social venture business models for ... ariono...social venture business models for transforming...

SOCIAL VENTURE BUSINESS MODELS FOR TRANSFORMING NON-PROFIT

ORGANIZATIONS: TYPOLOGY-DRIVEN THEORIZING

Muhammad Ariono Margiono Master of Management

Master of Economics and Social Studies Bachelor of Political Science

Submitted in fulfilment of the requirements for the degree of

Doctor of Philosophy

School of Management

QUT Business School

Queensland University of Technology

2018

Social Venture Business Models for Transforming Non-Profit Organizations: Typology-Driven Theorizing i

Keywords

Business model, social entrepreneurship, social venture, non-profit organization,

typology, configuration

ii Social Venture Business Models for Transforming Non-Profit Organizations: Typology-Driven Theorizing

Abstract

Social entrepreneurship and social ventures are important for the survival of

many non-profit organizations (NPOs). Transforming into social ventures and

embracing their business models are seen by many NPOs, particularly those

operating in developing countries, as potential solutions to achieve financial

sustainability in light of a recent decline in public and aid funding support to these

organizations. Unfortunately, the knowledge of the appropriate social venture

business models for these transforming NPOs is limited.

Many researchers have begun to pay attention to the phenomenon of non-

profit organisations becoming more business-like. A recent review paper identified at

least three major streams of non-profit transformation studies in the literature: (a) the

causes of NPOs to become social ventures; (b) the processes of transformation; and

(c) the effects of transformation.

Despite this extensive body of research on the transformation of NPOs into

social ventures, few studies have paid attention to the characteristics and the effective

business models of social ventures that these NPOs can adopt, especially in the

context of developing countries where the tensions between public and private forces

from external stakeholders are high. Studying the characteristics and the appropriate

types of business models of social ventures may help non-profit organizations that

are in the process of transforming to social ventures to identify the effective

organizational forms that they can use.

This thesis aims to address the research gaps by (a) establishing a typology of

social venture business model configurations that identifies the characteristics and

the effective types of business model configurations that transforming NPOs in

Social Venture Business Models for Transforming Non-Profit Organizations: Typology-Driven Theorizing iii

developing countries can adopt; (b) establishing the construct validity of the

characteristics in the typology; and (c) further empirically testing the typology using

a taxonomic analysis.

This is a thesis by published papers. Using a theory elaboration/advancement

framework to achieve the aims and to link the papers, this thesis contains three

sequential papers that fulfil important roles in the typology-driven theorizing process.

The first paper, a conceptual paper, entitled “A Typology of Social Venture Business

Model Configurations” aims to develop a typology of social venture business models

for transforming non-profit organizations. The paper, using resource dependency

theory and public administration literature, identified four characteristics of social

ventures and four types of social venture business model configurations. The

second paper, entitled “Organizational Characteristics and Forms: Empirical Insights

from Business Models of Social Ventures”, aims to establish the construct validity of

the characteristics developed in the first paper using 12 case studies of successful

social ventures in Indonesia. The paper used Most Different System Design

(MDSD) case research technique to select the cases. Case narrative technique and

case comparison table were utilized to analyse the qualitative data. The paper

resulted in construct validity of the characteristics and insights on the connection

between social venture forms, business models, and effectiveness. In doing so, the

second paper provided construct validity of the social venture characteristics

theorized in the first paper. The third paper, entitled “A Taxonomy of Social

Venture Business Models for Transforming Non-Profit Organizations”, aims to test

the typology developed in the first paper by analysing 205 cases of social ventures

that recently transformed from non-profit organizations in Indonesia using latent

profile analysis (LPA). The paper resulted in three hybrid social venture types that

iv Social Venture Business Models for Transforming Non-Profit Organizations: Typology-Driven Theorizing

are associated with different business models and different levels of financial

performance. The third paper provided an indication of predictive validity of the

characteristics developed in the first and the second papers and an indication of

predictive adequacy of the typology developed in the first paper.

This thesis extends the social entrepreneurship literature, especially

discussions around the “earned-income” school of thought by providing an initial

indication of the validity and the utility of the characteristics and typology of

effective social venture business model configurations that transforming NPOs can

adopt. This thesis also extends the business model literature by offering a novel re-

conceptualization of extant frameworks that unpacks the current understanding of

how business models are configured in different types of organizations (public,

private, and hybrid – i.e., social ventures). This thesis, thus, may lay important

foundations for future social venture business model research.

Social Venture Business Models for Transforming Non-Profit Organizations: Typology-Driven Theorizing v

Table of Contents

Keywords ................................................................................................................................... iAbstract ..................................................................................................................................... iiTable of Contents ...................................................................................................................... vList of Figures ......................................................................................................................... viiList of Tables ......................................................................................................................... viiiList of Papers and Presentations .............................................................................................. ixStatement of Original Authorship ............................................................................................ xiAcknowledgements ................................................................................................................. xiiChapter 1: Introduction ........................................................................................... 13Introduction ............................................................................................................................. 13Social entrepreneurship and the transformation of non-profit organizations to social ventures ................................................................................................................................... 18Research gaps .......................................................................................................................... 28Aims and research questions ................................................................................................... 29Methodology ........................................................................................................................... 30Contributions to the Literature ................................................................................................ 34Thesis outline .......................................................................................................................... 35Chapter 2: Methodology ........................................................................................... 37Introduction ............................................................................................................................. 37Typology-driven theory generation in Paper 1 ....................................................................... 39Typology-driven theory elaboration: Tactics and method employed in Paper 2 .................... 47Typology-driven theory testing: Tactics and method employed in Paper 3 ........................... 52Summary ................................................................................................................................. 57Chapter 3: Paper 1 - A Typology of Social Venture Business Model Configurations ........................................................................................................... 62Abstract ................................................................................................................................... 62Introduction ............................................................................................................................. 63Business model frameworks ................................................................................................... 69Resource dependence theory ................................................................................................... 72Key characteristics of social ventures and business model dimensions ................................. 80A typology of effective social venture business model configurations .................................. 86Discussion ............................................................................................................................... 96Conclusion ............................................................................................................................ 104References ............................................................................................................................. 106Chapter Transition Note (Paper 1 to Paper 2) ....................................................................... 116

vi Social Venture Business Models for Transforming Non-Profit Organizations: Typology-Driven Theorizing

Chapter 4: Paper 2 - Organizational Characteristics and Forms: Empirical Insights from Business Models of Social Ventures .............................................. 118Abstract ................................................................................................................................. 118Introduction ........................................................................................................................... 118A theoretical study of social venture business model forms ................................................. 122Methods................................................................................................................................. 126Results ................................................................................................................................... 138Discussion and conclusion .................................................................................................... 175Chapter Transition Note (Paper 2 to Paper 3) ....................................................................... 187Chapter 5: Paper 3 - A Taxonomy of Social Venture Business Models for Transforming Non-Profit Organizations .............................................................. 189Abstract ................................................................................................................................. 189Introduction ........................................................................................................................... 190Business models in social entrepreneurship ......................................................................... 193Public and private tensions, social venture characteristics, and business models ................ 194Method .................................................................................................................................. 202Results ................................................................................................................................... 210Discussion ............................................................................................................................. 221Concluding remarks .............................................................................................................. 228References ............................................................................................................................. 234Chapter 6: Discussion and Conclusion ................................................................. 244Introduction ........................................................................................................................... 244Summary of the papers ......................................................................................................... 244Theoretical contributions and implications ........................................................................... 256Practical implications ............................................................................................................ 263Limitations and directions for future research ...................................................................... 265Concluding remarks .............................................................................................................. 271Bibliography ............................................................................................................ 275Appendix A .............................................................................................................. 299Appendix B .............................................................................................................. 311

Social Venture Business Models for Transforming Non-Profit Organizations: Typology-Driven Theorizing vii

List of Figures

Figure 1.1. Organization of Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD)’s Official Development Assistance (ODA) grants to select developing countries in Asia and Africa, 2005-1014 (in Millions USD). Adapted from OECD Database – Geographical distribution of financial flows (2016). ...............................................................................................15

Figure 2.1. A typical model of LCA/LPA with three indicators and five distal outcomes. ..........................................................................................56

Figure 2.2. Thesis linkages ......................................................................................59

Figure 3.1. Spectrum of organizations (adapted from Alter, 2010). ........................67

Figure 3.2. Configuring effective business models in public and private organizations .....................................................................................82

Figure 4.1. Characteristics of effective social ventures, organizational forms and their business models (Adapted from Margiono, Zolin & Chang, 2017) ...............................................................................................128

Figure 4.2. Data analysis process ...........................................................................136

Figure 4.3. A three-dimensional illustration of effective social venture organizational forms and business models based on the case data. 155

Figure 4.4. Effectiveness patterns and conceptual relationship between configurations. .................................................................................172

Figure 5.1. Configuring effective business models in public and private organizations (from Margiono et al. 2017). ....................................196

Figure 5.2. Standardized means of the distal outcome variables. ..........................221

viii Social Venture Business Models for Transforming Non-Profit Organizations: Typology-Driven Theorizing

List of Tables

Table 1.1. Approaches to Make Sense of Social Ventures in the Literature ...........22

Table 1.2. Public and Private Aspects in Antecedents and Consequences of Business Model Research (Adapted from Zott, Amit & Massa, 2011) .................................................................................................27

Table 1.3. The Theorizing Framework of the Papers in This Thesis (Adapted from Fisher & Aguinis, 2017) ....................................................................31

Table 2.1. Typology-Driven Theory Advancement (Adapted from Fisher & Aguinis, 2017) ...................................................................................37

Table 2.2. Goals of Typologies (Adapted from Elman, 2009) ................................42

Table 2.3. Theory Elaboration Tactics (Adapted from Fisher & Aguinis, 2017) ....48

Table 2.4. Characteristics, Objectives, and Exemplars of MDSD and MSSD ........49

Table 2.5. Fit indices in Latent Class/Profile Analysis ............................................58

Table 3.1. Business Model Themes in the Literature (Adapted from George & Bock, 2011) .......................................................................................71

Table 3.2. The Interactions Between Key Characteristics of Social Ventures and Extant Business Model Dimensions ..................................................88

Table 3.3. Business Model Configurations of Social Ventures ...............................91

Table 4.1. Social Venture Cases in This Research ................................................131

Table 4.2. Construct Validity and the Scope of the Characteristics (An Example from the Codebook) ........................................................................141

Table 4.3. Characteristics and Organizational Forms ............................................147

Table 4.4. Organizational Forms and Business Model Configurations .................157

Table 4.5. Organizational Forms, Business Model Configurations and Effectiveness Configurations ..........................................................163

Table 4.6. Summary of Findings ............................................................................171

Table 5.1. A Typology of Social Venture Business Model Configurations (Adapted from Margiono et al., 2017) ............................................................200

Table 5.2. Means, Standard Deviations, and Correlations of the Variables ..........211

Table 5.3. Fit Statistics of the LPA (Three-Profile Solution Selected) .................212

Table 5.4. Profile Information and Interpretation ..................................................217

Table 5.5. Cohen’s d Effect Size of the Distal Outcome Variables .......................219

Table 6.1. Summary of the Papers .........................................................................245

Table 6.2. This Thesis’s Typology Among Extant Approaches to Classify Social Ventures in the Literature ................................................................259

Table 6.3. Summary of Contributions to the Literature .........................................264

Table 6.4. Limitations and Directions for Future Research ...................................268

Social Venture Business Models for Transforming Non-Profit Organizations: Typology-Driven Theorizing ix

List of Papers and Presentations

This section outlines the paper/manuscripts in this thesis and the relevant papers/manuscripts presented in conferences and paper development sessions. Table 1 A Published and Submitted Papers in This Thesis Paper title Journal name Journal

rank Status

A Typology of Social Venture Business Model Configurations

International Journal of Entrepreneurial Behavior and Research

SCOPUS Q1/ABDC B

Accepted, published

Organizational Characteristics and Forms: Empirical Insights from Business Models of Social Ventures

Organization Studies SCOPUS Q1/ABDC A*

Submitted, under review

A Taxonomy of Social Venture Business Models for Transforming Non-Profit Organizations

Research Policy SCOPUS Q1/ABDC A*

Submitted, under review

Table 1 B Peer-Reviewed Conferences and Paper Development Sessions Conference Paper title Location Date

Australian Center for Entrepreneurship Research Exchange

“Business Model Publicness and Socialness of the Social Enterprise”

Adelaide, Australia

February, 2015


“Social Enterprise Identity and Effectiveness”

Gold Coast, Australia

February, 2016

x Social Venture Business Models for Transforming Non-Profit Organizations: Typology-Driven Theorizing

Table 1 B - continued Peer-Reviewed Conferences and Paper Development Sessions

Conference Paper title Location Date


“Business Models of Social Ventures: Value Capture and Profit Distribution in Ventures with High Social Mission Orientation”

Melbourne, Australia

February, 2017

13th Annual Social Entrepreneurship Conference

“The Business Models of Social Ventures: Dimensions, Types, and Dynamics”

Los Angeles, USA

November, 2016

Australian Center for Entrepreneurship Paper Development Bootcamp

‘Who’s who in the Zoo’: Towards a Typology of Social Enteprise”

Brisbane, Australia

December, 2014


“Business Models of Social Ventures: Theoretical Typology and Empirical Taxonomy”

Brisbane, Australia

December, 2016


“A Typology of Social Venture Business Models for Transforming Non-Profit Organizations"

Brisbane, Australia

December, 2017

Social Venture Business Models for Transforming Non-Profit Organizations: Typology-Driven Theorizing xi

Statement of Original Authorship

The work contained in this thesis has not been previously submitted to meet

requirements for an award at this or any other higher education institution. To the best

of my knowledge and belief, the thesis contains no material previously published or

written by another person except where due reference is made.

Signature:

Date: 23 May 2018

QUT Verified Signature

xii Social Venture Business Models for Transforming Non-Profit Organizations: Typology-Driven Theorizing

Acknowledgements

I would like to thank my supervisors, Professor Artemis Chang, Professor

Roxanne Zolin, and Dr. Stephen Cox for the support and the guidance that they

provided during my PhD processes. I would also like to thank Professor Per Davidsson

and Dr. Craig Furneaux who evaluated this thesis as panel chair and panel member

during the final thesis seminar. Thank you for your positive encouragement.

A big thank you to the Australian Centre for Entrepreneurship (ACE) team,

especially Professor Per Davidsson and Karen Taylor, who allowed me to participate

in many of their programs. I am honoured to be able to benefit from ACE's events,

capacity development activities, as well as seminars. I should also thank Australian

Awards Scholarship (AAS) and Binus University for making this thesis possible.

This thesis is a PhD by published papers and a lot of scholars in many

conferences and paper development sessions, including journal editors and anonymous

peer reviewers, have directly and indirectly provided feedback and inputs to the earlier

versions of the papers. I thank you very much for their critical feedback. Further, a

professional editor, Dr. William Wrigley, provided copyediting and proofreading

services, according to the guidelines laid out in the university-endorsed national

‘Guidelines for editing research theses’.

I would also like to thank British Council Indonesia team, especially Ari Sutanti

and Puti Media Indasari, who were very helpful and supportive in the data collection

processes. It is my hope that the results of this thesis can help many of British Council’s

beneficiaries.

Finally, huge thanks and love to my family who always have provided never-

ending support throughout this long and winding intellectual journey. This is for you.

Chapter 1: Introduction 13

Chapter 1: Introduction

Introduction

Social entrepreneurship and social ventures have become increasingly

important for non-profit organizations (NPOs1) in developing countries that seek to

achieve financial sustainability due to a recent decline in public and aid funding

support from developed countries (Khieng, 2013; Parks, 2008). Social

entrepreneurship has become a potential solution for these NPOs, and so many NPOs

in developing countries have transformed and are transforming to become social

ventures. Social entrepreneurship is defined as “entrepreneurial activity with an

embedded social purpose” (Austin, Stevenson & Wei-Skillern, 2006, p. 1) to achieve

sustainable solutions in neglected societies (Santos, 2012). Social entrepreneurship is

unique because it is innovative and it facilitates novel ways of offering products and

services to these neglected societies (Mair & Marti, 2006). Social ventures, which

are the entrepreneurial form of organizations that combine social, or public benefit

aims with business-like management (Anheir & Ben-ner, 2003; Becchetti &

Borzaga, 2010; Borzaga & Defourny, 2001), are considered important because they

enable NPOs to embrace appropriate business models to survive and to continue

delivering necessary support to their beneficiaries. Indeed, appropriate business

models, defined as “the system of interdependent activities performed by a focal firm

and its partners and the mechanisms that link these activities to each other” (Amit &

Zott, 2015, p. 331) may help these NPOs to achieve financial sustainability while at

the same time effectively creating value for developing nations.

