nach oben

Journal of Business Ethics

Erschienen in:

05.11.2018 | Original Paper

Data Envelopment Analysis and Social Enterprises: Analysing Performance, Strategic Orientation and Mission Drift

verfasst von: Matthias Staessens, Pieter Jan Kerstens, Johan Bruneel, Laurens Cherchye

Erschienen in: Journal of Business Ethics | Ausgabe 2/2019

Einloggen

Aktivieren Sie unsere intelligente Suche, um passende Fachinhalte oder Patente zu finden.

search-config

KI-gestützte Suche

Aus

Abstract

This study endorses the use of data envelopment analysis, which uses benefit-of-the-doubt weighting to evaluate the social, economic and overall performance of social enterprises. This methodology is especially useful for creating composite indicators based on multiple outputs expressed in different measurement units, and allows for enterprise-specific weighting of the different objectives. Applying this methodology on a unique longitudinal dataset of Flemish sheltered workshops suggests that social enterprises may face different types of mission drift. Further, our results show that top-performing social enterprises are more economically and socially efficient than low performers. These top performers also have a stronger economic orientation, which sheds new light on the balance between social and economic orientations in social enterprises.

Vorheriger Artikel Social Enterprises, Venture Philanthropy and the Alleviation of Income Inequality

Nächster Artikel Unpacking Variation in Hybrid Organizational Forms: Changing Models of Social Enterprise Among Nonprofits, 2000–2013

Sie haben noch keine Lizenz? Dann Informieren Sie sich jetzt über unsere Produkte:

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

über 102.000 Bücher
über 537 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

Automobil + Motoren
Bauwesen + Immobilien
Business IT + Informatik
Elektrotechnik + Elektronik
Energie + Nachhaltigkeit
Finance + Banking
Management + Führung
Marketing + Vertrieb
Maschinenbau + Werkstoffe
Versicherung + Risiko

Jetzt Wissensvorsprung sichern!

Jetzt informieren

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Wirtschaft" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

über 67.000 Bücher
über 340 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

Bauwesen + Immobilien
Business IT + Informatik
Finance + Banking
Management + Führung
Marketing + Vertrieb
Versicherung + Risiko

Jetzt Wissensvorsprung sichern!

Jetzt informieren

Nur mit Berechtigung zugänglich

To obtain balanced panel data, we limited our study to 2004 and, where possible, missing data were collected by contacting the firms or examining online annual accounts (available at: https://www.nbb.be/nl). It proved impossible to fill in the missing values for one particular firm. As a consequence, eight observations (for the same firm) were lost. Excluding this firm from our analysis did not influence the efficiency scores, so we decided to keep it in the dataset. In summary, we had 542 observations of 55 firms over a period of 10 years, with eight missing values for one organisation.

In order to get good discriminatory power out of DEA models, several scholars have established rules of thumb for the number of inputs and outputs to select and their relation to the number of decision-making units (DMU) (Sarkis 2007). The most strict rule is a total number of DMU of twice the product of the number of input and output variables. Our model with two inputs, two outputs and 55 DMU satisfies this rule. Imbalances in the magnitude of inputs and outputs may also cause issues in DEA models. One of the best ways to avoid such issues is to have inputs and outputs of the same or similar magnitude (Sarkis 2007). Therefore, we mean-normalised all variables, as commonly applied in the DEA literature (see Cherchye et al. 2007a).

This approach is followed by papers in top journals to sort firms into quartiles by their aggregate performance and compare the top, mid and bottom quartiles (e.g. La Porta et al. 1997; Gelb and Strawser 2001). For instance, this approach has also been used by La Porta et al. (1997) to compare 49 countries, and by Harrison and Rouse (2016) to compare DEA efficiency scores.

According to the Kolmogorov-Smirnov test, differences in the distribution of top, mid and bottom quartiles were significant at a p value < 0.01.

We thank an anonymous reviewer for pointing this out to us.

We thank an anonymous reviewer for pushing our thinking on this point.

We thank an anonymous reviewer for pointing this out to us.

We thank an anonymous reviewer for raising this point.

