Social Enterprise Governance Theories
Various diverse theoretical frameworks have developed to clarify and analyse governance in social enterprise. Each of these frameworks approaches social enterprise governance in a marginally unique manner, utilizing distinctive terminology and perspectives of social business governance. The most discussed theories under social enterprise are stakeholders’ theory (Cooney,
2012; Mason, Kirkbride, & Bryde,
2007; Gonin, Besharov, Smith, & Gachet,
2013), stewardship theory (Mason, Kirkbride, & Bryde,
2007; Low,
2006), institution theory (Tracey,
2011; Gonin et al., 2007), organizational identity (Moss,
2011; Parkinson,
2003; Mair & Marti,
2006), paradox theory (Smith, Besharov, Wessels, & Chertok,
2012; Gonin et al.,
2013), behavioural theory of social entrepreneurship (Ebrashi,
2010; Ebrashi,
2013), social enterprise governance theory (Mason et al.,
2007), and positive theory of social entrepreneurship (Santos,
2012).
‘Any identifiable group or individual who can affect the achievement of an organization’s objectives, or who is affected by the achievement of an organization’s objectives’ are called stakeholders (Freeman & Reed,
1983). Stakeholders for social enterprises are the people who firmly connected with the community they plan to serve. The sole objective of social enterprise is to convey social benefit and maintain a sustainable business. For achieving this goal, social enterprise must be ethical.
The stakeholder theory clarifies how organizations can organize and oversee relations with distinguished stakeholders. Stakeholder theory provides ethical justification for the management of stakeholders. Stakeholders might affect or affected by an organization. Social enterprise governance processes should prioritize their interests (Mason et al.,
2007). Also, this theory explains how external stakeholders create pressures on organizations to take care of both social and financial results. There are three approaches to understand the stakeholders’ theory: descriptive, instrumental and normative (Donaldson & Preston,
1995).
The descriptive approach of stakeholder theory explains the actual behaviour of managers and stakeholders and their roles and activities. This approach indicates the broad range of organizations that already implant numerous stakeholder needs in their strategic decision making (Rowley & Moldoveanu,
2003). Instrumental studies stress the economic effect of tending to ethical and moral concerns. It looks at how a stakeholder accession influences a company's financial execution (Gonin et al.,
2013). This approach also suggests that stakeholders approach should not degrade the company’s financial performance (Mitchell, Agle, & Wood,
1997). The instrumental approach set the ‘fundamental basis’ for the normative approach (Donaldson & Preston,
1995). Issues related to fairness (Driver,
2012), legitimacy (Miller,
2012; Driver,
2012) and reciprocity (Phillips & Freeman,
2008) are the criteria included in normative approach.
The stakeholders’ theory has been criticized by the proponents of other theories by arguing that the centre of this theory was on the ceding of resources and benefits to stakeholders, rather than solely to shareholders. Criticisms are proclaimed on legal, economic and moral grounds (Key,
1999; Gibson,
2000). A noteworthy condemnation of this approach is that the management should be more focus on the most proficient method to organize between the groups of stakeholders (Mason et al.,
2007).
Stewardship theory was an alternative theoretical approach, which has been supported as a suitable premise of social enterprise governance (Low,
2006). Stewardship theory presents a perspective of governance that occupies from the economic elucidation of affairs inside the organization. The basic assumption made under this theory is that the managers are reliable and they are “pro-organization” (Davis, Schoorman, & Donaldson,
1997). This theory views managers and directors as stewards and their interests are aligned with organizations goal. Stewardship theory lines up with the ethos of social enterprise and the mental and social profile of its managers (Mason et al.,
2007). This is maybe because the managers are also individuals from the characterized network that the enterprise serves. The management also need to line up their decisions with the required needs of the community, as it is the core philosophy of social enterprise.
Furthermore, the followers of this theory believed that in the long term, social enterprises narrow down their business focus (Dart,
2004). As a result, at board level, managers have a broader set of skills (Mason et al.,
2007). The board can use these skill sets and can maximize the value of social business to its defined communities. To summarize, board members should be sufficiently free and able to deliver increased productivity.
