity as various social actors compete to define the dominant logics, whereas more established fields generally experience greater stability in logics (Greenwood et al., 2011). Impact investment could be defined by the relative incoherence of the competing logics of mainstream investment, philanthropy, and government spending. These multiple logics guide action potentially conflicting ways as the logics of maximising private financial returns compete with the logics of achieving measurable improvements in social welfare and public benefit. Enfolding the notion of ‘hybridity’ can help explain the potential for some level of compatibility between logics (Pache & Santos, 2013). This paper seeks to explore whether impact investment could be described as having a hybrid logic of its own that combines the logics of mainstream investment, philanthropy, and government spending (Nicholls, 2010). Examining how impact investment practitioners are measuring their social and financial returns should shed light of the nature of institutional logics in this complex, hybrid field. Method This paper utilises a mixed methods approach (Creswell & Plano Clark, 2007) that combines semi-structured interviews with a survey of impact investment funds. Our sample is

comprised of all known impact investing funds, climate bonds and social impact bonds (n~20) in the Australian market as of early 2016. Semi-structured interviews are currently being conducted with approximately 20 leading practitioners within the Australian impact investment ecosystem. A follow-up survey is being conducted with these 20 identified impact investment funds and bonds to establish detailed aggregate market-level activity and performance data on how practitioners are measuring and tracking their social and financial returns. Findings Data collection for this paper is being carried out in April 2016. Preliminary findings from the interviews and survey will be presented at the conference. Contributions to theory and practice This paper enhances theoretical understandings of impact investment by illuminating the nature of institutional complexity within this emerging field. This research is relevant for practitioners as a quantitative survey of this scale and detail on aggregated market-level data impact investment has yet to be produced in Australia. References Addis, R., McLeod, J., & Raine, A. (2013). Impact - Australia: Investment for social and

economic benefit. Canberra, Australia, Department of Education, Employment and Workplace Relations/JBWere.

Creswell, J. W., & Plano Clark, V. L. (2007). Designing and conducting mixed methods research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Friedland, R., & Alford, R. R. (1991). Bringing society back in: Symbols, practices and institutional contradictions. In W. W. Powell & P. J. DiMaggio (Eds.), The new institutionalism in organizational analysis. Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press.

Greenwood, R., Raynard, M., Kodeih, F., Micelotta, E. R., & Lounsbury, M. (2011). Institutional complexity and organizational responses. The Academy of Management Annals, 5(1), 317-371.

Höchstädter, A., & Scheck, B. (2014). What’s in a name: An analysis of impact investing understandings by academics and practitioners. Journal of Business Ethics, 1-27.

Kraatz, M. S., & Block, E. S. (2008). Organizational implications of institutional pluralism. In R. Greenwood, C. Oliver, R. Suddaby, & K. Sahlin (Eds.), The sage handbook of organizational institutionalism (pp. 243-275). London, UK: Sage Publications.

Nicholls, A. (2010). The institutionalization of social investment: The interplay of investment logics and investor rationalities. Journal of Social Entrepreneurship, 1(1), 70-100.

O'Donohoe, N., Leijonhufvud, C., Saltuk, Y., Bugg-Levine, A., & Brandenburg, M. (2010). Impact investments: An emerging asset class. New York, NY, J.P. Morgan, The Rockefeller Foundation and the GIIN.

Pache, A.-C., & Santos, F. (2013). Inside the hybrid organization: Selective coupling as a response to competing institutional logics. Academy of Management Journal, 56(4), 972-1001.

1 | P a g e   

 

Award Ceremonies as Prized Tools for Institutional Work:  Field configuring processes of social enterprise   

This study explores the underlying field configuring processes at play as the field of social

enterprise works to establish itself. This process of field establishment is not simply a matter of

biding time. Organisation theorists posit that highly institutionalised fields typically have

important supportive features such as professional associations (Lounsbury & Crumley, 2007),

clearly defined categories (Garud, Hardy & Maguire, 2007), and standards of practice (Brunsson

& Jacobsson, 2000). However, little is known about how such features are established in

emerging fields. The lens of institutional work offers the idea of institutional entrepreneur, a

central actor in the processes of creating, maintaining and disrupting institutions (Lawrence &

Suddaby, 2006). This actor centric focus provides a valuable starting point to understand

processes of field establishment and configuration.

Another valuable tool recently recognised for its critical importance in field structuration is the

Field Configuring Event (FCE). FCEs such as conventions, award ceremonies, trade shows and

conferences, are often convened by institutional entrepreneurs (or intermediaries), and can have

significant effects such as: shaping categories, norms (Lampel & Meyer, 2008) as well as the

overall direction of a field’s evolution (Garud, 2008). Despite advances in these areas, little is

known about the field configuring processes that underlie award ceremonies, nor how they

produce the idea of best practice. Practically, we know that intermediary organisations, such as

Social Traders (host of the Australian Social Enterprise Awards) play an important role in

stimulating new ideas and enabling innovations in the field of social enterprise. In order to better

2 | P a g e   

understand the role of intermediaries and award ceremonies in field configuration this study

focuses on the Social Enterprise Awards (SEA) and how the idea of best practice is produced,

asking two research questions: i) What institutional work processes do award ceremonies entail?

ii) How do these award ceremonies produce the idea of best practice in the field of social

enterprise?