1 This thesis uses NPOs and non-profits terms interchangeably to refer to non-profit organizations

14 Chapter 1: Introduction

NPOs, which have been defined as “institutions that … receive the bulk of

their income not from the sale of goods and services in the market, but from the dues

and contributions of their members and supporters” (Salamon & Anheir, 1992, p.

133), play important roles for societies in developing nations (Anheier & Salamon,

1998; Considine, 2003; Hansmann, 1980). NPOs are one among many important

actors in developing nations that facilitate social change by delivering services to

neglected areas.

NPOs operating in developing countries, such as Indonesia, face different

contexts from their counterparts in developed nations for a few reasons (Anheier &

Salamon, 1998). First, NPOs in developing countries need to deal with different and,

in many cases, uncertain political and economic situations. Second, they may also

need to address civil society traditions that are different from those in most

developed countries. Most importantly, non-profits in developing nations rely on

different sources of revenue than their counterparts that operate in developed

countries (Anheier & Salamon, 1998).

Many non-profits in developing nations are dependent on development aid

organizations. Aid funding, mostly coming from developed countries’ public, tax-

payer money, has become a major source of revenue for non-profits in developing

countries (Anheir & Salamon, 1998; Smillie, 1995; Smith, 1993; Buscher, Komujuni

& Ashaba, 2018; Irvine, 2018; Dupuy & Prakash, 2017). Aid funding is also

important for the survival of NPOs in developing countries (Burger & Owens, 2012).

In fact, aid funding is so important that they affect the internal processes of NPOs

(AbouAssi, 2013); this, for example, results in the homogenization of NPOs; that is,

although NPOs are geographically separated, they have similar organizational


structures due to the institutional “foot-print” of the aid funding and aid

organizations (Kamstra & Schulpen, 2015).

Until recently, NPOs in developing nations had enjoyed a steady flow of

official development assistance (ODA) grant funding from developed country

governments. These grants supported many NPOs in developing countries to deliver

services to their beneficiaries. Yet, a recent decline in the flow of ODA to developing

countries may pose a threat to the survival of their NPOs (Khieng, 2013; Parks,

2008). (see Figure 1.1 for a graph of the declining trend of grant flow in since 2013

to selected developing countries).

Figure 1.1. Organization of Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD)’s Official Development Assistance (ODA) grants to select developing countries in Asia and Africa, 2005-2014 (in Millions USD). Adapted from OECD Database – Geographical distribution of financial flows (2016).


As a response to this situation, social entrepreneurship and social ventures

have often been seen as important potential solutions for the survival of NPOs in

developing countries. However, when NPOs embrace business-like approaches and

become social ventures, they often need to adopt new organizational forms or new

business models (Maier, Meyer & Steinbereithner, 2014). Adopting new business

models subjects them to different organizational processes (Di Zhang & Swanson,

2013; Hwang & Powell, 2009), and by embracing business-like approaches, social

ventures that transformed from NPOs need to appropriately manage conflicting

public and private tensions arising from the different stakeholders that they have to

engage (Bull, 2008). For example, on the one hand, despite a recent decline, these

emerging social ventures may still receive partial funding support from foreign aid

agencies such as USAID, Australia Aid, or British DFID’s UKaid (Aspinall, 2010;

Carapico, 2002). These emerging social ventures are also subject to external controls

just like public and non-profit organizations (Ferris, 1993; Sloan, 2008). On the

other hand, when NPOs transform to become social ventures and more business-like,

they need to take into account market demands, such as profit and return on

investment (Miller & Wesley II, 2010). The challenge is that foreign aid

organizations tend to influence the direction and the strategy of recipient

organizations (AbouAssi, 2013). Thus, aid organizations may limit decision choices,

especially market-related decisions, of a social venture. At the same time, investors

and other market stakeholders can put pressure on social ventures to show market

performance, as these market stakeholders often expect financial returns (Cordes,

2017).

An understanding of the appropriate organizational design or business models

for new social ventures that have transformed from NPOs and experienced these


tensions is, therefore, very important; unfortunately, there is insufficient knowledge

of social venture business models that these NPOs can embrace when they transform

to become more business-like.

Previous studies on non-profits that have become business-like have been

discussed in the literature, such as in the social entrepreneurship literature. The

research in this literature, particularly under the “earned-income” school of thought

(Defourny & Nyssens, 2010), has focused on the definition and nature of marketized

non-profits (Dart, 2004), the ethics of the marketization of non-profits (Eikenberry,

2009; Eikenberry & Kluver, 2004), the transformation processes (Guo, 2006; Gras &

Mendoza-Abarca, 2014), as well as, the ways non-profits diversified funding support

(Khieng, 2013). Maier and colleagues (2014) identified at least three major streams

of non-profit transformation studies in the literature: (a) the causes of non-profits to

become social ventures; (b) the processes of transformation; and (c) the effects of the

transformation.

Despite this existing body of knowledge on the transformation of non-profits

into social ventures, there are few studies that have paid attention to the

organizational design characteristics and the effective social venture business models

that these non-profits can adopt (Demil, Lecocq, Ricart & Zott, 2015), especially in

the contexts of developing countries. To date, studies focusing on design

characteristics and types of social ventures in the literature (e.g. Alter, 2010; Ridley-

Duff & Bull, 2016; Defourny & Nyssens, 2017) have usually examined the general

and global classifications that descriptively identify different social venture types.

Unfortunately, they have not explained the types that correspond to effective social

venture business model frameworks that are necessary for these transforming non-

profits to perform and survive.


Studying the characteristics and effective types of social venture business

models may help transforming non-profits to identify the appropriate business

models that they can use. Subsequently, effective social ventures can sustain value

creation for the beneficiaries who need help in neglected societies in many

developing countries. In the end, successful social ventures that have transformed

from NPOs can continue to deliver important social benefit to societies.

The next sections outline the relevant social entrepreneurship literature to

show how the transformation of NPOs to become social ventures has been

understood. An outline of the research gaps, aims and research questions of this

thesis follows, along with an outline of the methodology to achieve the aims, and the

contributions that the thesis makes.

Social entrepreneurship and the transformation of non-profit organizations to social ventures

The social entrepreneurship literature has taken a variety of approaches to

understand social entrepreneurship and social venture phenomena (Defourny &

Nyssens, 2010). For example, a “social innovation” school of thought focuses on the

innovation that social entrepreneurs create to solve problems in societies. On the

other hand, “the EMES (Emergence des Enterprises Sociales en Europe)” school of

thought sets European-centric criteria of a social enterprise (Defourny & Nyssens,

2008). One perspective, the “earned-income” school of thought, which focuses

specifically on social ventures that transformed from NPOs, is the major focus of this

thesis because this perspective hosts a body of literature that analyses the causes,

processes and effects of NPOs that have become business-like (Defourny & Nyssens,

2010; Maier et al., 2014).


In this body of literature, the causes of NPOs to become social ventures can be

attributed to external and internal factors. For example, political and economic

conditions, such as the introduction of new public management (Liebschutz, 1992),

or the availability of grant funding (Kerlin & Pollak, 2011; Khieng, 2013; Parks,

2008), may serve as the external drivers for adopting social venture business models.

On the other hand, board characteristics (Stone, 1989) and ideologies (Meinhard &

Foster, 2003), among others, may become the internal factors that also drive NPO

transformation.

Furthermore, the processes and the structures of the transformation are widely

discussed in this literature. For example, scholars have started to pay attention to the

managerialization, the organizational rationalization, and business-like organizing of

NPOs (Di Zhang & Swanson, 2013; Hwang & Powell, 2009; Meyer, Buber &

Aghamanonukjan, 2013). In this research area, Davis, Marino, Aaron and Tolbert

(2011) specifically examined the entrepreneurial orientation processes in the

transformation of non-profits to become more business-like and embrace social

venture business models.

The literature also discusses the effects of the transformation. For example, a

few studies have paid attention to mission drifts that might follow from the

transformation processes (Froelich, 1999; Keevers, Treleave, Skyes & Darcy, 2012;

Young, 1998). Other scholars have focused on the ethics of the transformation

(Eikenberry, 2009; Eikenberry & Kluver, 2004) and the legitimacy of social ventures

that transform from NPOs (Dart, 2004).

Other literature focuses on the social intermediation issue in the marketization

of non-profits. Social intermediation refers to the role of intermediaries that seek to


alleviate poverty via linking bottom-of-pyramid markets with developed markets

(Kistruck, Beamish, Qureshi & Sutter, 2013).

Despite extensive research in this area, discussions on the organizational

designs or social venture business model types for these transforming non-profits are

still limited (Demil et al., 2015; Wilson & Post, 2013); although in parallel, general

discussions on social venture types and models have begun to take place. This thesis

presents two critical points of view in relation to this aspect. First, although the

extant literature discussing social venture types has paid some attention to the

tensions that social entrepreneurship organizations encounter (e.g., Bull, 2008;

Ridley-Duff, 2008), the identification of social ventures in this literature has tended

to be classificatory and descriptive and, therefore, explanatory discussions of the

effective organizational design or social venture business models for transforming

non-profits are still insufficient (Demil et al., 2015). Moreover, discussions in this

body of the literature have also been detached from the broader entrepreneurship and

management literature (Dacin, Dacin & Matear, 2010; Short, Moss & Lumpkin,

2009) and, therefore, theories in the social entrepreneurship domain have not built

from or contributed to existing management theories. Second, extant discussions on

business models have seemed to be biased towards commercial and market-based

models (Arthur, Keenoy, Scott-Cato, & Smith, 2016; Eikenberry & Kluver, 2004;

Randles and Laasch, 2016; Wilson and Post, 2013), thus leaving the non-

commercial, public aspects that influence the effective business models of social

ventures under-discussed in the literature. The next sections elaborate on these

points.


Social ventures and business models

Different approaches to make sense of social venture types and designs

Social ventures are seen as hybrid organizations because they combine

characteristics from different sectors (Doherty, Haugh & Lyon, 2014; Ridley-Duff,

2008). They are organizations that conduct trading activities to generate sustainable,

social solutions (Santos, 2012). Almost all definitions of social ventures focus on

two important features (Doherty et al., 2014; Seanor, Bull, Baines, & Purcell, 2013).

The first is the adoption of commercial activities to generate revenue (Mair & Marti,

2006; Peredo & Mclean, 2006); and, the second is the prioritization of social

mission/goals (Agafonow, 2014; Santos, 2012). Social ventures prioritize a social

mission yet embrace business approaches.

This way of operating can create tensions (Bull, 2008; Doherty et al., 2014),

and there are at least four approaches in the social entrepreneurship literature that

attempt to classify different types of social ventures according to different

characteristics (i.e., the origin of the tensions), scope, and the purpose of

classification (see Table 1.1; Defourny and Nyssens, 2017; Ridley-Duff and Bull,

2016).


Table 1.1 Approaches to Make Sense of Social Ventures in the Literature

Approach 1 Approach 2 Approach 3 Approach 4 Characteristics Market-

social spectrum

History/origins, development path

Principles of interest, resource mix

Governance, ethics, social impact

Scope Global National (developed country)

Global Global

Purpose Describes general classification distinction with commercial ventures

Describes general classification, distinction with commercial ventures

Describes general classification, theoretical framework of different models from around the world

Describes general classification for global use

Example types Commercial non-profits, social enterprise, socially responsible business, corporate CSR

Mutual, trading charities, public sector spin-off, new social enterprises

Entrepreneurial non-profit, social cooperative, social business, public-sector social enterprise

Cooperative and mutual enterprises, socially responsible businesses, charitable trading activities

Examples in the literature

Alter (2010); Kerlin, (2009); Dees (1998)

Spear, Cornforth & Aiken (2009); Gordon (2015); Young & Levy (2014)

Defourny & Nyssens (2017)

Ridley-Duff & Bull (2016)

Note. Adapted from Defourny and Nyssens (2017), and Ridley-Duff and Bull (2016).

Approach 1 (see Table 1.1) focuses on the market-social spectrum in

identifying different social enterprises. This approach identifies different social

ventures according to their place within the market and social spectrum. For

example, a commercial non-profit is a type of social venture that is highlighted in the

literature as operating in commercial markets. This approach attempts to establish a

general classification of social ventures that may apply globally. Kerlin (2013), for

example, used these market and social characteristics to classify different social


enterprises across the globe. Similarly, Alter (2010) also established a classification

of different social enterprises across the market-social spectrum. This approach

seems to purely focus on the social and market tensions encountered by social

ventures.

Approach 2 (see Table 1.1) focuses on the history or origins of social

enterprises. This approach sees the development path of social ventures as a

distinguishing characteristic. This attention to history and to the development path

implies a more contextual differentiation; therefore, this approach tends to focus on

national or local level social enterprises and tends to capture dynamics from

developed countries, such as Europe and the United Kingdom. In the United

Kingdom, for example, there are several types of social enterprises that have

different historical and development paths, such as mutual, trading charities, and

public sector spin-off (Spears et al., 2009). This approach touches on discussions of

the tensions that social ventures face in developed countries.

Approach 3 (see Table 1.1) emphasises the principles of the interest and

resource mix as characteristics that distinguish different social ventures (Defourny &

Nyssens, 2017). According to this approach, social enterprises are driven by three

different “principals of interest” that are at work in the economy: general interest

(public goods), mutual interest (collective goods), and capital interest (surpluses or

profits), and social enterprises differ along these three interests. There are four types

of social enterprises, such as: entrepreneurial non-profits, social cooperatives, social

businesses, and public sector social enterprises. This classification aims to become a

global grouping and as part of the International Comparison of Social Enterprise

Models (ICSEM) project (ICSEM, 2017); different types are developed based on this

framework from across the world. This approach identifies the role of public tension


in terms of public goods as one of the principal interests that interact with other

characteristics and contribute to the classification of different social venture types.

Approach 4 (see Table 1.1) emphasises the democratic governance, ethics,

and social impacts of social ventures (Ridley-Duff & Bull, 2016) and classifies them

into three types: cooperative and mutual enterprises, socially responsible businesses,

and charitable trading activities. This classification’s characteristics touch upon

public tension, such as governance, in a broad approach that becomes a basis to

advance social enterprises in different parts of the worlds (Ridley-Duff & Bull,

2016).

Up to this point, the literature seems to highlight that the approaches to

classify social ventures address the tensions that these organizations encounter in

varying degrees. However, most of them aim to develop a global classification or to

serve developed country contexts; most importantly, these classifications are

descriptive and only few seek to investigate explanatory types of effective social

venture business models that transforming non-profits in developing countries can

adopt. Previous social venture studies that have specifically focused on public and

private tensions in developing country contexts, especially those arising from

continuous engagement with aid organizations and market stakeholders, have been

scant despite their importance. In addition, many of these studies in this literature

are also rather disconnected from the extant entrepreneurship and management

literature. Short et al. (2009), for example, criticized research in the social

entrepreneurship literature for lacking connection to existing management and

entrepreneurship theories. As a result, there has been little cross-fertilization between

the social entrepreneurship and management literature which has negatively

impacted on the theorization processes in both domains. They suggest, for example,


the development of social entrepreneurship theorization that uses existing, well-

established management theories, including among others, agency theory, resource

dependence theory, resource-based view theory, or to extend their suggestion,

business model frameworks. The next section outlines research in the business model

literature, especially in the social entrepreneurship context to further show the

deficiency of the extant frameworks in analysing social ventures that have

transformed from NPOs.

Business model frameworks and their use in the social entrepreneurship context

Successful social ventures that transform from non-profits need to embrace

effective business models. Yet, discussions in the literature on business models have

largely used frameworks that are designed to analyse commercial ventures and are

founded on market-based theories, such as the resource-based view (RBV) and

transaction-cost economics (TCE) (DaSilva & Trkman, 2014). The focus of extant

business model research has mostly been on private or market factors, rather than

public factors. This may be due to the fact that the purpose of business model design

is to increase competitiveness and to maximize profit (Wirtz, Pistoioa, Ullrich, &

Gottel, 2016). Teece (2010), for example, highlighted that “the essence of a business

model is in defining the manner by which the enterprise deliver value to customers,

entices customers to pay for value, and converts those payments to profit” (p. 172).