Stewardship theory, as contrary to stakeholders’ theory, explains the role of non-economic factors like trust and faith, in facilitating optimum social benefit (Borzaga & Solari,
2001; Low,
2006). Managers are enthusiastic about organizations’ goal and they are always not motivated by self-interest (Mason et al.,
2007). In context to the social enterprise, this concept is centred on delivering optimum social benefit. This concept links stewardship theory to institutional theory.
Institution theory centres on the connection between the organization and its surroundings. This perspective investigates factors related to the development and survival of institutions and the procedures by which they come to be viewed as genuine (Battilana & Dorado,
2010; Dacin et al.,
2011). Institutional entrepreneurship viewpoint is a promising method to comprehend the job of social business in evolving standards, new standards, organizations and structures (Mair & Marti,
2006).
Agarwal and Hockerts advocate the institutional theory as an apparatus for professionals to ponder the authenticity, survivability and versatility of social enterprises. Institutional theory structures can eliminate the dangers related to social enterprise (Agrawal & Hockerts,
2013). Institutional theory in social business research can give helpful experiences into the procedure of authoritative arrangement, vision and mission, personality and culture, procedures and memory. Also, institutional theory extensively ponders the elements between the people of the associations and the institutions (government, showcase, culture, religion). The institutional condition bolsters the qualities that social enterprises are established upon, and it impacts the procedures required to keep up the power of these qualities (Mason, Kirkbride, & Bryde,
2007).
Another theory is organization identity theory, which guide, situate and bring together individuals from an organization to take part in aggregate activity. It refers to the perception of organization members about an organization, its work and their existence, which distinguish this organization from others. Organization identity also explains the going tension within social enterprises (Foreman & Whetten,
2002). The tension could be arising because of normative and utilitarian identities of social businesses create uncertainties and ambiguities (Corley & Gioia,
2004). The tension in the organization could lead to the controversies and conflict between the groups within the organization (Glynn,
2000). Identity prospective research also tells how social organizations communicate with their target audience (Navis & Glynn,
2011).
Paradox theory also explains the tension exists within social enterprise caused by multiple factors, for example, those between social missions and business ventures and inborn inside organization (Smith, Besharov, Wessels, & Chertok,
2012; Gonin, Besharov, Smith, & Gachet,
2013). In a social paradox, contradictory concepts exist simultaneously and endure after some time (Smith & Lewis,
2011). According to Smith and Lewis (
2011), ‘A dilemma may prove paradoxical, for instance, when a longer time horizon shows how any choice between A and B is temporary. Over time the contradictions resurface, suggesting their interrelatedness and persistence’.
In the short run, organization leaders can resolve these issues by exploring the new opportunities and reallocate the existing certain resources in the most effective ways. In addition to this, using existing certainty relies upon having investigated new potential outcomes and vice versa (Smith & Tushman,
2005). This concept helps to engage and accept complexities and contradictions and offers an ‘invitation to act’ (Beech, Caestecker, & MacLean,
2004).
These theories are more focused on the internal functioning in a social enterprise and the tension arises in the organization because of various factors. These theories do not explain the motive behind starting a social enterprise, its elements, structure and performance measures. To explain these concepts, behaviour theory of social entrepreneurship introduces the new approach.
The behavioural theory of social entrepreneurship examines the relevant variables that lead to social endeavour creation, the basic association elements and structures, and how these typologies measure the social effect, activate assets, and realize supportable social change (Ebrashi,
2013). The motive to become social entrepreneurship is individuals’ intentions, which are followed by triggering events and leads to opportunity identification. Individuals’ intentions are the results of attitude, subjective norms and perceived behavioural control (Ajzen,
1991). These intentions lead to triggering events, which are triggered by knowledge of status quo, community influence, entrepreneurship, social problems, political problems, personal factors, situational factors, etc. (Ebrashi,
2013). These triggering occasions direct the connection between intentions and behaviours and build the consistency of intentions to frame behaviour. The performance of a social business is measured by the sustainable changes made by social enterprises at the community level. Also, social enterprises focus on financial sustainability and efficiency.