André, K., & Pache, A. C. (2016). From caring entrepreneur to caring enterprise: Addressing the ethical challenges of scaling up social enterprises. Journal of Business Ethics, 133(4), 659–675.CrossRef

Bacq, S., Hartog, C., & Hoogendoorn, B. (2014). Beyond the moral portrayal of social entrepreneurs: An empirical approach to who they are and what drives them. Journal of Business Ethics, 133(4), 703–718.CrossRef

Banker, R. D., Charnes, A., & Cooper, W. W. (1984). Some models for estimating technical and scale inefficiencies in data envelopment analysis. Management Science, 30, 1078–1092.CrossRef

Banker, R. D., & Natarajan, R. (2008). Evaluating contextual variables affecting productivity using data envelopment analysis. Operations Research, 56(1), 48–58.CrossRef

Basharat, B., Hudon, M., & Nawaz, A. (2015). Does efficiency lead to lower prices? A new perspective from microfinance interest rates. Strategic Change, 24(1), 49–66.CrossRef

Battilana, J., & Lee, M. (2014). Advancing research on hybrid organizing: Insights from the study of social enterprises. The Academy of Management Annals, 8(1), 397–441.CrossRef

Battilana, J., Lee, M., Walker, J., & Dorsey, C. (2012). In search of the hybrid ideal. Stanford Social Innovation Review, 10(3), 51–55.

Battilana, J., Sengul, M., Pache, A. C., & Model, J. (2015). Harnessing productive tensions in hybrid organizations: The case of work integration social enterprises. Academy of Management Journal, 58(6), 1658–1685.CrossRef

Bellucci, M., Bagnoli, L., Biggeri, M., & Rinaldi, V. (2012). Performance measurement in solidarity economy organization: The case of Fair Trade shops in Italy. Annals of Public & Cooperative Economics, 83(1), 25–59.CrossRef

Belu, C. (2009). Ranking corporations based on sustainable and socially responsible practices: A data envelopment analysis (DEA) approach. Sustainable Development, 17(4), 257–268.CrossRef

Bergström, F. (2000). Capital subsidies and the performance of firms. Small Business Economics, 14(3), 83–93.CrossRef

Bharty, N., & Chitnis, A. (2015). Size and efficiency of MFIs: A data envelopment analysis of Indian MFIs. Enterprise Development & Microfinance, 27(4), 255–272.CrossRef

Boschee, J. (1995). Social entrepreneurship. Across the Board, 32(3), 20–25.

Bruneel, J., Moray, N., Stevens, R., & Fassin, Y. (2016). Balancing competing logics in for-profit social enterprises: A need for hybrid governance. Journal of Social Entrepreneurship, 676(April), 1–26.

Bull, M. (2007). “Balance”: The development of a social enterprise business performance analysis tool. Social Enterprise Journal, 3(1), 49–66.CrossRef

Certo, S. T., & Miller, T. (2008). Social entrepreneurship: Key issues and concepts. Business Horizons, 51(4), 267–271.CrossRef

Charnes, A., Cooper, W. W., & Rhodes, E. L. (1978). Measuring the efficiency of decision making units. European Journal of Operational Research, 2, 429–444.CrossRef

Chen, C., & Delmas, M. (2011). Measuring corporate social performance: An efficiency perspective. Production and Operations Management, 20(6), 789–804.CrossRef

Chen, C., Delmas, M. A., & Lieberman, M. B. (2015). Production frontier methodologies and efficiency as a performance measure in strategic management research. Strategic Management Journal, 36, 315–334.

Cherchye, L. (2001). Using data envelopment analysis to assess macroeconomic policy performance. Applied Economics, 33(3), 407–416.CrossRef

Cherchye, L., De Rock, B., Dierynck, B., Roodhooft, F., & Sabbe, J. (2013). Opening the “black box” of efficiency measurement: Input allocation in multioutput settings. Operations Research, 61(5), 1148–1165.CrossRef

Cherchye, L., De Rock, B., & Hennebel, V. (2014). The economic meaning of data envelopment analysis: A behavioral perspective. Socio-Economic Planning Sciences, 48(1), 29–37.CrossRef

Cherchye, L., & Kuosmanen, T. (2006). Benchmarking sustainable development: A synthetic meta-index approach. In M. McGillivray & M. Clarke (Eds.), Perspectives on human development (Ch. 7). Tokyo: United Nations University Press.