Furthermore, much of the business model research has also focused on the business

models of firms in developed country and technology-based industries. For example,

Clemons (2009) focused on value capture – an aspect of the business model

dimension that relates to how a firm creates profit. On the other hand, Christensen

(2001) focused on business models that drive a competitive advantage, which is often

seen as a source of profit in business firms (see Table 1.2).


All of this is to suggest that extant business model frameworks are specifically

designed and developed for commercial purposes (Wirtz et al., 2016) and, therefore,

may be insufficient to analyze various tensions at work in social ventures (Demil et

al., 2015; Wilson & Post, 2013). Commercial ventures prioritize profit maximization

and a sustainable, competitive advantage (DaSilva & Trkman, 2014; Wirtz et al.,

2016). Social ventures, on the other hand, prioritize value creation over value

capture (Santos, 2012). These different foci in the social entrepreneurship context

may require a different understanding of how business model dimensions (value

proposition, value creation, and value capture) are configured. A re-

conceptualization of the extant business model framework may, therefore, be

necessary.

A re-conceptualization may allow business model frameworks to appropriately

analyse the business model phenomenon in the social entrepreneurship context.

Some recent studies have explored sustainable and social enterprise business models

(Bocken, Short, Rana & Evans, 2014; Grassl 2012; Wilson & Post, 2013; Yunus,

Moingeon & Lehmann-Ortega, 2010). These studies have attempted to incorporate

non-commercial aspects in the extant business model framework. For example,

Wilson and Post (2013) conducted an inductive study to make sense of how social

businesses are designed. Grassl (2012) explored the different configurations of

feasible and implemented business models in the social entrepreneurship context,

while Yunus and colleagues (2010) attempted to uncover the business model

dynamics for social businesses.

Unfortunately, these studies did not discuss social venture business models

for transforming non-profits in developing countries, and especially the business

models of NPOs that are required to address the public and private tensions that can


arise from the transformation. Thus, the extant business model studies seem limited

and insufficient to make sense of the tensions experienced by transforming NPOs

(Demil et al., 2015).

Table 1.2 Public and Private Aspects in Antecedents and Consequences of Business Model Research (Adapted from Zott, Amit & Massa, 2011)

Antecedents and Consequences

Market (private) factors Non-Market (public) factors

Antecedents • New information and communication technologies (Dubosson-Torbay, Osterwalder and Pigneur 2002; Timmers 1998);

• Value drivers (Amit and Zott 2001);

• Choices (Casadesus-Masanell and Ricart 2010; Shafer, Smith and Linder 2005);

• Technology (Chesbrough and Rosenbloom 2002; Chesbrough 2007);

• Technological development, innovation (Björkdahl 2009; Calia, Guerrini and Moura 2007)

• External Pressures, Regulations (Tankhiwale 2009; Yunus, Moingeon and Lehmann-Ortega 2010)

• Value Drivers (Spieth, Schnieder, ClauB, Eichenberg, 2018)


Table 1.2 - continued Public and Private Aspects in Antecedents and Consequences of Business Model Research (Adapted from Zott, Amit & Massa, 2011)

Antecedents and Consequences

Market (private) factors Non-Market (public) factors

Consequences • Industry Structures (Applegate and Collura 2000; McPhillips and Merlo 2008)

• Rules of Competition (Applegate and Collura 2000; Tapscott, Lowy and Ticoll 2000)

• Value capture (Clemons 2009; Pauwels and Weiss 2008)

• Total value creation (Amit and Zott 2001);

• Competitive advantage (Christensen 2001);

• Stock value performance (Casadesus-Masanell and Ricart 2010; Zott and Amit 2007, 2008)

• Configurations (Aversa, Funari, and Haefliger, 2015)

• Incentives to Provide Public Goods (Sommerrock 2010)

• Ethics (Bull and Ridley-Duff, 2018)

Research gaps

Despite extensive research on social entrepreneurship that has generated

different understandings and classifications of social ventures, as well as business

models in the social entrepreneurship context, there seems to be a need for more

research, to further enrich our understanding, that specifically focuses on the social

venture characteristics and the frameworks of the appropriate social venture business


models for transforming NPOs (Demil et al., 2015; Wilson & Post, 2013), especially

in developing countries where there are tensions between public and private forces.

Aims and research questions

The aims of this thesis are to address the research gaps by (a) establishing a

typology of social venture business model configurations that identifies the

characteristics and the effective types of business model configurations for

transforming non-profits in developing countries; (b) establishing construct validity

of the characteristics in the typology; and (c) further empirically testing the typology

using a taxonomic analysis. A typology is defined as “conceptually derived

interrelated sets of ideal types … each of which represents a unique combination of

the organizational attributes that are believed to determine the relevant outcome(s)”

(Doty & Glick, 1994, p. 232), while a taxonomy is defined as “an empirically

derived … organizational classifications schemes” (Rich, 1992, p. 761). The aims

and the research questions (RQs) of this thesis are:

Aim 1: To develop a typology of social venture business model configurations for

transforming non-profits in developing countries

RQ1: How do resource dependence theory and public administration theories (i.e.,

publicness theory) make sense of extant business model configurations, especially in

social ventures?

RQ2: What are the key characteristics of social ventures and how do they configure

extant business model dimensions?

RQ3: What are the types of social ventures for transforming non-profits in

developing countries and how are these types associated with effective business

model configurations?


Aim 2: To establish construct validity of the characteristics in the typology of social

venture business model configurations

RQ4: What are the characteristics of social ventures as they emerge from the

empirical data?

RQ5: What are the emerging social venture forms resulting from these

characteristics?

RQ6: How do different social venture forms correspond to outcomes?

Aim 3: To test the typology of social venture business model configurations by

examining its association with particular outcomes

RQ7: Are there different business models of social ventures that are empirically

identifiable? If so, how do they differ?

Methodology

This is a thesis by published papers (see Appendix C for QUT’s requirement

on PhD by published papers). Using a theory elaboration/advancement framework to

achieve the aims and to link the papers (Fisher & Aguinis, 2017; Lee, Mitchell &

Sablynski, 1999), this thesis consists of three sequential papers that fulfil important

roles in the typology-driven theorizing process (Bacharach, 1989; Boyd, Bergh,

Ireland & Ketchen, 2013; Doty & Glick, 1994; Weick, 1995). The papers: (a)

develop characteristics and a typology of social venture business model

configurations and generate the typology’s logical adequacy – “implicit or explicit

logic embedded in the … propositions which ensures that their … propositions are

capable of being disconfirmed” (Bacharach 1989, p. 505); (b) establish construct

validity in a typology theory elaboration study; and (c) test the typology by


generating an empirical taxonomy to seek predictive validity – “whether measures in

fact have a link to dependent variables as specified by theory” (Boyd et al., 2013,p.

6) - and predictive adequacy – “the degree to which … propositions approximate …

reality” (Bacharach 1989, p. 509). Table 1.3 summarizes the aims, methods, and

outputs of the papers in this thesis.

Table 1.3 The Theorizing Framework of the Papers in This Thesis (Adapted from Fisher & Aguinis, 2017) Typology theory

generation Typology theory elaboration

Typology theory testing

Aim

Paper 1 Development of the characteristics and a new typology of social venture business models

Paper 2 Elaboration of the typology developed in Paper 1 by clarifying construct validity of characteristics and generating insights

Paper 3 Test by examining the association of the typology and outcomes

Method Conceptual Qualitative (case study)

Quantitative (latent profile analysis)

Function in theory evaluation

Logical adequacy Construct validity Predictive validity and adequacy

Outputs Reconceptualization of business model frameworks using resource dependence theory (RQ1) Unique characteristics of social ventures (RQ2) Theoretical typology and the relationship of business models and performance (RQ3)

Construct validity and scope of unique characteristics of social ventures (RQ4) Improved typology (RQ5) Conceptual framework of social venture forms, business models, and effectiveness (RQ6)

Empirical taxonomy and test of association (RQ7)


Paper 1, entitled “A Typology of Social Venture Business Model

Configurations”, develops a new typology of social venture business models for

transforming non-profits by taking account of the public and private organizational

characteristics. As a conceptual paper, Paper 1 borrows from the public

administration literature and uses resource dependence theory (Pfeffer & Salancik,

1978, 2003) to conceptually derive the characteristics and identify the theoretical

types of social venture business models for transforming non-profits, and further

generate theoretical propositions on how they relate to different outcomes. In doing

so, Paper 1 develops new constructs and new testable propositions. The typology in

this paper broadly builds on the “socially responsible business” type of social

enterprise classification in the existing literature, primarily because the types in the

literature focus on public and private resources, seek to employ innovation, and aim

to reduce poverty (Ridley-Duff & Bull, 2016).

Paper 2, entitled “Organizational Characteristics and Forms: Empirical

Insights from Business Models of Social Ventures”, aims to establish construct

validity of the social venture characteristics that built the typology using a qualitative

approach. Paper 2, using a case study method, is a qualitative empirical study that

establishes construct validity (e.g. Bechky, 2003; Eisenhardt, 1989; Gioia &

Chittipeddi, 2001) of the characteristics of social ventures and subsequently

generates an improved typology of social venture business models. Paper 2 further

generates insights from the empirical data and develops a conceptual framework that

connects social venture forms, business models, and organizational effectiveness.

Paper 3, entitled “A Taxonomy of Social Venture Business Models for

Transforming Non-Profit Organizations”, tests the typology developed in Paper 1

using the quantitative taxonomic method of latent profile analysis (Lanza, Tan &


Bray, 2013; Muthen, 2001, 2004). In doing so, Paper 3 demonstrates further

construct validity, especially, the convergent, discriminant, and predictive validity of

the measurement of the variables derived from the constructs, and a preliminary

indication of the predictive adequacy of the theoretical relationship derived from

Papers 1 and 2.

Boundary conditions and data for theory elaboration and testing

This thesis’s boundary conditions are the ones developed in the typology

generation paper (Paper 1). In Paper 1, the typology was developed to specifically

focus on the business models of emerging social ventures from NPOs undergoing

transformation. The typology is, therefore, not exhaustive and it does not include all

types of social venture models. The typology also specifically aims to analyse social

ventures that were transformed from NPOs in developing countries due to high

public and private tensions that they encounter from aid organizations and market

stakeholders.

Thus, the data for the analyses in Papers 2 and 3 were collected in a

developing country (Indonesia) to ensure that the typology was elaborated and tested

according to these boundary conditions (Bacharach, 1989). More specifically, Paper

3 uses a sample of social ventures that had been recently transformed from NPOs

from the British Council’s NGO Transformation to Social Enterprise Program in

Indonesia (British Council, 2017). Prior to the data collection, research for Papers 2

and 3 received QUT ethical clearance, no. 1400001026 and no. 1600000283,

respectively. Subsequently, the generalizability of the results of this thesis may need

to be cautiously interpreted within these proposed boundary conditions.


Contributions to the Literature

This thesis documents a theorizing process (Weick, 1995). This process

“consists of activities like abstracting, generalizing, relating, selecting, explaining,

synthesizing and idealizing” (Weick, 1995, p. 389); it is a “journey” towards

developing a falsifiable theory (Bacharach 1989). As a theorizing process, this thesis

makes two main contributions that address the identified research gaps in the

literature. First, it extends the social entrepreneurship literature, especially the

discussions on the “earned-income” school of thought (Defourny & Nyssens, 2010;

Maier et al., 2014) by providing an initial indication of valid and useful

characteristics and a typology generated from the context of a developing country,

that is, Indonesia. The typology of social venture business models for transforming

non-profits in developing countries enriches the discussion beyond the causes,

processes, and effects of transformation and extends the “socially responsible

business” classification (Ridley-Duff & Bull, 2016) due to the overlapping poverty-

reduction and innovation foci. The typology may also overlap with the “public-sector

social enterprises” classification model (Defourny & Nyssens, 2017) since the

typology focuses on the tensions arising from public and private stakeholder

demands. Although the typology is generated from a developing country context, the

attention to public and private tensions may suggest that it is also useful in a more

general context, such as in the wake of the increasing popularity of social

procurement in developed countries (Furneaux & Barraket, 2014). In developing the

typology, this thesis also links the social entrepreneurship discussion to the broader

entrepreneurship and management theory by utilizing public administration and

resource dependency theory, as suggested by Short and colleagues (Short et al.,


2008). This may advance the theorization process in the social entrepreneurship

domain.

Second, this thesis moves the discussion in the business model literature by

re-conceptualizing the extant business model frameworks, which to date have been

designed to analyse commercial ventures (Wirtz et al., 2016), so that they can

analyse social ventures that transformed from NPOs. Using a theoretical lens from

the management literature (resource dependence theory; Pfeffer & Salancik, 1978,

2003), this thesis offers a novel re-conceptualization that unpacks the current

understanding of how business models are configured in different types of

organizations (public, private, and hybrid, i.e., social ventures). This thesis extends

the popular business model framework (Amit & Zott, 2001, 2015) by incorporating

the public and private aspects to analsze the configurations of extant business model

dimensions (Richardson, 2008). In doing so, this thesis also parallels with the recent

work in the business model literature that aims to include sustainability perspectives

in the extant frameworks (Bocken et al., 2014; Boons & Ludeke-Freund 2013;

Randles & Laasch, 2016; Stubbs & Cocklin 2008; Wilson & Post 2013) and further

allows researchers to use business model frameworks to analyse non-commercial

organizations.

Thesis outline

This thesis comprises six chapters. Chapter 1 provides the introduction of the

thesis, and Chapter 2 provides a discussion of the thesis research design and

methodology, outlining the strategies and methods to achieve the thesis objectives.

This chapter specifically discusses the approach and methods employed in Papers 1,

2, and 3. Chapter 3 contains Paper 1 on typology theory generation, while Chapter 4


contains Paper 2 on qualitative, typology theory elaboration, and Chapter 5 is Paper 3

on quantitative typology theory. Chapter 6 provides a general discussion and the

conclusions of the thesis. It highlights the key findings, key contributions to the

literature, as well as the limitations of the thesis and directions for future research.

The chapter also highlights practical implications from the results of this thesis and a

concluding remark.


Chapter 2: Methodology

Introduction

The aims of this thesis are: (a) to develop a typology of social venture

business model configurations for transforming non-profits in developing countries;

(b) to establish construct validity of the characteristics in the typology of social

venture business model configurations; and (c) to test the typology by examining its

association with business models and performance.

This chapter outlines the methods of this thesis to achieve these objectives.

Each of these objectives is achieved in an individual paper presented in Chapter 3, 4,

and 5. In Chapter 3, a conceptual paper develops a typology of social venture

business model configurations. In Chapter 4, a qualitative paper elaborates the

typology and aims to establish construct validity of the characteristics from empirical

data. In Chapter 5, a quantitative paper tests the theory-driven typology by

examining its association to distal outcomes. In Chapter 6, an overall discussion will

be presented.

This thesis uses a theory advancement framework (Fisher & Aguinis, 2017)

that links all the papers (typology theory generation, typology theory elaboration, and

typology theory testing) together (see Table 2.1). Each paper in the theory

advancement framework provides “a complementary purpose in the knowledge

creation process” (Fisher & Aguinis, 2017, p. 4) and thus, altogether, the three papers

document a theorizing process (Weick, 1995) to develop a falsifiable typology of

social venture business model configurations (Bacharach, 1989; Doty & Glick, 1994)

38 Chapter 2: Methodology

Table 2.1 Typology-Driven Theory Advancement (Adapted from Fisher & Aguinis, 2017)

Typology theory generation (Paper 1)

Typology theory elaboration (Paper 2)

Typology theory testing (Paper 3)

Input Unexplained phenomenon; little to no existing theory

Partially explained phenomena; an existing conceptual model and/or ideas

Relationship between the social venture business model types and outcomes derived from extant theory

Process and tactics (Methods) Develop and derive new concepts/typology and relationships using logical, well-reasoned arguments (Conceptual)

Use existing concepts/typology theory to collect and organize data to contrast, specify, and structure theoretical constructs and relations to refine existing theory (Qualitative case study)

Collect and analyze data to assess whether they provide evidence supporting the theorized relationship in the typology theory (Quantitative latent profile analysis)

Output (Theory evaluation) New testable typology theory; new constructs (Logical adequacy)

Refinement of existing theoretical ideas – refined contextual factors, constructs/typology, and/or relationship (Construct validity)

Taxonomic analysis validation of extant theory (Predictive validity and adequacy)

Research questions RQ1: How do resource dependence theory and public administration theories make sense of extant business model configurations, especially in social venture? RQ2: What are the key characteristics of social ventures and how do they configure extant business model dimensions? RQ3: What are the types of social ventures for transforming NPOs in developing countries and how are these types associated with effective business model configurations?