Various researchers have worked on intentions behind becoming social entrepreneurs in recent years. A study on Malaysian students’ revealed that the students with higher education are more intended towards social entrepreneurship, instead of the traditional entrepreneurship (Rahman, Othman, Pihie, & Wahid,
2016). Another similar kind of study on Indian students’ intention to become a social entrepreneur was conducted with the variables emotional intelligence, creativity and moral obligation; attitude towards becoming a social entrepreneur; subjective norms; and perceived behavioural control. The result proposed emotional intelligence and creativity as new antecedents that also explain social entrepreneurial intention formation (Tiwari, Bhat, & Tikoria,
2017). Zakaria and Bahrein in their study proposed a conceptual framework for social entrepreneurship intention and found proactive personality, social entrepreneurial interest, social entrepreneurial attitude and social entrepreneurial education are important factors in determining individuals’ intention to become a social entrepreneur (Zakaria & Bahrein,
2018).
The role of empathy as an important antecedent of social entrepreneurial intention was discussed in a study on university students. It was found that empathy explains social entrepreneurial intentions through two complementary mechanisms: self-efficacy and social worth (Bacq & Alt,
2018). Local traditions and community roots also work as a trigger to start a social business. Indigenous traditions work as a foremost factor in social entrepreneurship (Widjojo & Gunawan,
2019). Skills and knowledge that come from within the local community, supported by the active participation of local people, help to reach multiple goals. Another study discussed the role of courage, confidence, hope, optimism and resilience on entrepreneurship and collectively referred them as psychological capital (Bockorny & Youssef-Morgan,
2019; Mearns & Yule,
2009). They explored the relationship between entrepreneurs’ courage, psychological capital and life satisfaction and found entrepreneurs’ courage is related to their life satisfaction; also, the psychological capital moderates the relationship.
A study by Liu, Ip and Liang explored the intentions of former and current journalists to establish social enterprises, using questionnaires focused on personality traits, creativity, and social capital. Results reveal that creativity has a significant influence on the social entrepreneurial intentions of journalists, as does having higher bridging type social capital (Liu, Ip, & Liang,
2018).
A positive theory of social entrepreneurship (Santos,
2012) presents a different view of social business research. In this theory, he explained that social businesses provide sustainable solutions for neglected problems with positive superficiality. He also discussed the external problems, which could be the central goal or logic for social entrepreneurs instead of the commercial entrepreneurs.
The difference between the social business and commercial business is that the first one looks for opportunities for value creation without regard for the potential for value capture. The social business refers to the positive superficiality whose benefit goes to a localized and weak section of the society (poor, long-term unemployed, disabled, discriminated, socially excluded, etc.), which is often neglected by the government (Seelos & Mair,
2005; Certo & Miller,
2008). But logically, benefits of social business are not only concentrated to marginal population. Social businesses could be helpful for the dominant population if it includes tending to issues with positive superficiality with an overwhelming objective of significant value creation (Kline, Shah, & Rubright,
2014; Santos,
2012).
The first objective of a social entrepreneur is to provide a sustainable solution to an existing problem. The second objective is to empower others, both internal and external peoples (Santos,
2012). Now the key question arises, in which areas social businesses succeed? The answer is those areas where there is a possibility to value creation is more than the value capture. In case these businesses are not performing well, it should be taken care by the government, because the problems they are solving come under government central roles (Kline et al.,
2014; Santos,
2012).