Cherchye, L., Lovell, C. A. K., Moesen, W., & Van Puyenbroeck, T. (2007a). One market, one number? A composite indicator assessment of EU internal market dynamics. European Economic Review, 51, 749–779.CrossRef

Cherchye, L., Moesen, W., Rogge, N., & Van Puyenbroeck, T. (2007b). An introduction to “benefit of the doubt” composite indicators. Social Indicators Research, 82(1), 111–145.CrossRef

Copestake, J. (2007). Mainstreaming microfinance: Social performance management or mission drift? World Development, 35(10), 1721–1738.CrossRef

Crucke, S., & Decramer, A. (2016). The development of a measurement instrument for the organizational performance of social enterprises. Sustainability, 8(2), 161.CrossRef

Crucke, S., & Knockaert, M. (2016). When stakeholder representation leads to faultlines: A study of board service performance in social enterprises. Journal of Management Studies, 53(5), 768–793.CrossRef

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

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, 37–58.

De Clercq, D., & Voronov, M. (2011). Sustainability in entrepreneurship: A tale of two logics. International Small Business Journal, 29(4), 322–344.CrossRef

Dees, J. G. (1998). The meaning of social entrepreneurship. Innovation, 2006(11-4-06), 1–6.

Defourny, J., & Nyssens, M. (2008). Social enterprise in Europe: Recent trends and developments. Social Enterprise Journal, 4(3), 202–228.CrossRef

Doherty, B., Haugh, H., & Lyon, F. (2014). Social enterprises as hybrid organizations: A review and research agenda. International Journal of Management Reviews, 16(4), 417–436.CrossRef

Ebrahim, A., Battilana, J., & Mair, J. (2014). The governance of social enterprises: Mission drift and accountability challenges in hybrid organizations. Research in Organizational Behavior, 34, 81–100.CrossRef

Ebrahim, A., & Rangan, V. K. (2010). Putting the brakes on impact: A contingency framework for measuring social performance. Academy of Management Proceedings, Meeting Abstract Supplement, 1–6.

Ebrahim, A., & Rangan, V. K. (2014). What impact? A framework for measuring the scale and scope of social performance. California Management Review, 56(3), 118–141.CrossRef

Eikenberry, A. M., & Kluver, J. D. (2004). The marketization of the nonprofit sector: Civil society at risk? Public Administration Review, 64(2), 132–140.CrossRef

Flockhart, A. (2005). The use of social return on investment (SROI) and investment ready tools (IRT) to bridge the financial credibility gap. Social Enterprise Journal, 1(1), 29–42.CrossRef

Gelb, D., & Strawser, J. A. (2001). Corporate social responsibility and financial disclosures: An alternative explanation for increased disclosure. Journal of Business Ethics, 33(1), 1–13.CrossRef

Golany, B., & Roll, Y. (1989). An application procedure for DEA. Omega, 17(3), 237–250.CrossRef

Gonin, M., Besharov, M., Smith, W., & Gachet, N. (2012). Managing social-business tensions: A review and research agenda for social enterprise. Academy of Management Proceedings, Meeting Abstract Supplement, p. 11745.

Gulland, A. (2011). Social enterprises need to prove value for money, says public spending watchdog. BMJ, 342, d4077.CrossRef

Gutiérrez-Nieto, B., Serrano-Cinca, C., & Mar Molinero, C. (2009). Social efficiency in microfinance institutions. Journal of the Operational Research Society, 60(1), 104–119.CrossRef

Gutierrez-Nieto, B., Serrano-Cinca, C., & Molinero, C. M. (2007). Microfinance institutions and efficiency. OMEGA—The International Journal of Management Science, 35, 131–142.CrossRef

Halkos, G. E., & Tzeremes, N. G. (2010). The effect of foreign ownership on SMEs performance: An efficiency analysis perspective. Journal of Productivity Analysis, 34(2), 167–180.CrossRef

Harrison, J., & Rouse, P. (2016). DEA and accounting performance measurement. In S.-N. Hwang, H.-S. Lee & J. Zhu (Eds.), Handbook of operations analytics using data envelopment analysis (pp. 385–412). New York: Springer.CrossRef

Hart, T., & Haughton, G. (2007). Assessing the economic and social impacts of social enterprise. Research paper, Centre for City and Regional Studies, University of Hull. Retrieved 15 June, 2012, from https://www.escholar.manchester.ac.uk/.