RQ4: What are the characteristics of social ventures as they emerge from the empirical data? RQ5: What are the emerging social venture forms resulting from these characteristics? RQ6: How do different social venture forms correspond to outcomes?

RQ7: Are there different business models of social ventures that are empirically identifiable; if so, how do they differ?

Chapter 2: Methodology 39

Typology-driven theory generation in Paper 1

The theorizing process in this thesis begins with the development of a typology

in Paper 1 (see Chapter 3). Prior to describing the strategy of Paper 1, this section

discusses the definition of a typology and why a typology is useful in theory

generation processes

Typology-driven theorizing

Typologies are popular and their popularity are often derived from their ability

to parsimoniously describe complex organizational phenomenon (Miller, 1996). A

typology is defined as “conceptually derived interrelated sets of ideal types … each

of which represents a unique combination of the organizational attributes that are

believed to determine the relevant outcome(s)” (Doty & Glick, 1994, p. 232). They

offer a way to make sense of complex configurations of phenomena. The utilities of

a typology also go beyond this, as they are also communicative and easy to

remember (Miller, 1996).

An example of a famous and widely used typology in the management

literature is Miles, Snow, Meyer and Coleman’s (1978) configurations of effective

business strategy (Doty & Glick, 1994). Miles and colleagues identified types of

effective firm strategies based on how firms configured their organizations in

adapting to “entrepreneurial, engineering, and administrative” problems (Miles et al.,

1978). Miles and colleagues’ typology has been widely used in management

consultancies and in academia. Evidence for this popularity can be seen in a Google

Scholar metric of the Miles et al. (1978) paper published in the Academy of

Management Review that was cited by 12,547 papers until early 2017.


Despite these practical utilities, several authors in the management literature

have criticized the use of typologies. For example, typologies, according to Rich

(1992) are classification schemes that serve as instruments to compare, contrast and

order organizational phenomena into categorical types. While they may be useful,

according to the critics they are not theories and they do not explain the relationships

between variables – as theories normally do. Not surprisingly, Bacharach (1989)

asserted that “typologies are limited to addressing the primary question asked by

descriptive researchers” (p. 497).

These critics marked the declining use of typology in top management

journals despite the continuing popularity of some in several subject areas, such as

strategic management, and among management practitioners (Delbrige & Fiss, 2013;

Ketchen & Shook, 1996). This may have been because top management journals

expect researchers to offer new contributions of knowledge and significant

theoretical contributions (Mathieu 2016) and typology research is often perceived as

one that does not make sufficient theoretical contributions (Bacharach, 1989).

Researchers in the typology camp disagreed with the critics. A recent

conversation among scholars and the emerging research in the Academy of

Management journals highlighted the attempt to bring typology research back into

the management discipline. They argued that typologies have been misunderstood in

the literature and this misunderstanding has pushed the typology research away from

theory development processes in management studies (Fiss, 2011; Snow & Ketchen

2014).

In contrast to the critics’ accusations, they argued that typology is a unique

form of theorizing. This approach, “typology-driven theorizing” (Snow & Ketchen,

2014), calls for a departure from a “false understanding” of a typology as a


descriptive categorization of organizational phenomena. A typology is different from

a classification or a system of clusters. Elman (2009) called this form “explanatory

typologies” (p. 122). Explanatory typologies are different from

descriptive/classificatory typologies because unlike the latter, the former offers

theoretical predictions. Elman (2009, p. 122) highlighted the differences between the

goals of explanatory and descriptive/classificatory typology:

In an explanatory typology, the descriptive function follows the conventional

usage, but in a way that is heavily modified by its theoretical purposes. The

constituent attributes are extracted from the variables of a pre-existing theory.

The dimensions of the property space (its rows and columns) reflect

alternative values of the theory’s independent variables, so each cell in the

space is associated with predictive values of the theory’s intervening or

dependent variables. This association changes the descriptive question being

answered from ‘What constitutes this type?’ to ‘If my theory is correct, what

do I expect to see?’ (see Table 2.2).

This perspective also corresponds to Doty and Glick’s (1994) notion of a

“typological approach to theory-building” (p. 232). For them, typologies should

“identify multiple ideal types, each of which represents a unique combination of

organizational attributes that are believed to determine the relevant outcome(s)” (p.

232). This is, according to them, different from mere classification because

typologies “are intended to predict the variance in a specified dependent variable

because the organizational types identified in typologies are developed with respect

to a specified organizational outcome” (Doty & Glick, 1994, p. 232). In a similar

fashion, Cornellisen (2017) in an Academy of Management Review (AMR) journal

editorial also asserted that the theoretical typology needs to go beyond empirical

classification and, similar to other modes of theorizing (proposition and


narrative/process model), an explanatory typology should offer theoretical and causal

explanations instead.

Table 2.2 Goals of Typologies (Adapted from Elman, 2009)

Descriptive Classificatory Explanatory

Analytic move(s) Defines compound concepts (types) to use as descriptive characterizations

Assigns cases to types

Makes predictions based on combinations of different values of a theory’s variables; places data in relevant cells (e.g., two-by-two matrix) for congruence testing and comparisons to determine whether the data is consistent with the theory

Question(s) answered

What constitutes this type?

What is this a case of?

If my theory is correct, what do I expect to see? Do I see it?

Example What is a commercial enterprise as opposed to a social enterprise?

Are Google and Facebook commercial or social enterprises?

According to resource dependence theory, what outcomes are predicted from different types of commercial enterprises? Do the performance of Google and Facebook agree with that prediction?

Thus, to qualify as a theory, Doty and Glick (1994) argued that typologies

need to have two kinds of constructs: (a) ideal-type constructs that aim to provide an

abstract model of the phenomenon; and (b) the constructs serve as the “building

blocks of traditional theoretical statements” (p. 233-234). Typology theories need to


also “hypothesize relationships among the constructs incorporated in the theory”

(Doty & Glick, 1994, p. 234). In doing so, Doty and Glick (1994) positioned the

typologies as theoretical propositions that can be assessed according to the

Bacharach (1989) yardsticks of theory evaluation: measured variables, construct

validity and scope, and relationships (e.g., logical and empirical adequacy as well as

predictive adequacy). Logical adequacy refers to the logic in the theoretical typology

propositions that allow the propositions to be disconfirmed; that is, the propositions

are non-tautological and the nature of the relationships are specific. Empirical

adequacy refers to the operationalization of the theoretical typology that warrants

falsification (Bacharach, 1989). On the other hand, predictive adequacy refers to

whether the propositions approximate reality (Bacharach, 1989).

Doty and Glick (1994), Elman (2009), and recently, Cornelissen (2017), have

offered a fresh perspective in understanding the characteristics of typologies and how

they can become means for theory development. Instead of a simplistic overview of

reality (Rich, 1992), if appropriately developed, a typology offers a simple,

memorable, and neat (Miller, 1996) model that can explain, and not only describe

complex organizational phenomena.

The configurational approach

The rising attention to typologies as theories is also related to the recent return

of the configurational approach in management studies (Miller 1996; Short, Payne, &

Ketchen, 2008). Typology-driven theorizing reflects configurational thinking

(Ragin, 2008). The configurational approach views organizations as a holistic

entity; “the whole is best understood from a systemic perspective and should be

viewed as a constellation of interconnected elements” (Fiss, Marx, & Cambre, 2013,

p. 2). The configurational approach is different from the more conventional variable-


centred approach. Instead of focusing on the whole, the latter pays attention to the

relationships among variables or attributes of organizations (Meyer, Stanley &

Parfyonova, 2012). So, for example, in understanding business models of

organizations, a configurational approach analyses the ways in which value creation,

value capture, and value propositions are configured in achieving organizational

performance. In contrast, a conventional linear or variable approach is interested in

the relationship between each of the components of the business model with

performance, for example the relationship between value proposition and financial

performance. Unlike the configuration approach, the variable-centred approach does

not recognize unobserved heterogeneity in a population.

An important notion in the configuration approach is equifinality (Ragin,

2008), which refers to the situation where different paths can lead to the same

outcomes (Katz & Kahn, 1978). From the equifinal point of view, organizational

performance, for example, may be caused by several equally effective

configurations; both groups of firms that have innovation and those that have

efficient configurations may be equally effective in creating performing

organizations. In contrast, in a unifinal situation, only one configuration exists. To

illustrate, a unifinal analysis only pays attention to the relationship between

innovative firms and performance. This latter mode of analysis is reflected in the

conventional, linear or variable approach.

Another important characteristic of the configuration approach is the

asymmetrical nature of the connections between configurations and outcomes

(Ragin, 2008); that is, the conditions that lead to an outcome may be different from

the conditions that lead to the absence of an outcome. Miles and colleagues’

typology (1978), for example, highlights three configurations that lead to the


effective performance of firms (prospectors, analysers, and defenders). These firms

have particular configurations that lead into each of the identified effective

outcomes. However, Miles and colleagues’ typology (1978) also identified a non-

effective configuration that they called reactors. This particular configuration leads

to an absence of effective outcomes.

Thus, the configuration approach pays attention to the complex, holistic

relationship that leads to the presence (or absence) of a particular outcome. In the

organizational behaviour research area, for example, the so-called “person-centred

approach” has also showed the utilization of the configuration approach in explaining

the behaviour of persons from a whole perspective. Meyer et al. (2012) used this

strategy to replace the “variable-centred strategies” in researching commitment.

Similarly, in entrepreneurship research, scholars have started to adopt the

configurational approach to explain entrepreneurship phenomenon. For example,

Khelil (2016) outlined configurations of entrepreneurial failure, and Obschonka and

Stuetzer (2017) used the configurational approach to develop an entrepreneurship

personality system (EPS), which is a holistic approach to make sense of

entrepreneurial personality and behaviour.

Despite offering a new perspective, the configuration approach does not

attempt to replace the theoretical power of existing management theories, such as the

resource based view, resource dependence theory, transaction cost theory,

institutional theory, population ecology, and others. In contrast, the configuration

approach offers different ways of “detecting and understanding the proper operation”

of the mechanism in these theories (Fiss et al., 2013, p. 8).

In summary, in addition to its practical utility, a typology offers a promising

potential for theory development in management studies. If designed appropriately,


a typology can capture complex organizational phenomena in heterogeneous settings,

offer a more accurate representation of reality, explain and predict organizational

phenomena, and can further be assessed according to the extant theory evaluation

criteria. Further, a typology reflects configurational thinking because it is essentially

a visual representation of a complex configuration that leads to certain outcome(s)

(Fiss, 2011; Ragin, 2008).

Paper 1

Paper 1, entitled “A Typology of Social Venture Business Model

Configurations” in Chapter 3 aims to develop a theory-driven typology of social

venture forms and business model configurations. It is a typology theory generation

study that uses existing concepts in the literature to identify the characteristics of

social ventures (i.e., publicness theory) and to develop an explanatory typology using

a management theory (i.e., resource dependency theory) to explain how different

business model types of social ventures affect organizational outcomes. Paper 1 re-

conceptualizes extant business model frameworks so that they can analyse public and

private tensions in social ventures.

In doing so, Paper 1 fulfils the requirement of a typology theory as indicated by

Doty & Glick (1994) and Cornelissen (2017): the paper (a) develops ideal type

constructs (i.e., the characteristics of social ventures); and (b) develops building

blocks of theoretical statements (i.e., using resource dependency theory logic) to

make sense of different business models in the social entrepreneurship context.

Paper 1, therefore, aims to fulfil the logical adequacy criterion indicated by

Bacharach (1989). The theoretical arguments in Paper 1 lead to statements that can

be disconfirmed because they are built on existing, widely tested, theoretical

frameworks (resource dependence theory and publicness theory).


Typology-driven theory elaboration: Tactics and method employed in Paper 2

Paper 2 in this thesis, entitled “Organizational Characteristics and Forms:

Empirical Insights from Business Models of Social Ventures”, subscribes to the

method prescribed by Lee et al. (1999) and more specifically by Fisher & Aguinis

(2017) to elaborate theoretical propositions. Lee et al. (1999) defined theory

elaboration as occurring “when pre-existing conceptual ideas or a preliminary model

drives the study’s design” (p. 164). Theory elaboration usually utilises qualitative

research methods and embraces several tactics that aim to fulfil theory evaluation

criteria according to Bacharach (1989). Fisher & Aguinis (2017) asserted that the

tactics of theory elaboration include contrasting, construct specification, and

structuring. According to them, contrasting tactics aim to improve the logical and

empirical adequacy of a theory; construct specification tactics aim to improve

construct validity and the scope of the variables and dimensions outlined in a theory,

while structuring tactics, on the other hand, aim to improve the explanatory and

predictive adequacy of a theory. Table 2.3 outlines the tactics common to theory

elaboration studies.

Construct specification tactic

Paper 2 (see Chapter 4) uses the case study method to specifically focus on the

construct specification tactic to elaborate the typology-driven theory (e.g., Bechky,

2003; Eisenhardt, 1989; Gioia and Chittipeddi, 2001). Construct specification is an

important first step prior to testing the theory; establishing construct clarity and

validity is essential for a theory to be falsifiable (Bacharach, 1989; Sudabby, 2010).

Suddaby (2010) argued that clear definitions of the constructs, scope conditions, and

the relationship to other related constructs are important because constructs are the

foundation of theory.


Table 2.3 Theory Elaboration Tactics (Adapted from Fisher & Aguinis, 2017)

Implementation approaches and specific tactics

Fundamental features Theory evaluation purpose (as per Bacharach, 1989)

Contrasting

Contrasting observations across different contexts and different levels of analysis

Improving logical and empirical adequacy

Construct specification Identifying and defining (new) constructs and breaking broad constructs into specific constructs

Improving construct validity and scope

Structuring Defining/redefining a specific relation between two constructs; providing an explanation of a sequence of events or relations; accounting for a recursive relationship between two or more entities over repeated interactions

Improving explanatory and predictive adequacy

Paper 2 employs a qualitative, case-comparison study design to fulfil the

construct specification task. It aims to establish construct validity of the

characteristics of social ventures outlined in Paper 1 on the typology. Case studies, in

addition to their powerful ways in generating theory, allow researchers to establish

construct validity and explore the scope of the constructs under investigation.

Eisenhardt (1989), in describing the use of case study research to validate constructs,

argued:

This [construct validity process in case study research] is a two-part process

involving: (1) refining the definition of the construct and (2) building

evidence which measures the construct in each case. This occurs through

constant comparison between data and constructs so that accumulating


evidence from diverse sources converges on a single, well-defined construct

… This process is similar to developing a single construct measure from

multiple indicators in hypothesis-testing research. That is, researchers use

multiple sources of evidence to a build construct measure, which define the

construct and distinguish it from other constructs. In effect, the researcher is

attempting to establish construct validity (pp. 541-542).

Most Different Systems Design (MDSD) and Most Similar Systems Design (MSSD)

Paper 2 embraces a particular technique in the case study method to establish

construct validity: the most different system design (MDSD) as opposed to the

commonly used most similar system design (MSSD) in many qualitative studies.

These approaches are the two most dominant paradigms in conducting comparative

research (Meckstroth, 1975). Table 2.4 outlines the distinguishing characteristics of

MDSD and MSSD.

Table 2.4 Characteristics, Objectives, and Exemplars of MDSD and MSSD

Most different systems design (MDSD)

Most similar systems design (MSSD)

Characteristics Focuses on cases that differ on all factors, except selected independent variables and outcomes; analysis of within-group differences

Focuses on cases that differ systematically; analyses of between-group and within-group differences

Objectives Looking for maximum heterogeneity in a designated sample by eliminating irrelevant systemic factors

Looking for causal conditions by isolating systematic differences, for example, by applying replication logic

Exemplars in the literature Howard (2003); Skocpol (1979)

Brown & Eisenhardt (1997); Eishenhardt (1989)

Paper 2 utilizes MDSD case study approach because this method suits the

construct specification objective. In a construct specification study, a researcher is


interested to see the boundaries, scope and relationships of particular constructs in

contrast to others. Thus, having a sample with maximum heterogeneity within

designated boundaries is important to achieve the objective as it allows researchers to

analyse similarities and differences among different cases. In qualitative case studies

the MDSD approach allows maximum heterogeneity in case comparisons (Otner,

2010) because it formulates “statements that are valid regardless of the systems

within which observations are made” (Preworski & Teune, 1970, p. 35).

