Search results

Purpose
– This paper aims to develop and validate measures of four constructs that have often been identified as antecedents of social entrepreneurial behavior: empathy with marginalized people, a feeling of moral obligation to help these, a high level of self-efficacy concerning the ability to effect social change and perceived availability of social support. Nomological validity is demonstrated by showing that, as specified by Mair and Noboa (2006), empathy and moral obligation are positively associated with perceived desirability and self-efficacy and social support with perceived feasibility of starting a social venture. The Social Entrepreneurial Antecedents Scale (SEAS) provides a basis for future research into the effectiveness of social entrepreneurship education, allowing us to study how different educational interventions impact the four SEAS constructs.


Design/methodology/approach
– The paper draws on data from two surveys of business school students. Data analysis used both exploratory factor analysis and confirmatory factor analysis for this study. Exploratory factor analysis was used on a first sample to establish the number of factors best representing the data, as well as to identify possibly issues with cross-loadings. Next confirmatory factor analysis was used on the second sample to verify the goodness of fit for the model. Finally, nomological validity was confirmed.


Findings
– First, this article develops and refines measures of empathy, moral obligation, self-efficacy and perceived social support within the context of social entrepreneurship. Second, the article tests the dimensionality of the constructs and shows that they are distinctive.


Originality/value
– The resulting SEAS instrument adapts constructs such as empathy, moral obligation, self-efficacy and perceived social support to the context of social entrepreneurship and thus provides the basis for future research into the effectiveness of social entrepreneurship education.

Our purpose is to develop a comprehensive categorization of organizational sustainability frames. This is necessary because a unified approach that considers the organizational sustainability frames of different organizations (FPOs, NPOs and hybrids) is absent in the extant research. Towards this end, we undertake an integrative review of 158 articles and identify seven frames based on three objective functions: maximization of economic capital, maintaining natural capital and creating social impact. Of the seven, three are dogmatic, each accepting only one objective function as legitimate: economic, natural and social capital; three are instrumental, with one objective function as the ultimate goal and the others as necessary means; and the last one is paradoxical, where tensions between objective functions are accommodated simultaneously rather than eliminated. We contribute to the literature by introducing the 'dogmatic frame' category to the ongoing conversation on organizational sustainability frames. Wealso contribute by demonstrating that instrumental frames exist not only at for-profit organizations but also at non-profits and hybrid organizations. Consequently, we link the conversation in these areas with that of organizational sustainability frames. Finally, we problematize the growing attention on the paradoxical frame by discussing its suitability in different contexts and situations. ; Peer reviewed

PurposeSocial entrepreneurship has become a growing field of research interest. Yet, past research has been held back by the lack of a rigorous measurement instrument. Rather than defining social entrepreneurship as an organizational form that a venture does or does not have, this paper agrees with Dees and Anderson (2006) that the construct is better thought of as a set of practices, processes and behaviors that organizations can engage in to a higher or a lesser degree. In other words, the construct is a set of behaviors that any organization can engage in. The purpose of the paper is to develop scale items to measure the construct of organizational social entrepreneurship (OSE).Design/methodology/approachDrawing on previous literature, this paper first develops and then validates scales for measuring OSE as a third-order formative construct. As its second order, the scale includes three components that capture the heterogeneity of the OSE concept: social change intention, commercial activity and inclusive governance.FindingsThe OSE scale is developed and tested through a sample of 182 nascent social enterprises from 55 different countries in the world and then revalidated using a second sample of 263 mature social enterprises from 6 European countries. Results suggest that the scale items exhibit internal consistency, reliability, construct validity and nomological validity.Research limitations/implicationsThe scale presented here offers an important new venue for social entrepreneurship theorizing. First, it allows scholars to take a broad approach toward a diverse field and to study OSE behavior in any empirical field in which it may occur. Second, the scales also allow for more focused theorizing. Scholars are encouraged to delve into the antecedents of all three components presented here and to study the different performance effects they have in terms of likelihood to survive, growth rate or potential to achieve financial sustainability.Originality/valueThe paper develops a multidimensional construct for OSE. In particular, the authors propose scale items for three central components of social entrepreneurship, namely, social change intentions, commercial activities and inclusive governance. The scales thus measure the three formative dimensions identified by Dees and Anderson (2006) and Defourny and Nyssens (2010).

PurposeThis paper aims to juxtapose two separate perspectives on corporate social responsibility (CSR) in terms of their ability to explain the cognitive alignment between managers and stakeholders on what constitutes the social responsibility of the focal firm, and to explain social performance.Design/methodology/approachThe authors take two perspectives: that of stakeholder engagement, which has historically characterized the debate on CSR; and that of internal change processes required to integrate CSR in a firm's operations. The authors analyze data from 427 interviews, of which 209 were with managers and 219 with stakeholders of 19 multinational firms in eight sectors, to assess the extent of cognitive alignment between managers and stakeholders on the conceptualization of CSR for the relevant firm, to determine which of the two theoretical perspectives is connected with the degree of cognitive alignment, and to determine which of the two is connected with the perception of corporate social performance (CSP).FindingsThe data examined show no evidence that the degree of sophistication in stakeholder engagement practices is connected with either the magnitude of cognitive gaps, or the level of CSP; whereas the degree of integration in internal operations is connected with both narrower cognitive gaps and higher CSP.Originality/valueThis paper tackles for the first time the problem of measuring and explaining the gaps between managers and stakeholders about their cognitive representations of CSR. The key result of the analysis is that the standard conceptualization of CSR as a stakeholder engagement process does not suffice neither to explain the variation across firms in their managers' cognitive alignment with stakeholders, nor to explain inter‐firm variation in social performance. The strongest explanation for both alignment and performance comes from the extent to which the firm has actually invested in internal change processes aimed at integrating the principles of CSR in the operations and strategies of the firm.