Motivational factors
Various researchers have endeavoured to plunge further into the attributes of the social entrepreneur. Entrepreneurs enhance social wealth. They create new markets, technologies, industries, jobs and escalate productivity. So we can say that entrepreneurship leads to social welfare (Pirson,
2012). There is no much difference between a conventional and social entrepreneur in terms of talents and attributes (Smith, Bell, & Watts,
2014); however, the
catalyst differs for both. The major motivator in conventional entrepreneurship is money, while in the case of social entrepreneurship, the main motivator is ‘humanity’ or philanthropy (Boluk & Mottiar,
2014; Martin & Osberg,
2007). For commercial entrepreneur value creation is the prime motivator, while for social entrepreneur create value for the society is the prime motivator (Mair & Noboa,
2003; Santos,
2012). Social entrepreneurs create the value without concern for profits and this is because of their motivation to do something for mankind (Ghalwash, Tolba, & Ismail, 2017).
The results of various prior studies show that current social difficulties, individual encounters, individual inspiration and social networks are the main motivator for social entrepreneurs (Ghalwash et al.,
2017). Also, the previous experience in the field of social business, present social challenges and desire were observed to be the key motivational drivers for social business (Ghalwash et al.,
2017). Sometimes, the community support in terms of resources, recognition, information and networks also motivates an individual to go for social business (Ghalwash et al.,
2017; Sharir & Lerner,
2006). Some personal life experiences also motivate individuals to start social enterprises. One such experience is rural background, which instructs individuals to ‘wealth sharing’ and the creation of valuable goods for the entire community (Ebrashi,
2013; Hunt & Levie,
2003). Another motivation factor is community roots, which persuades people to respect one’s very own community and the production of useful goods for the entire network (Gaglio,
2004; Ebrashi,
2013). Individuals, those who know their traditions and beliefs, and capable of knowing the drawback of their society, seeks these drawbacks as a business opportunity (Zahra et al.,
2009). Moreover, another inspiration factor for the social entrepreneurs is the belief in divine power, which is encouraging social entrepreneurs to enhance his or her community (MacDonald & Howorth,
2018; Omorede,
2014; Thompson,
2008).
Apart from these, environmental, demographic, personal and psychological factors also motivate individuals to become social entrepreneurs. Environmental factors include role models who were community leaders and contribute with money and efforts in the cooperative (Bygrave,
1997; Ebrashi,
2013). Demographic factors include the roots of social entrepreneurs that we already discussed previously (Gaglio,
2004; Ebrashi,
2013). This affiliation of a social entrepreneur with society influences them to give something good to his society. The personal and psychological variables incorporated a solid need for achievement, and a dream of allowing individuals to choose and take an interest in the inception of social business (Ebrashi,
2013). Another motivator is an internal locus of control, which influences individuals to start a new social enterprise (Ebrashi,
2013; Boateng,
2018).
Entrepreneurs’ prosocial motivation was an important factor discussed a lot in recent years. Entrepreneurs with prosocial motives create value in the community by establishing social ventures, which helps peoples who face challenging circumstances (Moroz, Branzei, Parker, & Gamble,
2018). Their main mission is to help people and by doing so, these entrepreneurs can feel good about themselves and thus improve their own well-being (Farny, Kibler, Solange, & Landoni,
2018). Some studies presented a contradictory view. They stated that prosocial motivation negatively affects the entrepreneur’s life satisfaction via increased levels of stress (Kibler, Wincent, Kautonen, Cacciotti, & Obschonka,
2019).
All the above literature shows that social entrepreneurship is treated as a youthful field of study and needs thorough observational appraisals to develop, which proposes a plenitude of research openings (Hoogendoorn, Pennings, & Thurik,
2010; Hand & Lewis,
2016). Most of the studies are qualitative and gives an extraordinary explanation of the social business. Nevertheless, existing literature has touched very little on social entrepreneurs’ traits and motivations (Omorede,
2014; Germak & Robinson,
2014) compared to commercial entrepreneurs (Germak & Robinson,
2014). In general, a lot of work has been done on social entrepreneurship and theories behind it. The work on social entrepreneurship is on the rise; however, little attention was given to the traits and motivational factors for social entrepreneurs. To fill this gap, this study explores the traits and motivations of social entrepreneurs. This paper intends to recognize features and common patterns of social business visionaries across various social endeavours.