In MDSD case selection, researchers need to identify “cases that differ on all

factors except [a selected] independent variable(s) and outcome; this procedure

amounts to selecting on the dependent variable …[and] it aims to eliminate irrelevant

systemic factors” (Otner, 2010, p. 3). By doing this, the researcher can focus on

differences within a selected sample. MDSD focuses on variables below the system

level (Anckar, 2008) and, thus, is useful in analysing within-group differences. For

example, if a researcher is interested to examine differences within a large group of

sweet fruits (taste of sweetness on the tongue as a dependent variable and the

presence of fructose as the selected independent variable), MDSD allows a

researcher to identify other factors (such as colour determinants and texture of fruits)

in a sample of sweet fruits with maximum heterogeneity of different types of fruits

with fructose (e.g., apples, oranges, bananas). In this case, MDSD disregards the

differences among different systemic factors (e.g., among sweet and non-sweet

fruits).

While MDSD is useful for identifying factors in a maximum heterogeneity

sample setting, which is, thus, useful in a construct specification study, unlike

MSSD, the method is rarely used for identifying causal relationships (Gerring, 2007).

This is because MDSD allows the identification of independent variables at the


system level, while at the same time the method uses a dependent variable at the sub-

system level (Anckar, 2008). This arrangement discourages the isolation of the

causal variables. Independent variables at the system level may contribute to

different dependent variables other than the ones selected at the sub-system level. In

other words, factors in the variety of fruits (such as colour determinants and texture)

may also contribute to the non-sweetness taste of the fruits.

In contrast, MSSD is the predominant view among social scientists in

establishing causal relationship (Przeworski & Teune, 1970). It operates by focusing

on different “systemic” factors that distinguish cases against particular outcomes

(Przeworksi & Teune, 1970). For example, if one wants to understand the causes of

sweetness in oranges, one needs to find groups of sweet and sour oranges. Only by

comparing different groups of sweet and sour oranges, one can isolate the causal

factors (i.e., the presence of fructose) that lead to sweet oranges because in sour

oranges the fructose compounds are not present.

Yin (2009), for example, highlighted the importance of “replication logic” in

employing MSSD. Replication logic uses the same logic to ensure that researchers

are able to isolate systemic differences between the cases. Brown and Eisenhardt

(1997) argued that replication logic is similar to an experimental design “in which

the cases are treated as a series of independent experiments that confirm or

disconfirm emerging conceptual images” (p. 3). Case study research using MSSD is

often preferable in theory generation studies because of its potentials in producing

causal analysis and causal conceptual frameworks (Eisenhardt, 1989). By embracing

this logic, researchers are able to identify the causal factors by eliminating plausible

alternative explanations and, thus, focusing on the aspect that they wish to examine.


Paper 2

Paper 2 uses 12 case studies of effective social ventures from the developing

country of Indonesia) that are consistent with the scope and boundary conditions of

the theoretical typology developed in Paper 1 to fulfil the construct specification

task. All cases were selected to have the same outcome (effectiveness) and selected

independent variables (social mission and private ownership logic) to follow the

MDSD case selection approach. In contrast to the MSSD approach, using MDSD in

Paper 2 allowed for maximum heterogeneity in the selected sample and, therefore,

Paper 2 was able to establish the construct validity of the characteristics within a

group of effective social ventures. Interview data and secondary data (reports, news

clipping) were collected, coded, and developed into case narratives (Brown &

Eisenhardt, 1997). Comparison tables were then developed to analyse the cases.

QUT ethical clearance no. 1400001026 was obtained prior to data collection.

Typology-driven theory testing: Tactics and method employed in Paper 3

A typology that drives theorization “should [also] be subjected to … rigorous

empirical testing” (Doty & Glick 1994, p. 231). Paper 3 (see Chapter 5), entitled “A

Taxonomy of Social Venture Business Models for Transforming Non-Profits”, aims

to test the typology-driven theory developed in Paper 1 and to use the construct

validity results and insights from Paper 2 by using quantitative taxonomic methods.

A taxonomy refers to an “empirically derived … organizational classification

schemes” (Rich 1992, p. 761). Paper 3 tests the typology by examining its

association with several outcome variables (business model configurations and

performance). In doing so, Paper 3 seeks to examine the predictive adequacy, that is,

the extent to which the theoretical frameworks approximate reality, of the typology-

driven theory (Bacharach 1989).


Latent Profile Analysis (LPA)

Testing typology-driven theories requires specific methodologies that differ

from the conventional variable-centred approach (such as regression) (Fiss et al.,

2013), and management authors have attempted to apply various configural methods

to test typologies (Short et al., 2008). Paper 3 uses a particular configural method,

latent class analysis/latent profile analysis (LCA/LPA) to generate and analyse the

empirical taxonomy. The LCA/LPA method is part of a family of latent methods

called mixture modelling, together with factor mixture analysis and the growth

mixture model (Nylund, Asparouhov, & Muthen, 2007). LCA allows researchers to

identify unobserved heterogeneity (latent variables) in a population from a number of

observed indicators (Muthen, 2004; Nylund et. al., 2007). Thus, consistent with the

configuration approach, LCA focuses on the outcomes of a system of indicators at

the holistic level. While LCA focuses on categorical observed variables, latent

profile analysis (LPA) refers to the use of LCA with continuous indicators (Gabriel,

Daniels, Diefendorff, & Greguras, 2015).

LPA is often considered superior than conventional cluster analysis (Ketchen

& Shook, 1996; Stanley, Kellermanns, & Zellweger, 2017). Unlike conventional

cluster analysis, the latent variables resulting from LCA/LPA can be treated like any

other construct (Vandenberg & Stanley, 2009). Thus, LCA/LPA can be extended to

analyse predictors and “distal outcomes” or dependent variables (Lanza et al., 2013).

LCA/LPA is similar to factor analysis because it assumes that the relationship

between observed variables is caused by latent variables – those that are not directly

observed (Vandenberg & Stanley 2009). The only difference is that factor analysis


attempts to reduce large amounts of data to generate meaningful constructs, while

LCA attempts to reduce large amounts of cross-sectional data into meaningful

profiles or classes of individual cases.

Wang and Hanges (2011) argued that LCA/LPA is useful for several reasons.

First, LCA/LPA uses a statistical model to infer the population from the sample

selected for analysis. This implies that the LCA/LPA uses statistically consistent

criteria in allocating individual cases in the latent clusters.

In doing so, LCA/LPA uses several fit statistics that need to be used

altogether in helping the researcher to determine the number of selected

clusters/profiles. Unlike other latent analyses, such as structural equation modelling,

there are no “cut-offs” for these fit statistics (Gabriel et. al., 2015); in LCA,

researchers need to triangulate the results of the fit statistics. The first is the absolute

model fit, such as the log-likelihood (LL) value, the Lo-Mendell-Rubin likelihood

ratio test, and the Bootstrapped likelihood ratio test (BLRT). The second is the

relative fit indices, such as Akaike information criteria (AIC), Bayesian information

criteria (BIC), and the sample-size adjusted Bayesian information criteria (SSA-

BIC). The third is the classification-uncertainty index, such as entropy. The ideal

number of profiles needs to have lower LL, AIC, BIC, and SSA-BIC values, a

significant LMR and BLRT, and larger entropy (> .7) (Bennet, Gabriel, Calderwood,

Dahling, & Trougakos, 2017; Gabriel et. al., 2015). These fit indices need to be used

together because simulation analysis (e.g., using Monte Carlo methods) shows that

there is no single fit index that consistently demonstrates statistical power (Tein,

Coxe, & Cham, 2013). Yet, most importantly, although this may help researchers to

decide the number of clusters, several authors have emphasized the importance of

theoretical and past research interpretations in deciding the number of clusters. In


fact, some researchers have emphasized that these interpretations can heavily

influence the decision on the number of clusters/profiles (Foti, Bray, & Thopmson,

2012; Lawrence & Zyphur, 2011). Table 2.5 describes and outlines these fit indices

including their statistical power based on a number of simulation studies.

Second, LCA/LPA applies a probabilistic classification approach (Wang &

Hanges, 2011). In LCA/LPA, despite that each individual belongs to one latent

class, the uncertainty of its membership is taken into account. The step in LCA/LPA

starts with estimating the latent class model parameters and observed scores, which

then becomes the basis in computing individual posterior probabilities – the

probabilities that an individual case has, taking into account prior events – for class

memberships. This procedure allows the classification of other individuals in the

population based on observed scores in the next step of the analysis.

Further, consistent with the typology-driven theorizing arguments, LCA/LPA

analysis attracts more interest of researchers when it analyses the relationships

between the latent variables with other variables (antecedents, consequences).

Asparouhov and Muthen (2014) called these “auxiliary variables”. Analyses of

relationships with distal outcome variables (consequences) and with predictor

variables (antecedents) make the LCA/LPA more theoretically useful. Figure 2.1

presents a modelling illustration of LCA/LPA with three indicators and five “distal

outcomes”. In figure 2.1, C denotes the clusters or the latent variables, µ1 to µ3

denote the indicator variables, and distal outcome 1 to distal outcome 5 denote the

auxiliary variables.


Figure 2.1. A typical model of LCA/LPA with three indicators and five distal outcomes.

Paper 3

Paper 3 uses characteristics developed in the theoretical typology in Paper 1

and that emerged in Paper 2 to test the typology using the LPA method. Prior to

testing the theory, Paper 3 conducted construct validity and reliability tests as

suggested by Bacharach (1989) to establish appropriate measurements for the

analysis. Appendix B highlights in more detail the process of scale development,

construct validity, and reliability of the measures used in testing the typology-driven

theory. Paper 3 uses these scales to test the typology against a set of distal outcomes

to establish the predictive validity of the scales. Predictive validity refers to an

assessment of the degree to which the measures are connected to the dependent

variables (Boyd et al., 2013).

Distal Outcome1

Distal Outcome2

Distal Outcome3

Distal Outcome4

Distal Outcome5

u1 u2 u3

C


Paper 3, following the boundary conditions set in Paper 1, uses a sample of

transforming non-profits in a developing country. The sample is social ventures

from the British Council NGO Transformation to Social Enterprise program in

Indonesia (British Council, 2017). The program assists local non-profits to transform

into social ventures by providing training and technical assistance on social

enterprise models and governance. There were 307 social ventures that participated

in the research (about a 30% response rate) from more than 800 social ventures in the

sampling frame. QUT ethical clearance no. 1600000283 was obtained prior to data

collection.

Summary

This chapter discussed the methodology in achieving the aims of the thesis.

Following a recent theorizing or theory advancement framework, this chapter

outlined the design of the linkages between the papers in this thesis. Paper 1, a

conceptual paper, aimed to serve as a theory generation paper. Paper 2, using

qualitative method to ensure construct validity, aimed to serve as a theory elaboration

paper. Paper 3, using a quantitative, probability-based typology testing method,

aimed to serve as a theory testing paper. Figure 2.2 summarizes the linkages of the

papers in this thesis.


Table 2.5 Fit indices in Latent Class/Profile Analysis

Types Fit indices Description Selection criteria

Characteristics and statistical power

Relative fit indices Akaike

Information Criteria (AIC)

Most commonly used information-theoretic models; based on maximum likelihood estimates of model parameters (Tein et al., 2013)

Ideally, AIC, BIC, SSA-BIC, and LL of the selected model need to be relatively lower than others

AIC tends to overselect the number of profiles (Dziak et al., 2014)

Bayesian Information Criteria (BIC)

BIC tends to underselect the number of profiles (Dziak et al., 2014).

Sample-size Adjusted Bayesian Information Criteria (SSA-BIC)

Adjusting the BIC according to sample size (Tein et al., 2010)

SSA-BIC has more power to BLRT in larger sample size (Tein., 2013) SSA-BIC and BIC are more superior than others, esp. in continuous indicators (Nylund et al., 2007)

Absolute model fit Log-likelihood (LL)

Show how well the k-class model fits the data (Morgan, Hodge, & Baggett, 2016)

-

Lo-Mendell-Rubin likelihood ratio test (LMR)

Compare the relative fit of two models (Tein et al., 2010)

Ideally, LMR and BLRT need to be statistically significant

BLRT is more robust than LMR results (Nylund et al., 2007) Bootstraped

Likelihood Ratio Test (BLRT)

Classification-uncertainty

Entropy Show how well the model works to classify cases (Morgan et al., 2016)

Need to be relatively high, Jung and Wickrama (2008)’s “cut-off” is > .7

Entropy tends to be unreliable (Tein et al., 2013)


Figure 2.2 Thesis linkages

Re-conceptualize business model framework (RQ1)

Develop unique conceptual characteristics of social ventures (RQ2)

Develop effective typology theory of social venture business model configurations (RQ3)

Conduct qualitative data collection and data reduction steps

Identify empirically emerging characteristics and establish construct validity (RQ4)

Identify improved typology (RQ5) and relationship (RQ6)

Develop scale items Expert panel Test with social entrepreneurs EFA and CFA tests Convergent and discriminant validity Construct reliability

Develop empirical taxonomy (RQ7)

Conduct test of relationship with distal outcomes (RQ7)

Paper 1: A Typology of Social Venture Business Model Configurations

Paper 2: Organizational Characteristics and Forms: Empirical Insights from Business Models of Social Ventures

Paper 3: A Taxonomy of Social Venture Business Models for Transforming Non-profit Organisations

Appendix B

Qualitative case research, MDSD method Quantitative taxonomic research, LPA method Conceptual paper

61 Chapter 3: Paper 1 - A Typology of Social Venture Business Model Configurations

Statement of Contribution of Co-Authors for Thesis by Published Paper

The authors listed below have certified that:

1. they meet the criteria for authorship in that they have participated in theconception, execution, or interpretation, of at least that part of the publicationin their field of expertise;

2. they take public responsibility for their part of the publication, except for theresponsible author who accepts overall responsibility for the publication;

3. there are no other authors of the publication according to these criteria;4. potential conflicts of interest have been disclosed to (a) granting bodies, (b) the

editor or publisher of journals or other publications, and (c) the head of theresponsible academic unit, and

5. they agree to the use of the publication in the student’s thesis and itspublication on the QUT’s ePrints site(http://www.moqut.edu.au/F/F_01_03.jsp) consistent with any limitations setby publisher requirements.

In the case of this chapter:

“A Typology of Social Venture Business Model Configurations”

The manuscript in Chapter 3 has been accepted for publication in the forthcoming (2018) special edition on “Challenging tensions and contradictions: critical, theoretical and empirical perspectives on social enterprise” edited by Mike Bull, Geoff Whittam, Rory Ridley-Duff and Sue Baines at the International Journal of Entrepreneurship Behaviour & Research (IJEBR) (SCOPUS, Q1)

Contributor(s) Statement of contribution(s) 1.Ari Margiono Wrote the manuscript, designed and developed the typology-

driven theory, and developed the re-conceptualization of business model framework 14 Dec 2017

2.Roxanne Zolin Provided feedback on the typology and suggestions, e.g., onpublicness theory, read the manuscript

3.Artemis Chang Provided general feedback, read the manuscript

Principal Supervisor Confirmation

I have sighted emails or other correspondence from all co-authors confirming their certifying authorship. (If the co-authors are not able to sign the form please forward their email or other correspondence confirming the certifying authorship to the RSC).

A/Prof Artemis Chang ________signed________ 14 December 2017 Name Signature Date



Chapter 3: Paper 1 - A Typology of Social Venture Business Model

Configurations

Abstract

Purpose – Social ventures are unique and important for society; yet, we know very

little about their business models. The purpose of this paper is to re-conceptualize

extant business model frameworks so that they can analyse social ventures, identify

the key characteristics of social ventures, and identify the typology of effective social

venture business model configurations.

Design/methodology/approach – The paper uses resource dependence theory to make

sense of extant business models and borrows from public administration literature to

identify key characteristics and different configurations of social venture business

models.

Findings – The paper re-conceptualizes business model frameworks as inter-

organizational arrangements to cope with external resource dependence; this paper

also identifies four key characteristics of social ventures, and develops a social

venture business model typology based on these unique key characteristics and

extant business model dimensions.

Research limitations/implications – The typology may guide further social venture

research, e.g., research on social venture business model creation, on social venture

business model innovation, and on social change. Limitations and boundary

conditions are discussed in the paper


Practical implications – The research may further help social entrepreneurs to

develop effective business models that meet the social and financial objectives of the

social ventures.