Kaplan, R. (2001). Strategic performance measurement and management in nonprofit organizations. Nonprofit Management & Leadership, 3(Spring), 353–370.CrossRef

Ketchen, D., & Palmer, T. (1999). Strategic responses to poor organization performance: A test of competing perspectives. Journal of Management, 25, 683–706.CrossRef

Kroeger, A., & Weber, C. (2014). Developing a conceptual framework for comparing social value creation. Academy of Management Review, 39(4), 513–540.CrossRef

Kuosmanen, T., & Kortelainen, M. (2005). Measuring eco-efficiency of production with data envelopment analysis. Journal of Industrial Ecology, 9(4), 59–72.CrossRef

La Porta, R., Lopez-De-Silanes, F., Schleifer, A., & Vishny, R. W. (1997). Legal determinants of external finance. The Journal of Finance, 52(3), 1131–1150.CrossRef

Lu, W.-M., Wang, W.-K., & Lee, H. L. (2013). The relationship between corporate social responsibility and corporate performance: Evidence from the US semiconductor industry. International Journal of Cleaner Production Research, 51(19), 5683–5695.CrossRef

Maas, K., & Liket, K. (2011). Social impact measurement: Classification of methods. In R. Burritt, S. Schaltegger, M. Bennett, T. Pohjola & M. Csutora (Eds.), Environmental management accounting and supply chain management (pp. 171–202). Delft: Springer.CrossRef

Mair, J., Mayer, J., & Lutz, E. (2015). Navigating institutional plurality: Organizational governance in hybrid organizations. Organization Studies, 36, 713–739.CrossRef

Markman, G. D., Russo, M., Lumpkin, G. T., Jennings, P. D., & Mair, J. (2016). Entrepreneurship as a platform for pursuing multiple goals: A special issue on sustainability, ethics, and entrepreneurship. Journal of Management Studies, 53(5), 673–694.CrossRef

Martínez-Campillo, A., Fernández-Santos, Y., & Sierra-Fernández, D. P., M (2016). How well have social economy financial institutions performed during the crisis period? Exploring financial and social efficiency in Spanish credit unions. Journal of Business Ethics. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-016-3192-9.CrossRef

Melyn, W., & Moesen, W. (1991). Towards a synthetic indicator of macroeconomic performance: Unequal weighting when limited information is available. Public Economic Research Paper 17, CES, KU Leuven, Belgium.

Mersland, R., & Strøm, R. (2010). Microfinance mission drift? World Development, 38(1), 28–36.CrossRef

Millar, R., & Hall, K. (2012). Social return on investment (SROI) and performance measurement: The opportunities and barriers for social enterprises in health and social care. Public Management Review, 15(6), 923–941.CrossRef

Murphy, P. J., & Coombes, S. M. (2009). A model of social entrepreneurial discovery. Journal of Business Ethics, 87(3), 325–336.CrossRef

Nicholls, A. (2009). We do good things, don’t we?”: “Blended value accounting” in social entrepreneurship. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 34(6–7), 755–769.CrossRef

O’Donnell, C., Rao, D., & Battese, G. (2007). Metafrontier frameworks for the study of firm-level efficiencies and technology ratios. Empirical Economics, 34, 231–255.CrossRef

Ramus, T., & Vaccaro, A. (2014). Stakeholders matter: How social enterprises address mission drift. Journal of Business Ethics, 143(2), 307–322.CrossRef

Rodríguez-Pérez, G., Slof, J., Solà, M., Torrent, M., & Vilardell, I. (2011). Assessing the impact of fair-value accounting on financial statement analysis: A data envelopment analysis approach. Abacus, 47(1), 61–84.CrossRef

Rotheroe, N., & Richards, A. (2007). Social return on investment and social enterprise: Transparent accountability for sustainable development. Social Enterprise Journal, 3(1), 31–48.CrossRef

Sarkis, J. (2007). Preparing your data for DEA. In J. Zhu & W. D. Cook (Eds.), Modeling data irregularities and structural complexities in data envelopment analysis (pp. 305–320). New York: Springer Science Business Media.CrossRef

