Helen Haugh and Andrew Brady
This chapter identifies the common ground shared by social and community entrepreneurship and distils four distinctive characteristics of community entrepreneurship in terms of people, place, participation and governance. Community perspectives on social enterprise mission and business models are considered and a theory-rich community entrepreneurship research agenda is developed for social networks, social capital, innovation, and impact and sustainability.
Helen M. Haugh and Maggie O’Carroll
The chapter situates empowerment in the context of social innovation and societal change. The authors review the key empowerment and social innovation literature to identify their principal constructs and develop a novel framework to categorize empowerment research. The framework applies four empowerment constructs (being denied the ability to make choices, agency, access to resources and achievements) to personal, economic, social and political empowerment domains. The framework is illustrated with four case studies of socially innovative empowerment initiatives. Although generally perceived to be a gendered concept and analysed predominantly from a female perspective, the framework is applicable to inequalities faced by women and men in developed and developing countries. The authors outline some cautionary tales for empowerment researchers and conclude with suggestions for future empowerment and social innovation research.
Bob Doherty, Helen Haugh and Fergus Lyon
The pursuit of commercial, social and environmental goals makes social enterprise hybrids an ideal setting in which to investigate organisational hybridity. Social enterprise hybrids bridge the public, private and non-profit sectors and are found in a range of industries and locations. They differ from other forms of enterprise as they prioritise the achievement of social and environmental objectives above commercial goals, and they differ from other forms of non-profits as they generate income from trading activity (Doherty et al., 2014; Pache and Santos, 2013; Zahra et al., 2009). Research concerning how social enterprise hybrids are managed, however, is still in its infancy. This chapter explores the strategic management tensions encountered when seeking to balance commercial, social and environmental objectives, and presents a conceptual framework to advance our understanding of the management of social enterprise strategic management tensions. We define strategic management as the fundamental decisions that shape the course of a firm (Eisenhardt and Zbaracki, 1992), and it is of particular interest to leaders of social enterprise hybrids when seeking to scale up impact or scale out delivery (Lyon and Fernandez, 2012; Vickers and Lyon, 2013). There has been a growing societal interest in the scaling of social enterprise hybrids as people search for alternatives to the conventional divisions between public, private and charitable organisations in order to find ways to increase well-being, prosperity and sustainable development (Mair and Mart', 2006; Ridley-Duff and Bull, 2011). A fundamental element of social enterprise strategic management is the ability to respond to the conflicting demands to achieve commercial, social and environmental objectives.
Benjamin Huybrechts, Julie Rijpens, Aurélie Soetens and Helen Haugh
Hybrid organisations are ‘organizations that combine institutional logics in unprecedented ways’ (Battilana and Dorado, 2010, p. 1419; Scott, 2001); they thus bring together logics from different, and often conflicting, fields into a singular organisational form. Social enterprises, for example, are typical hybrids that combine economic, social and environmental goals (Battilana and Lee, 2014; Billis, 2010; Doherty et al., 2014) and have been found to operate successfully in diverse sectors such as microfinance (Battilana and Dorado, 2010), fair trade (Huybrechts, 2012) and work integration (Pache and Santos, 2013). Although exploiting business methods to address social or environmental problems might suggest an organisational model that combines the best of both worlds, categorical confusion has been found to limit an organisation’s access to resources and negatively impact upon long-term survival (Tracey et al., 2011). Hybridity in organisations is not a new phenomenon (Billis, 2010), but interest in innovative organisational models that facilitate the achievement of double, or triple, bottom lines has recently flourished in response to global sustainability challenges (Hoffman et al., 2012). Hybrid organisations, however, face legitimacy challenges in that they are: (1) difficult to categorise within established organisational taxonomies (Aldrich and Fiol, 1994; Suchman, 1995); and (2) held to account to multiple institutional demands by audiences that use different and possibly contradictory legitimation criteria (Kraatz and Block, 2008). In turn the credibility of their claims of commitment to different sets of standards may be deemed to be unconvincing. Securing the conferment of legitimacy from stakeholders is therefore an important challenge facing hybrid organisations. Previous research, however, has not investigated the activities required to build legitimacy when an organisational form bridges two or more institutional categories.