Originality/value – The paper offers a novel reconceptualization of traditional

business model frameworks, a unique set of key characteristics of social ventures,

and a theoretical typology of effective social venture business model configurations.

Keywords: business model, social venture, characteristics, typology, social

enterprise, resource dependence theory

Paper Type: Conceptual paper

Introduction

Embracing a business model and transforming it into a social venture has

recently become a popular survival strategy among non-profit organizations (Bull,

2008; Guo, 2006; Maier, Meyer & Steinbereithner, 2016; Nicholls, 2006; Pearce,

2003). This especially happens in developing nations where domestic and foreign

grant-making organizations gradually reduce their funding support to local non-

profits during the phasing-out period (Aldaba, Antezana, Valderrama & Fowler,

2000; Parks, 2008). The British Council, for example, offers world-wide programs

that facilitate various local NGOs in different countries to transform into social

ventures (British Council, 2017) – an entrepreneurial form of organizations that

combine social, or public benefit aims with business-like management (Anheier &


Ben-ner, 2003; Becchetti & Borzaga, 2010; Borzaga & Defourny, 2001)

Adopting a business model and becoming a social venture is the strategy of

choice for them because emerging social ventures can embrace alternative funding

sources, such as from trading and market revenues (Froelich, 1999), and invite social

financial investors (Austin, Stevenson & Wei-Skillern, 2006; Miller & Wesley II,

2010). Seeking profit and opening up to social investors allows the emerging social

ventures to survive and grow (Vickers & Lyon, 2014). In fact, the proponents of the

marketization of non-profits believe that more beneficiaries will benefit from this

particular approach (e.g., Shoham, Ruvio, Vigoda-Gadot & Schwabsky, 2006).

In the social entrepreneurship literature, much research has placed significant

emphasis on this matter. Authors have investigated various income-generation

strategies that non-profits may adopt (e.g., Khieng, 2013), discussed the definitions

and the nature (e.g., Dart, 2004; Kerlin & Pollak, 2011) and the processes and

performance of this transformation (e.g., Davis, Marino, Aaron & Tolbert, 2011;

Gras & Mendoza-Abarca, 2014; Guo, 2006). This “earned-income” school of

thought in the social entrepreneurship literature discusses broadly “the use of

commercial activities by non-profit organizations in support of their mission”

(Defourny & Nyssens, 2010, p. 40).

Yet, despite extensive discussions and research on how non-profits become

social ventures, there is surprisingly limited research that focuses on the effective

types of business models that these transforming non-profits may adopt. Defined as

“the system of interdependent activities performed by a focal firm and its partners

and the mechanisms that link these activities to each other” (Amit & Zott 2015, p.

331), business models of social ventures essentially describe how a focal social

venture manages social and business tensions at the system level. Every successful


social venture needs an effective business model to achieve financial sustainability

and to produce a desirable social impact.

We believe that there are several reasons contributing to the deficit in the

literature. First, there has been limited attention to the business models of social

ventures in the business model literature (Bocken, Short, Rana & Evans, 2014;

Demil, Lecocq, Ricart & Zott, 2015; Wilson & Post, 2013). Most business model

analyses are for organizations with market-orientation and based on expectations to

achieve a sustainable competitive advantage and profit maximization (Teece, 2010;

Wirtz, Pistoia, Ullrich & Göttel, 2016). Further, theoretical foundations used to

analyse existing business models are mostly market-based theory, such as the

resource-based view (RBV) (Barney, 1991; George & Bock, 2011); therefore, there

is a commercial bias in most business model frameworks. Little do we know on what

are the appropriate business model frameworks for organizations with more social

interests and what subsequent theoretical perspectives underlie these frameworks.

Second, much research on non-profit transformation discusses how to embed market

activities into non-profits and focus partially on funding diversification of the new

entity (Aldaba et al., 2000; Khieng, 2013). This approach has been criticized and

characterized as the dominance of the ‘enterprise’ or the ‘business’ narratives in the

literature (Arthur, Keenoy, Scott-Cato & Smith, 2016; Eikenberry & Kluver, 2004).

There is limited research that looks at the public/private tensions in emerging

configurations of social ventures (Dart, 2004; Ridley-Duff, 2008).

Building on resource dependence theory (RDT) (Pfeffer & Salancik, 1978,

2003) and public administration literature (i.e., publicness theory) (Bozeman, 1987,

2013; Perry & Rainey, 1988) as the foundational theoretical frameworks, we present

an account of business model frameworks specific to social ventures and their unique


key characteristics. Using the RDT perspective, we argue that business models are

essentially inter-organizational arrangements that help focal organizations manage

their dependency on non-market external resources (political support, government

funding, etc.), as well as market external resources (capital, brands, etc). Since the

effectiveness of particular inter-organizational arrangements is dependent on the

characteristics and the purpose of the focal organizations (see Figure 3.1), we use

public administration literature to complement our reconceptualization of extant

business model frameworks, and identify unique key characteristics of social

ventures.

Most importantly, this particular point of view, of what business models are

and of how they are configured, allows us to further look at the interaction between

unique key characteristics of social ventures and extant business model dimensions.

An understanding of the interaction serves as an essential fundamental to develop a

typology that identifies different types of effective social venture business model

configurations: lock-in-centred, novelty-centred, and efficiency-centred. As a form

of theory-building, a typology offers a way to organize complex, non-linear, cause-

effect relationships (Doty & Glick, 1994; Fiss, 2011; Snow & Ketchen, 2014)

between the key characteristics, extant business model dimensions, and the

effectiveness of social venture business model configurations.


Figure 3.1 Spectrum of organizations (adapted from Alter, 2010).

Socially responsible business

Corporation practicing social responsibility

Traditional for-profit

Key characteristics and purpose: Profit maximization and competitive advantage

Key characteristics and purpose: Social/public value creation

Business model configurations as inter-organizational arrangements

Profit-making driven Social/public mission driven

Non-profit with income-generating activities

Social venture Traditional non-profit

Hybrid spectrum


We argue that this typology specifically serves to primarily help transforming

non-profits, primarily in developing nations, to identify the potentially effective

business models that they can use to adopt and to manage public and private tensions

at the system level. This is because emerging social ventures, despite their market-

based activities, are often still dependent on public or non-market resources, such as

domestic and foreign government assistance (Kerlin & Pollak, 2011).

Most succinctly, we ask the following: (a) how do resource dependence

theory and public administration theories (i.e., publicness theory) make sense of

business model configurations, especially in social ventures?; (b) following this

emerging point of view, what are the key characteristics of social ventures and how

do they configure extant business model dimensions?; (c) what are the types of social

ventures and how are these types associated with effective business model

configurations?

We make several contributions in this paper to the existing literature. First,

we contribute to the social entrepreneurship literature, especially to the discussion

within the “earned-income” school of thought by identifying unique key

characteristics of social ventures and social venture business model configurations

primarily for transforming non-profits in developing nations. Despite this, our

proposed key characteristics and the typology of business model configurations may

also be extended to social ventures in developed countries, especially in the wake of

increasing social procurement arrangements in countries like the United Kingdom

and Australia (Furneaux & Barraket, 2014).

Further, our proposed typology of social venture business model

configurations builds largely upon the “social business” type of social enterprise

(Ridley-Duff & Bull, 2016). The “social business” type of social enterprise, in


contrast to “charity trading” and “cooperative and mutual” types, focuses on the

recovery of equity investment, innovation, and the elimination of poverty. Our

typology identifies social venture business model configurations that balance private

(equity investment, profit, etc) and public (government grant, etc) resources, employ

innovation, and aim to reduce poverty.

Second, we extend the existing business model literature (Amit & Zott, 2001,

2015; Osterwalder, Pigneur & Tucci, 2005; Richardson, 2008; Zott & Amit, 2007)

by re-conceptualizing extant business model frameworks using RDT and publicness

theory perspectives to explain how business model dimensions, especially in social

ventures, are configured.

This paper is organized as follows. In the next section, following a brief

review of business model literature, we re-conceptualize extant business model

frameworks using resource dependence theory where we argue that business models

are essentially inter-organizational arrangements that a focal firm engages to cope

with resource dependence. We then identify the key characteristics of social ventures

using public administration theory and outline the interaction between these

characteristics and extant business model dimensions. We further discuss the

typology of social venture business model configurations. The discussion section

highlights the implications as well as the limitations and boundary conditions of the

proposed typology framework.

Business model frameworks

Business model frameworks emerged from technology-oriented literature and

have since evolved into different areas (Wirtz et al., 2016). Business model literature

now highlights different foci, topics, and areas of research (Wirtz et al., 2016; Zott,

Amit & Massa, 2011). George and Bock (2011) recently conducted a literature


review of business model research and found that the literature revolves around six

themes (design, RBV (resource-based view), narratives, innovations, transactive, and

opportunities). Business model discussions also recently expand into non-

commercial themes, such as on sustainability, and around PSOs (public service

organizations) (Bocken et al., 2014; Osborne, Radnor, Vidal & Kinder, 2014; Wilson

& Post, 2013). Most of the focal firms under investigation in much of this research

are commercial ventures (see Table 3.1).

Despite extensive utilization of the frameworks in different themes, business

model frameworks are often criticized for their lack of theoretical foundation

(Randles & Laasch, 2016). To address this critique, much business model research

attempts to incorporate management theories explaining the dynamics of business

model frameworks. Amit and Zott (2001) and DaSilva and Trkman (2014), for

example, use transaction cost economy theory (Williamson, 1979) to explain

boundary spanning transactions that a business model covers. Randles & Laasch

(2016) use institutional theory (DiMaggio & Powell, 1983), especially organizational

institutionalism (Greenwood, Oliver, Sahlin & Sudabby, 2008) to make sense of the

normative aspects of business models.

However, the utilization of these theories in explaining business model

frameworks is rather marginal in the business model literature; in contrast, George

and Bock (2011) argue that much research in the literature embraces resource-based

view (RBV) theory (Barney, 1991) in analysing business model dynamics in

commercial ventures. RBV theory seems to provide an envelope for existing

business model frameworks and it allows linking to firm strategy concepts (DaSilva

& Trkman, 2014). While this approach may explain why firms need appropriate

business models to perform, the utilization of RBV as the dominant theoretical


Table 3.1. Business Model Themes in the Literature (Adapted from George & Bock, 2011)

Theme Sample Publications Summary Focal firms Design Slywotzky (1999); Timmers (1998) Agent-driven or emergent configuration of firm

characteristics

Commercial ventures

RBV (Resource-based view)

DaSilva & Trkman (2014); Mangematin et al. (2003); Winter & Szulanski (2001);

Organizational structure co-determinant and co-evolving with firm’s asset stock or core activity set

Commercial ventures

Narrative/Normative Magretta (2002); Randles & Laasch (2016)

Subjective, descriptive, emergent story or logic of key drivers of organizational outcomes

Commercial ventures

Innovation Chesbrough & Rosenbloom (2002) Processual configuration linked to evolution or application of firm technology

Commercial ventures

Transactive Amit & Zott (2001, 2015); Zott & Amit (2007, 2008)

Configuration of boundary-spanning transaction or interdependent activities

Commercial ventures

Opportunity

Afuah (2003); Downing (2005); Markides (2008)

Enactment and implementation tied to an opportunity landscape

Commercial ventures

Sustainability Boons & Ludeke-Freund (2013); Bocken et al. (2014); Wilson and Post (2013)

Triple bottom line approach and wider range of stakeholder interests, such as environment and society

Commercial ventures, public organizations, social ventures

PSO (Public service organizations)

Osborne et al. (2014); Osborne et.al (2016); Osborne & Strokosch (2013)

Public service delivery system and acknowledgement that business logic of public services is different from the private sector

Public organizations


foundation in business model literature virtually confines the use of business model

frameworks to commercial ventures.

Resource dependence theory

We offer a re-conceptualization of extant business model frameworks using a

resource dependence theory (RDT) perspective (Pfeffer & Salancik, 1978, 2003),

with the assistance of public administration theories (Bozeman, 1987; Perry &

Rainey, 1988) to make sense of business models of non-commercial organizations.

RDT is especially helpful to make sense of business models of social ventures where

they combine the logic of different sectors and are dependent on both market and

non-market resources (Battilana & Lee, 2014; Doherty, Haugh & Lyon, 2014).

Unlike RBV that focuses on the importance of market resources to maximize profit

and to achieve a competitive advantage (Barney, 1991), RDT asserts that

organizations are actually dependent on non-market external resources (such as

political support, government funding, etc.) as well as market external resources

(capital, brands, etc.) (Pfeffer & Salancik, 1978, 2003). RDT argues that

organizations need to acquire resources external to themselves to survive (Drees &

Heugens, 2013; Hillman, Withers & Collins, 2009; Pfeffer & Salancik, 1978, 2003).

However, RDT differs from earlier theories on the external environment by pointing

the fact that external organizations may possess the required resources (Wry, Cobb &

Aldrich, 2013). Organizations are, therefore, locked-in resource interdependencies.

Casciaro and Piskorski (2005) characterize these interdependencies by a power

imbalance (power differential between two organizations) and mutual dependence

(the sum of their dependencies).

Faced with these interdependencies, organizations, according to RDT tenets,


will seek autonomy and legitimacy by forging inter-organizational arrangements

(Pfeffer & Salancik, 1978, 2003). Autonomy refers to whether focal firms have

“freedom to make [their] own decisions about the use and allocation of [their]

internal resources without references or regard to the demands or expectations of

potential linkage partners” (Oliver, 1991, p. 944-945) while legitimacy is defined as

“a generalized perception or assumption that the actions of an entity are desirable,

proper, or appropriate within some socially constructed system of norms, values,

beliefs, and definitions” (Suchman, 1995, p. 547). Pfeffer and Salancik (1978, 2003)

prescribe inter-organizational arrangement tactics that organizations can take to

bolster autonomy and legitimacy, among others are: mergers and acquisitions; joint

ventures; board interlock; etc. Each of these tactics may have different configurations

of autonomy and legitimacy and much research in the literature has explored these

tactics as well as how they also predict organizational performance (Drees &

Heugens, 2013; Hillman et al., 2009).

However, in a recent reflection on RDT, authors criticize the theory for inter-

twining theoretical prediction with its prescriptions (Casciaro & Piskorski, 2005;

Davis & Cobb, 2010). RDT has been appraised as a theory of environmental

complexity for its ability “to theorize power beyond conventional dyadic inter-

organizational relationships” (Wry et al., 2013, p. 447). Combining earlier theories of

the environment (Burns & Stalker, 1961; Child, 1972; Emery & Trist, 1965) and the

exchange-based theory of power (Emerson, 1962), the theoretical framework of

RDT, thus, has the potential to make sense of complex and competing environmental

demands that a focal firm needs to manage (Wry et al., 2013).

Unfortunately, in the second half of their seminal book Pfeffer and Salancik

(1978, 2003) reduce RDT’s discussions to a few dyadic tactical prescriptions that


organizations may take, such as joint ventures, mergers and acquisitions, etc., and

move away from elaborating on the complex environmental demands that a focal

firm may face (Wry et al., 2013). Many RDT scholars are ‘trapped’ in this particular

focus and put their emphasis on the tactics, instead of the theoretical predictions. In a

review of RDT research, Hillman et al. (2009) highlighted the fact that most RDT

literature discusses the aspects around the tactics: joint ventures, mergers and

acquisitions, board interlock, etc.

Thus, to make the most of RDT’s theoretical promises, these critics argue that

RDT should separate the prescription – existing tactics of inter-organizational

arrangement – from the theoretical frameworks because existing tactics are often

specific and may be different in different circumstances and contexts (Davis & Cobb,

2010). In fact, future RDT work should focus on, among others, “cataloging the new

set of available tactics for managing [resource] dependence” (Davis & Cobb, 2010,

p. 38).

Taking our cue from this, we argue that business model configurations

essentially are the tactics of focal firms in managing complex environmental

demand, that is, resource dependence, via certain formal and informal arrangements

with its partners to gain focal firms’ autonomy and legitimacy. From an RDT

perspective, business models are methods that focal firms can take to establish ties

with other organizations for coordination, obtaining information, establishing

legitimacy, as well as for co-optation (Pfeffer & Salancik, 1978, 2003; Wry et al.,

2013). This theoretical re-conceptualization of business models as “new sets of

available tactics” of inter-organizational agreements is actually reflected in existing

business model definitions. For example, the transactive theme in business model

literature defines a business model as “the system of interdependent activities


performed by a focal firm and its partners and the mechanisms that link these

activities to each other” (Amit & Zott 2015, p. 331). Business models describe the

ways focal firms configure business model dimensions – value creation, value

capture, and value proposition (Bocken et al., 2014; Osterwalder et al., 2005;

Richardson, 2008). These resulting configurations reflect how a focal firm manages

the power imbalances and mutual dependence with other organizations within the

value creation network.