This study draws selectively from a body of data collected as part of a 2½ year ethnography

engaging the field of social enterprise (2014-2016). This immersive approach enabled getting

‘close’ to the data (Smith, 2005) and enriched the inductive analysis. Analysed data includes:

field notes and audio recordings of the 2015 SEA judges’ deliberations, judging criteria, field

notes and digital recordings collected while attending the 2014 and 2015 awards ceremony, SEA

media coverage, and SEA applications 2013-2015 as secondary data. Initial findings suggest that

award ceremonies entail field configuring processes of: collaboration, distillation, adjudication,

presentation, celebration and reification. To drill down into how the SEA produces ideas of best

practice this study focuses on the institutional work entailed in these processes. The findings of

this study will contribute to a better understanding of the emergence and establishment of the

social enterprise field, also to our understanding of the role award ceremonies play in the

institutional work of field configuration.

3 | P a g e   

Reference List

Brunsson, N, and Jacobsson, B, 2000. “A world of standards”, Oxford University Press Oxford.

Garud, R, 2008. "Conferences as venues for the configuration of emerging organizational fields: The case of cochlear implants", Journal of Management Studies, vol.45, no.6, pp. 1061-1088.

Garud, R, Hardy, C, and Maguire, S, 2007. "Institutional entrepreneurship as embedded agency: An introduction to the special issue", Organization Studies-Berlin-European Group for Organizational Studies, vol.28, no.7, p.957.

Hammersley, M, and Atkinson, P, 2007. “Ethnography: Principles in practice” Routledge.

Lampel, J, and Meyer, A, 2008. "Guest editors’ introduction", Journal of Management Studies vol.45, no.6, pp.1025-1035.

Lawrence, T, and Suddaby, R 2006. "Institutions and Institutional Work", in The SAGE Handbook of Organization Studies, pp. 215-254.

Lounsbury, M, and Crumley, E, 2007. "New practice creation: An institutional perspective on innovation", Organization studies, vol.28, no.7, pp.993-1012.

Smith, D, 2005. Institutional ethnography: A sociology for people. Rowman Altamira.

Submission for the Social Enterprise Research Colloquium Australasia (SERCA)  Swinburne University of Technology, Hawthorn Campus, on 8 June 2016 Developing Social Enterprise in an Innovation Ecosystem: Evidence, Opportunities and Challenges  

Digital Social Innovation in Australia Kelly Hutchinson, The University of Melbourne khutchinson@student.unimelb.edu.au 0403803543   

It is a time of challenge and change. Increasingly social innovation has gained popularity as a way forward to address ‘wicked problems’ in a more “effective, efficient sustainable and fair” way (Phills, Deiglmeier et al. 2008). Parallel is the increasing role of technology in addressing societies needs in health or education or in complex areas of preventing domestic violence. Digital solutions leverage data, networks and connectivity to improve policy and program outcomes. Understanding innovation and impact at the intersection of technology and social change is timely.  This emerging phenomena is known as digital social innovation (DSI) which sees “collaborative innovation between user communities via digital platforms to produce solutions at a scale that was unimaginable before the rise of Internet” (Bria, Almirall et al. 2014). A European Commission funded project by Nesta UK (Baeck and Bria 2014), crowdmapped DSI in Europe. The resultant typology of six areas and four criteria characterised DSI projects as community focused, digitally disruptive, generate a collaborative network effect and create a positive social impact. By applying the existing DSI criteria and typology to the Australian context this project builds on the EU study to extend our understanding of the role of DSI in contributing to social development.   Although DSI is an emergent field it can be contextualised in the current literature as a response to the Vienna Declaration on Social Innovation Research (Franz, Hochgerner et al. 2012). In particular, two priority topics of “value of social innovation” and assessing the “social impact of technology” [P.382]. Through building on current European DSI research this project aims to contribute both methodologically and empirically to the field in these globally agreed areas of research priority in social innovation ecosystem.  This Australian study has developed a literature‐based, DSI Impact Model, made up of indicators drawn out of the DSI‐EU typology and relevant literature. This model responds to research‐identified weaknesses in the current DSI‐EU typology, in particular, developing further indicators to broaden the measurement of social impact. The study constructs a novel conceptual framework for DSI impact to examine in more depth certain characteristics that may contribute to a deeper understanding of how technology contributes to social impact – namely public good; appropriate; open and viable.   This new DSI impact model was developed to examine stakeholders’ – developers, funders and user communities – perceptions of the role of digital social innovation in the communities they seek to help: in particular, what social impact is sought and how success is measured. The model will be applied to selected in‐depth qualitative case studies with a small number of select leaders in Australian DS to test the conceptual framework. This paper focuses on one case study, the social enterprise Infoxchange as a developer of DSI in Australia and their Ask Izzy app for homeless services. This is augmented by mapping Australia’s digital changemakers via an online database provides a baseline to examine the perception, activity and impact of digital social innovation in Australia @dsi4au.   Bria, F., et al. (2014). Digital Social Innovation. Interim report, NESTA.   Baeck, P. and F. Bria (2014). Digital social innovation. What it is and what we are doing. Nesta. London. Conklin, J. (2001). "Wicked problems and social complexity." Dialogue Mapping: Building Shared Understanding of Wicked Problems. Franz, H.‐W., et al., Eds. (2012). Challenge social innovation. Potentials for business, social entrepreneurship, welfare and civil society. Berlin ; New York, Springer.   Phills, J. A., et al. (2008). "Rediscovering social innovation." Stanford Social Innovation Review 6(4): 34‐43.