Scarlata, M., & Alemany, L. (2011). Deal structuring in philanthropic venture capital investments: Financing instrument, valuation and covenants. Journal of Business Ethics, 95, 121–145.CrossRef

Smith, W. K., Gonin, M., & Besharov, M. L. (2013). Managing social-business tensions. Business Ethics Quarterly, 23(3), 407–442.CrossRef

Staw, B. M., Sandelands, L. E., & Dutton, J. E. (1981). Threat-rigidity effects in organizational behavior: A multi-level analysis. Administrative Science Quarterly, 26, 501–524.CrossRef

Stevens, R., Moray, N., & Bruneel, J. (2015a). The social and economic mission of social enterprises: Dimensions, measurement, validation, and relation. Entrepreneurship: Theory and Practice, 39(5), 1051–1082.

Stevens, R., Moray, N., Bruneel, J., & Clarysse, B. (2015b). Attention allocation to multiple goals: The case of for-profit social enterprises. Academy of Management Journal, 36, 1006–1016.

Sullivan, B. N. (2010). Competition and beyond: Problems and attention allocation in the organizational rulemaking process. Organization Science, 21(2), 432–450.CrossRef

Sun, L., & Stuebs, M. (2013). Corporate social responsibility and firm productivity: Evidence from the chemical industry in the United States. Journal of Business Ethics, 118(2), 251–263.CrossRef

Tracey, P., Phillips, N., & Jarvis, O. (2011). Bridging institutional entrepreneurship and the creation of new organizational forms: A multilevel model. Organization Science, 22, 60–80.CrossRef

Wellens, L., & Jegers, M. (2014). Effective governance in nonprofit organizations: A literature based multiple stakeholder approach. European Management Journal, 32(2), 223–243.CrossRef

Wilson, F., & Post, J. E. (2013). Business models for people, planet (& profits): Exploring the phenomena of social business, a market-based approach to social value creation. Small Business Economics, 40, 715–737.CrossRef

Young, D. R., Kerlin, J. A., Teasdale, S., & Soh, J. (2012). The dynamics and long-term stability of social enterprise. In J. Kickul & S. Bacq (Eds.), Patterns in social entrepreneurship research (pp. 217–242). Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.

Zahra, S. A., Gedajlovic, E., Neubaum, D. O., & Shulman, J. M. (2009). A typology of social entrepreneurs: Motives, search processes and ethical challenges. Journal of Business Venturing, 24(5), 519–532.CrossRef

Zaim, O., Färe, R., & Grosskopf, S. (2001). An economic approach to achievement and improvement indexes. Social Indicators Research, 56, 91–118.CrossRef

Titel: Data Envelopment Analysis and Social Enterprises: Analysing Performance, Strategic Orientation and Mission Drift
verfasst von: Matthias Staessens
Pieter Jan Kerstens
Johan Bruneel
Laurens Cherchye
Publikationsdatum: 05.11.2018
Verlag: Springer Netherlands
Erschienen in: Journal of Business Ethics / Ausgabe 2/2019
Print ISSN: 0167-4544
Elektronische ISSN: 1573-0697
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-018-4046-4

Springer Professional

Abstract

Bitte loggen Sie sich ein, um Zugang zu Ihrer Lizenz zu erhalten.

Sie haben noch keine Lizenz? Dann Informieren Sie sich jetzt über unsere Produkte:

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik"

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft"

Weitere Artikel der Ausgabe 2/2019

Prosociality in Business: A Human Empowerment Framework

A Social Exchange Perspective of Employee–Organization Relationships and Employee Unethical Pro-organizational Behavior: The Moderating Role of Individual Moral Identity

To Help My Supervisor: Identification, Moral Identity, and Unethical Pro-supervisor Behavior

Managing Value Tensions in Collective Social Entrepreneurship: The Role of Temporal, Structural, and Collaborative Compromise

The Bright Side of Hybridity: Exploring How Social Enterprises Manage and Leverage Their Hybrid Nature

Why Moral Followers Quit: Examining the Role of Leader Bottom-Line Mentality and Unethical Pro-Leader Behavior

Premium Partner