From the RDT perspective, an effectively configured business model may

mean that the emerging configuration serves the aim of strengthening autonomy and

legitimacy for the focal firms from resource dependency. In other words, a business

model configuration is effective when the focal firm has freedom to make its own

internal decision and its actions are accepted by stakeholders. Yet, how a business

model is effectively configured may actually depend on the purpose and the nature of

the focal firms. We argue that the purpose and nature of focal firms, which are

reflected in their key characteristics, may affect the ways business model dimensions

– value capture, value creation, and value propositions – are configured. For

example, private focal organizations configure business model dimensions so that

they result in configurations that lead to profit maximization and competitive

advantage, consistent with the nature and purpose of commercial firms (DaSilva &

Trkman, 2014; Wirtz et al., 2016). From the RDT perspective, private focal

organizations configure these business models to cope with market resource

dependence, such as the acquisition of capital, technology, etc., to actualize

maximized profit. This particular interpretation is consistent with the extant RBV-

driven business model research where they characterize business models as unique,

boundary-spanning arrangements for the focal firms to acquire valuable, rare,


inimitable, and non-substitutive resources to maximize profit and to gain a

competitive advantage (DaSilva & Trkman, 2014). In contrast, public focal

organizations configure business model dimensions as “complex public service

delivery system” that result in better public services (Osborne et al., 2014). Different

from private organizations, public focal organizations need to cope with non-market

resource dependence, such as political support, taxpayer funding, etc. With this in

mind, identifying the key characteristics of different types of organizations,

especially those of social ventures, is important to make sense of how social venture

business models – inter-organizational arrangements developed to strengthen focal

ventures’ autonomy and legitimacy from external resource dependence – are

effectively configured.

The characteristics of public and private organizations

To identify the key characteristics of public and private organizations, we

look at public administration literature and theories. Public administration literature

hosts extensive discussions on the distinguishing characteristics between private and

public organizations (Andrews, Boyne & Walker, 2011; Boyne, 2002; Bozeman,

1987, 2013; Bozeman & Moulton, 2011; Perry & Rainey, 1988; Wright, 2007;

Wright & Pandey, 2011); Publicness theory argues that private and public

organizations are essentially affected by market and non-market forces (Bozeman,

1987). According to the publicness perspective, public and private organizations are

distinguishable by a set of characteristics reflecting the degree of influence from

these external forces (Bozeman, 1987; Perry & Rainey, 1988). Publicness, therefore,

can be seen as a continuum of public and private influence (Lewis & Zolin, 2004).

An understanding of how key characteristics of public and private


organizations affect business model dimensions serves as important fundamental to

our understanding of the business models of social ventures. In this section, we first

elaborate the key distinguishing characteristics of public and private organizations

and how they differently affect extant business model dimensions. Based on this

discussion, in the following section we identify the key characteristics of social

ventures and continue to elaborate on the interaction between their characteristics

and extant business model dimensions.

The mission of organizations is the first important aspect. Public and private

organizations have different missions. Public organizations’ primary missions are to

create value for society (Wright, 2007). Public organizations are expected to become

service and community-oriented (Wright & Pandey, 2011) and this mission has been

considered an important asset of public organizations (Perry & Porter, 1982; Rainey

& Steinbauer, 1999). In contrast, private organizations’ main objective is to capture

value (Mizik & Jacobson, 2003). Value capture refers to the ability of focal firms to

appropriate value that they have created in a market or in a society (Bowman &

Ambrosini, 2000; Lepak, Smith & Taylor, 2007; March, 1991; Mizik & Jacobson,

2003).

Missions of organizations may affect how business models are configured. In

private focal firms, the mission to capture value affects how value propositions are

selected and how value is created and delivered. So, although Google and Facebook

create free services for all users, the important aim behind these value propositions

and creation is value capture, that is, to get users to see paid advertisements that

serve as important revenue sources for these companies. In contrast, in public focal

firms, the mission to create value for the public and the society is a priority and thus

the value that these organizations offer is usually public goods and services. For


example, the BBC (British Broadcasting Corporation) creates value for the public via

public broadcasting services, to sustain civil society and citizenship, to promote

education and learning, and to stimulate creativity and cultural excellence (BBC,

2017). As a public service organization, the BBC does not capture value and create a

surplus; in fact, the source of their revenue is from a flat licensing fee to ensure that

they always create public value (BBC, 2017)

Dimensional publicness theory (Bozeman, 1987; Perry & Rainey, 1988)

further highlights three other characteristics – ownership, funding, and control – that

distinguish public and private organizations. First, ownership structure has been

highlighted in the public administration literature as the distinguishing characteristic

between public and private organizations (Bozeman, 1987). The logic behind this

notion stems from private property rights theories (Alchian & Demsetz, 1972;

Demsetz, 1967). Owners of private organizations have the rights to exclude others in

profit appropriation. Public-listed companies, in this case, fall into the category of

private organizations because although the ownership is individually dispersed

among the public, the organizations still operate from a private ownership logic: the

shareholders can exclude others from exercising profit appropriation. In contrast, the

public ‘owns’ public organizations and as the ownership is dispersed among the

public, no one - according to private property rights theorists - has the right to

exclude others and appropriate profit for him/herself (Demsetz, 1967).

Different characteristics of ownership affect how business models are

configured in public and private organizations. For example, private ownership

provides incentives for firms to offer value propositions and value creation that

maximizes value capture. The increasing stock value of Facebook and Google

resulting from their innovative offerings, for example, reflects this point of view. In


contrast, in public ownership, public organizations get improved legitimacy and

support when they propose and create value for society. As an organization with

public ownership, the BBC needs to ensure that the licensing fee is spent according

to public interest, maintain independence and answer to the UK parliament annually

(BBC, 2017). Public support for the BBC stems from whether the institution is

independent and whether it creates value to serve the public interest.

Second, the funding of public and private organizations comes from different

sources. Public organizations are mostly funded by government money while private

organizations receive their funding from sales revenues (Perry & Rainey, 1998).

Different sources of funding may affect business model configurations in public and

private organizations. In public organizations where the majority of funding is

coming from taxpayer money, value capture is less possible because funding from

tax money is for public purposes and, therefore, no one should profit from this

money (Ferris, 1993; Hughes, 2012). In contrast, sales funding sources in private

organizations do not restrict focal firms from surplus accumulation.

Third, the external control of organizations highlights how different

organizations are subject to external scrutiny (Perry & Rainey, 1988). Private

organizations are subject to market or private control. Examples of private controls

are market logic, such as competitiveness and profit-seeking norms. In contrast,

public organizations are subject to political and public control. Examples of public

controls are political control or terms that are attached with certain government

funding, such as public oversight and accountability, etc. We argue that different

modes of control may affect how business models are configured. For example,

private control encourages firms to maximize value capture while public control

inhibits value capture and ensures that public/social value creation is maximized


instead. Figure 3.2 summarizes important elements that may affect how effective

business models are configured in private and public organizations.

Key characteristics of social ventures and business model dimensions

Social ventures aim to provide sustainable solutions, that is, to eliminate

poverty, in neglected areas (Santos, 2012). To achieve this goal, social ventures

combine the logic of different sectors (Battilana & Lee, 2014; Doherty, et al., 2014);

thus, they may combine key characteristics of public and private organizations that

we highlighted in the previous section. Building on insights that we developed from

RDT and public administration theories (see Figure 3.2), we identify four key

characteristics that make social ventures: a mission to create public/social value;

private ownership logic; public or private funding; and public or private control.

These four characteristics serve as the building blocks that identify the typology of

social ventures and effective business model configurations (see Figures 3.3a and

3.3b). Before discussing the typology, we first highlight the interaction between the

characteristics of social ventures and business model dimensions below.

Characteristic 1: mission to create public/social value

Literature on social entrepreneurship organization seems to reach an

agreement on the first important characteristic of social ventures: the focus on social

mission (Agafonow, 2014, 2014; Doherty et al., 2014; Santos, 2012; Seanor, Bull,

Baines & Ridley-Duff, 2013). Much research highlights the notion of the

prioritization of social mission over business objectives among different social

ventures (Austin et al., 2006; Defourny, Hulgard & Pestoff, 2014; Defourny &

Nyssens, 2010). Thus, the social mission in social ventures is the prioritization of the


creation of public and social value over value capture (Agafonow, 2014, 2015;

Santos, 2012; Seanor et al., 2013).

The mission to prioritize public/social value in social ventures eliminates the

profit maximization principle prominent in many commercial ventures. For example,

as a social venture, Grameen Bank prioritizes the creation of value for the un-

bankable segment of the population by providing microcredit for the poor. This

particular choice to serve the customers at the bottom of the pyramid may reduce the

likelihood of the enterprise to maximize value capture, because there may be limited

ability and willingness to pay among the population in this particular segment.

This mission orientation also backstops the selection of activities, resources,

channels, partners, and technologies in social ventures. The mission to create

public/social value ensures that the benefits for beneficiaries are prioritized in these

value creation decisions. Kopernik, a simple-technology distribution social venture

from Bali, Indonesia, for instance, chooses to include their beneficiaries in their

business value chain as entrepreneur-distributors because they want to ensure that

their beneficiaries also receive sustainable income from the business model they

develop (Kopernik, 2017).

We argue that this particular characteristic distinguishes social ventures from

their commercial counterparts. In contrast to social ventures, commercial ventures

aim to maximize profit. Most commercial banks, for example, may not be interested

in the microcredit model because they cannot maximize value capture from this

particular value creation activity.


Figure 3.2 Configuring effective business models in public and private organizations Market resource dependence

Non-market resource dependence

Mission to profit/capture value

Priv

ate

fund

ing

sour

ces

Priv

ate

owne

rshi

p

Private control

Public control Mission to create public/social Value

Publ

ic fu

ndin

g so

urce

s

Publ

ic

owne

rshi

p

Publ

ic o

rgan

izat

ions

Pr

ivat

e or

gani

zatio

ns

Key characteristics of private organizations

Key characteristics of public organizations

Effective business model configurations

Commercial value proposition

Public/social value proposition V

alue

cap

ture

Val

ue c

reat

ion

and

deliv

ery

Extant business model dimensions

Leg

itim

acy

Aut

onom

y

Effective business model configurations – those that strengthen the autonomy and the legitimacy of focal organizations from market and non-market resource dependence – reflect how the characteristics of public and private organizations configure traditional business model dimensions.


Type/Design I: Lock-in centered business models

Type/Design II: Novelty-centered business models

Cha

ract

eris

tic 4

: ext

erna

l con

trol

Figure 3.3a. The building blocks of effective social venture business models (from Figure 3.2).

Figure 3.3b. How to identify different business model configurations of social ventures (from Figure 3a).

Type/Design III: Efficiency-centered business models

Characteristic 3: funding

Public

Private Public

Purpose: delivering sustainable solutions in neglected areas

Characteristic 1: having mission to create social/public value

Characteristic 2: having private ownership logic

Effective business model configurations of social ventures (Characteristics 3 and 4 in Figure 3.3b)

Type IV: Non-Existent Category


Characteristic 2: Private ownership logic

Several definitions of social entrepreneurship highlight the nature of limited

profit distribution in social ventures (Defourny et al., 2014; Defourny & Nyssens,

2008, 2010). Social ventures provide limited profit distribution to owners because

their social mission eliminates profit maximization principles. Other research also

indicates that social ventures distribute profit to social venture capitals (Miller &

Wesley II, 2010). This research may imply that social ventures embrace the

ownership logic of private organizations, where – according to private property

theorists (Demsetz, 1967) – owners have the exclusive right to exclude other people

inside and outside the organizations in profit appropriation.

We argue that this particular characteristic distinguishes social ventures from

other third-sector organizations. The latter is a diverse set of organizations that

includes charities, community groups, credit unions, faith-based organizations, and

voluntary organizations (Seanor et al., 2013). These organizations are commonly

bound by non-distributive principles, that is, the restriction to distribute profit to

owners or shareholders, or to equity investors, despite their market activities (Ben-

ner & van Hoomissen, 1991; Defourny, 2001; Hansmann, 1980). For example,

Oxfam and Save the Children in the UK are charities that engage in market

activities; however, bound by non-distributive principles, they cannot distribute

profit and do not have private ownership logic in their organizations.

Characteristic 3: Public or private funding

The social entrepreneurship literature indicates that social ventures acquire

their funding from different sources (Dees, 1998; Seanor et al., 2013). Each source

of funding affects extant business model dimensions. Sales funding sources allow


social ventures to have flexibility in making profit. In contrast, government funding,

including foreign-government grants, constrains social ventures from profit-making.

This is primarily because government funding is usually sourced from tax payers’

money and the nature of this funding is restrictive, in the sense that agents (fund

recipients) are generally not allowed to trade or to profit from this money (Ferris,

1993).

Further, private funding conditions social ventures to develop value

propositions and create values that contain potential for profit. For example, social

venture capitals fund social ventures that not only create social impact, but also have

the potential to deliver financial returns. In contrast, public funding’s concern is

whether the value propositions deliver the funding to designated beneficiaries and

the value is created for the sake of the beneficiaries. Thus, public and private funding

may exercise different influences on the value capture, value creation processes, and

value propositions of a social venture.

Characteristic 4: Public or private control

Like other organizations, social ventures are also exposed to external control.

Due to different intensities of social and business activities, social ventures need to

cope with various levels of public and private controls. In social ventures, different

levels of external control from different sources affect the degree of value capture.

Public control, such as government regulations, may inhibit social ventures to

capture value. For example, legal regulations in several countries prohibit social

ventures from maximizing profit (Defourny & Nyssens, 2010). In contrast, private

control encourages value capture in social ventures.

When social ventures are exposed to strong public control, they are expected

to pay undivided attention to social value propositions and value creation. For


example, the stakeholder board in a social venture may exert control over the choice

of value propositions and partners that they can collaborate with, for example, a

demand to have no partnership with tobacco companies. In contrast, when they are

exposed more to private control, the social ventures are legitimized to develop

market value propositions and more profitable value creation. In other words, these

social ventures receive legitimacy from their stakeholders to arrange their activities,

acquire resources, engage channels and partners, and use technology that may both

benefit the shareholders and the beneficiaries.

Table 3.2 summarizes the interactions between key characteristics of social

ventures and business model dimensions.

A typology of effective social venture business model configurations

We argued that business models are essentially inter-organizational

arrangements that focal firms develop to cope with resource dependence. Focal firms

are dependent on both market and non-market resources. Using public administration

theories, we identified key characteristics of social ventures that configure business

model dimensions as effective inter-organizational arrangements. From an RDT

point of view, effective business models give freedom to the focal social ventures to

arrange internal resources; effective business models also allow the focal social

ventures to receive legitimacy from the market and the public. Market legitimacy

refers to the acceptance of the actions of the focal social ventures within the market

norms, such as seeking potential profits, etc.. Public legitimacy refers to the support

of the stakeholders and partners, including grant organizations, for the activities of

the focal social ventures.

Figure 3.3b and Table 3.3 identify a typology of three effective business


model configurations. As a form of theory-building, a typology offers a way to

organize complex, non-linear cause-effect relationships (Fiss, 2011; Doty & Glick,

1994; Snow & Ketchen, 2014). This typology explains how different configurations

of key characteristics of social ventures and extant business model dimensions

constitute particular autonomy and legitimacy arrangements that portray effective

social venture business models. We also logically identify one category that seems

non-existent because of the conflicting social venture characteristics that may lead to

a non-effective inter-organizational arrangement or, even, business model failure.

In the following sections, we outline each social venture business model

configuration type. While we do not imply any particular transformation path, for

convenience reasons we arrange the presentation of this typology according to the

type that is closer to the existing non-profits (Type I) and then proceed with the

hybrid (Type II) and the one that is more profitable and more distanced with the non-

profits (Type III).

Type and design I: Public funding/public control and lock-in-centred configuration

Social ventures in this category receive most of their funding from public

sources, such as government grants. They are also characterized by public control,

which implies that the social ventures are subject to more public influence. Thus,

social ventures in this category must cope with more non-market resource

dependence than the other social venture types.

This configuration receives strong public influence and, therefore, social

ventures in this category have the lowest ability to independently manage their

internal resources (low autonomy).


Table 3.2. The Interactions Between Key Characteristics of Social Ventures and Extant Business Model Dimensions

Key characteristics of social ventures

Mission to create public/social value

Private ownership logic

Public or private funding Public or private control

Extant business model dimensions Value proposition Product/Service Customer segments and relationships beneficiaries

Mission provides a basis/foundation to prioritize public/social value propositions

-

Private funding conditions the selection of value propositions that are potential to make a profit Public funding conditions the selection of value proposition that maximize benefits to beneficiaries

Public control mandates public/social value proposition Private control legitimizes the balance between social and market value propositions

Value creation and delivery Activities Resources Channels Partners Technology

Mission backstops the selection of activities, resources, channels, partners, and technology

- Private funding conditions profitable value creation and delivery configurations Public funding conditions the choices of value creation and delivery configurations that maximize benefit to beneficiaries

Public control directs value creation towards creation of public goods Private control legitimizes the balance between market and public in creating and delivering value

Value capture Cost structure Revenue stream

Mission eliminates value capture maximization principle

Private ownership logic allows value capture; yet, due to the mission, value capture is limited

Public funding constrains value capture flexibility; Private funding enables value capture

Public control inhibits value capture Private control encourages value capture


Public control makes the maximization of social benefit in value propositions

and value creation mandatory; in other words, everything in the social venture needs

to be directed towards social value creation and the delivery of social value

propositions. When combined with public funding, social ventures in this category,

where they are constrained from managing surpluses, have less – or no - potential for

value capture. Social ventures in this category may still undertake market activities,

and embrace private ownership logic to supplement their financial needs. However,

due to public funding and control characteristics, market revenues for these social

ventures are less significant and, perhaps, still insufficient to achieve financial

sustainability.

To survive, these social ventures need to ensure that they receive continuous

funding support from government and donor organizations. To do so, they need to

ensure that they continue to receive public/social legitimacy, consistent with the

interests of the government and donor agencies. In the RDT literature, several

strategies are applied to increase the legitimacy of a firm. Among others is by

associating firms with external actors that possess a high level of legitimacy (Baum

& Oliver, 1991; Pfeffer & Salancik, 1978, 2003).

Thus, social ventures in this category need to find appropriate legitimacy

strategies to be sustainable. As an example, IBEKA foundation, a 2012 Ashden

winner from Indonesia for developing micro hydro power in rural villages (Ashden,

2017c), leveraged public legitimacy when former US President, Barack Obama,

mentioned IBEKA during the Presidential Summit on Entrepreneurship (Connell,

2010). IBEKA received strong public support afterwards.

This focus to increase legitimacy resembles a business model design in the

existing business model literature. The lock-in-centred design emphasizes a


configuration where the aim is to retain stakeholders or participants in boundary-

spanning value creation activities (Amit & Zott, 2001, p. 505). This configuration

makes the costs for participating organizations to switch network, or to leave the

current business model arrangement become high and, therefore, they are

discouraged from doing so. In the end, the focal ventures may secure the resources

they need from external organizations.

Moreover, high public funding and control characteristics allow this

configuration to cater for various types of beneficiaries, especially the poorest of the

poor. However, because of low autonomy and a lack of market legitimacy, profit

may be less possible in this configuration. This particular condition is also due to the

choice of the legal form of the social venture. In many developing countries, such

as Indonesia, an entity with a “foundation” legal structure is prohibited from

appropriating profit because the assets and profits of the foundation belong to

communities (Pratono & Sutanti, 2016). An Indonesian social venture registered as a

“foundation” may, therefore, be inherently low in autonomy, and it has very little

market legitimacy.

Type and design II: Private funding/public control and novelty-centred configuration

Social ventures in this category receive most of their funding from sales and

trading activities. However, they are also characterized by having public control,

which implies that they are subject to public influence. Because of the private

funding characteristic, social ventures in this category also have to cope with market-

based influences.


Table 3.3. Business Model Configurations of Social Ventures

Effective social venture business model configurations Non-existent/non-effective model

Type I: Lock-in-centred Type II: Novelty-centred Type III: Efficiency-centred Type IV Description

Activities are configured in a way that the costs for leaving the network are expensive

Activities are configured in a novel way; innovative approaches

Activities are configured in an efficient manner; low transaction costs

Conflicting activities between public and private priorities

Key characteristics Public funding/public control Private funding/public control Private funding/private control

Public funding/private control

Business model dimensions

Maximization of social benefit in value propositions and value creation is mandatory; value capture is inhibited and constrained

Social value propositions are mandatory; yet, profitable value propositions and value creation may exist; value capture is inhibited and constrained

Profitable value propositions and value creation are legitimized; value capture is enabled and encouraged

-

Degree of autonomy

Low focal firm capability to make independent decisions on the use of resources and on the social mission

Moderate focal firm capability to make independent decisions on the use of resources and on the social mission

High focal firm capability to make independent decisions on the use of resources and on the social mission

-

Degree of legitimacy

Low market legitimacy; high social/public legitimacy

Moderate market legitimacy; high social/public legitimacy

High market legitimacy; lower social/public legitimacy

-

Beneficiaries and profit

General beneficiaries; lower profit

General beneficiaries; lower to moderate profit

Selected beneficiaries; higher profit

-


Due to the mix between public and market influence, the social ventures in

this category may have a moderate degree of freedom to manage internal resources

(moderate autonomy). Public control, such as from stakeholder boards or community

oversight, may limit the focal social ventures’ ability to arrange their internal

resources. For example, community oversight may exert control over financial

spending of the social ventures. Public control will also exert demands on the social

ventures to develop social value propositions and expect to see the value creation

arrangement, such as activities, channels, etc. to strongly reflect the social mission

and public value that they assert.

In contrast, these social ventures also need to generate market revenue

streams because of the private funding characteristic and, therefore, need to develop

profitable value propositions and value creation along with existing social value

proposition and value creation. Profitable value propositions are needed to generate

sustainable revenue streams from the customers in the market. The private funding

characteristic also gives room for social ventures in this category to generate surplus

or profit. However, due to public control, value capture is rather suppressed, if not

constrained in these social ventures. Subsequently, many social ventures in this

category often reinvest their profit, or do not generate profit at all. The ‘Thank You’

company in Australia is one popular example. One hundred percent of Thank You’s

business profit from selling water, cosmetics, and food in commercial markets is

given to its social mission (Thank You, 2016). How its profits are used is subject to

public control as Thank You needs to work with their partners in developing nations

(Thank You, 2016).

Social ventures in this category may need to introduce a novel and innovative

arrangement to manage different value propositions – both profitable and social –

Chapter 3: Paper 1 – A Typology of Social Venture Business Model Configurations 93

and to take care of the conflicting logic of public control and private funding

characteristics. By introducing a novel arrangement, the social ventures in this

category may maximize their social mission and, at the same time, have financial

sustainability and prevent a loss of autonomy and legitimacy. A novel arrangement

brings a new and unique way to design interdependent activities among participants

in the business model networks. The implementation of technology to connect the

commercial customers and beneficiaries may serve as an example of novel business

model arrangements to preserve autonomy and legitimacy. In the Thank You

example, the company introduced an innovative bar-code system where commercial

buyers can track their social footprint. This approach may increase customer loyalty,

brand equity, and may lead to further repeat-buying that correlates with an increase

in social value creation and delivery in developing nations.

This focus on novelty resembles a business model design in the extant

business model literature, which highlights the importance of new combinations of

resources in value creation (Amit & Zott, 2001). Because of novel approaches, this

particular configuration may reach a broad-based outreach of beneficiaries. Thus, we

argue that this configuration may potentially include different types of beneficiaries

(poor and poorest of the poor societies); due to the private funding characteristic, this

configuration may also have the potential to generate surpluses, but it has less

potential for profit – in terms of surpluses that are distributed to owners or equity

investors – because of constraints and restrictions arising from public control.

Type and design III: Private funding/private control and efficiency-centred configuration

Social ventures in this category have the majority of their funding coming

from sales and trading activities. They also have more private control, in the sense

that they are subject to market influence more than public influence.


This configuration provides the focal social ventures a high degree of

freedom to manage internal resources (high autonomy). Private funding gives

freedom to the focal social ventures to arrange activities, acquire resources, develop

channels, and use technologies to gain profit. Private funding also allows the focal

social ventures to develop profitable value propositions. Private control, such as

strong market influence, encourages profit appropriation. The focal social ventures in

this configuration receive strong market legitimacy and this is often reflected in the

legal form that they adopt (limited liability companies).

However, as social ventures aim to achieve social objectives, their social

mission trades off their profit opportunities. A compromise between social and

business objectives is only possible if the social ventures operate in an efficient

manner. Efficient arrangements reduce operational and transaction costs among

business model participants and, therefore, allow the focal social ventures to generate

more surplus.

Since the social ventures have a rather high degree of autonomy to make

independent decisions on the use of resources and on how to make sense of their

social mission, they can arrange their internal configuration to suit their efficiency

needs. For example, they can reduce transaction and operational costs and achieve

their social objectives by including their beneficiaries in the business value chain, as

customers or as partners and/or employees. Including the beneficiaries in the

business value chain helps to reduce costs because the focal social ventures do not

have to finance separate business and social processes. Some social ventures have

adopted this business model, such as the 2016 and 2012 Ashden International Award

recipients, Nazava and Barefoot Power, respectively (Ashden 2017a; 2017b). Nazava

sells cheap and affordable water filters to their beneficiaries, while Barefoot sells


cheap LED lights to rural beneficiaries. Both include their beneficiaries in the

business value chain as customers and community entrepreneurs. By doing this, the

social ventures can maintain efficiency and lower operational and transactional costs

across the value creation network.

This focus on efficiency resembles the efficiency-centred business model

design in the business model literature. This efficiency-centred design focuses on

lowering transaction costs across the participating network (Amit & Zott, 2001).

Despite being efficient, we argue that there are logical consequences of this model

for the types of beneficiaries for whom they can cater. While this configuration, due

to private funding and control, may show potential for profit appropriation and

receive strong market legitimacy, these social ventures may have relatively lower

public legitimacy than the other social venture business model types. This is because

to operate efficiently, they need to select beneficiaries with an ability or willingness

to participate in the business value chain, for example as employees or customers.

This, we argue, may limit the scope of the beneficiaries they can support because this

particular business model configuration may not directly support beneficiaries who

are very poor and disadvantaged, and who do not have the capacity to participate in

the business value chain.

Type IV: Public funding/private control

Social ventures in this category may be the most ineffective. They cannot

have conflicting public funding and private control characteristics at the same time to

gain autonomy from external influence and to receive market and social legitimacy.

Receiving more public funding restricts the capability of a social venture to generate

and manage profit; on the other hand, private control encourages social ventures to

gain profit or expects the social ventures to arrange profitable activities.


These conflicting mechanisms may trigger conflict and may lead to the

collapse of the social ventures. For example, social stakeholders may perceive that

the social ventures are not trustworthy and have a hidden (profit) agenda and,

therefore, the focal venture may receive low social legitimacy. Subsequently, these

focal social ventures may not be able to engage in effective inter-organizational

arrangements. Their business models may not work. Having low social legitimacy,

social stakeholders may be reluctant to collaborate with these focal social ventures.

Similarly, having conflicting mechanisms may send a confusing signal to market

stakeholders so that they may perceive that the focal social ventures do not have the

potential for profit; the focal social ventures may then receive low market legitimacy.

Furthermore, in terms of autonomy, social ventures in this category may also exhibit

rather low autonomy. Any attempt to profit from public funding will immediately

qualify as a corrupt act and the focal social ventures will be prone to penalties.

In the end, having low autonomy and legitimacy make these focal social

ventures unable to acquire necessary resources that they need to survive. Failure to

acquire resources means that the focal social ventures are incapable to cope with

external resource dependency. In this condition, the focal social ventures are prone

to collapse.

Discussion

Declining grant funding support in developing nations leads many non-profits

to seek an alternative survival strategy; among others, this can be by transforming

into social ventures. For these non-profits, embracing a business model, therefore,

becomes an important new strategy. The social entrepreneurship literature has had a

rather extensive discussion on this emerging phenomenon. Defourny and Nyssens


(2010) categorized this body of literature under the “earned-income” school of

thought of social entrepreneurship research that discusses various aspects of non-

profits with business aspects, or businesses with social aspects.

Despite extensive discussions on the definitions, nature, and processes of the

transformation, there is surprisingly limited research on the potential business models

that these new social ventures may adopt. Potential business models may serve as the

‘light at the end of the tunnel’ for these transforming non-profits. These snapshots of

potential business models may give a sense of destination for these organizations.

Many of these emerging social ventures still need to balance funding from public

sources (such as donors and government funding) and the private market (from

trading and sales) and, therefore, identifying relevant potential business models to

appropriately manage public/private tensions is important.

However, studies on business models of social ventures in the business model

literature are scant because most research in this body of literature focuses on

commercial ventures. Much of the research is also driven by the search for a

competitive advantage under the profit maximization principle. This is not to

mention that the lack of theoretical foundation in the business model literature, which

has been raised by many critiques, has mostly been patched by theorizing from a

resource-based view perspective, which has thus, strengthened the commercial bias

of the extant business model frameworks. This research aimed to make sense of

business model frameworks from different theoretical perspectives so that they could

analyse social ventures to identify their characteristics, and to identify the typology

of effective business model configurations of social ventures.

To make sense of the business models of social ventures, we proposed a re-

conceptualization of the extant business model framework using resource


dependence theory. Following the tenets of RDT, we argue that business models are

essentially autonomy- and legitimacy-bolstering tactics that focal social ventures

adopt to cope with resource dependence. We further argue that how a business model

- as a resource dependence tactic - is configured will depend on the key

characteristics of the focal firm.

Public administration literature and the dimensional publicness theory helped

us to make sense of the essential characteristics of public and private organizations

and, therefore, we could make sense of business models in the private and public

sectors. Missions, ownership structure, funding, and controls are the key

characteristics that distinguish private and public organizations. Different values in

these characteristics may affect how business model dimensions are configured; the

results are efficient configurations of business models that bolster the autonomy and

legitimacy of the focal organizations in the private and the public sectors.

Social ventures combine logic from different sectors and, therefore, we argue

that they may combine the key characteristics of public and private organizations.

We identified four distinctive characteristics of social ventures: a mission to create

public/social value, a private ownership structure, public or private funding, and

public or private control. These characteristics affect the business model dimensions

and result in three effective social venture business model configurations: lock-in-

centred, novelty-centred, and efficiency-centred. These business model

configurations, as tactics to cope with market and non-market resource dependence,

reflect different degrees of autonomy and legitimacy in the focal social ventures.

These configurations, we argue, have certain implications for the types of

beneficiaries they support and the profit potential.

We make contributions to extant literature in several ways. First, regarding


the social entrepreneurship literature, we used public administration and business

literature to identify the essential characteristics and business models of social

ventures. The social entrepreneurship literature has been dominated by discussions

of definitions of the domain (social entrepreneurship) and the characteristics of social

entrepreneurs (Choi & Majumdar, 2014). Zahra, Gedajlovic, Neubaum, and

Shulman (2009), for example, developed characteristics and a typology of social

entrepreneurs. Yet, the literature also has begun to embrace discussions on social

entrepreneurship organizations (Doherty et al. 2014; Seanor et al., 2013; Seanor,

Bull, Baines, and Purcell, 2014). Our developed key characteristics and typology of

business models of social ventures contribute to conversations around social

entrepreneurship organizations by drawing from the business and public

administration literature. By doing so, we offer unique insights on the management

of private/public tensions in social entrepreneurship.

Most importantly, in this paper we identified different business model

configurations of social ventures. We responded to a recent call in the literature to

investigate the business models of social ventures (Demil et al., 2015), as much

research in the entrepreneurship and business model literature has focused on

commercial enterprises. By identifying the characteristics and configurations, we

also extend the limited research in the social entrepreneurship literature on the types

and models of social ventures (e.g., Alter, 2010; Diochon & Anderson, 2009; Grassl,

2012). Furthermore, our typology of social venture business models specifically

contributes to the existing discussions on non-profit transformations in the social

entrepreneurship literature (the nature, the processes, and the performance) and

offers a snapshot of their ‘potential destinations’ (the potential outcomes). In

practice, transforming non-profits can see the ‘light at the end of the tunnel’ during


the process and choose the most appropriate social venture business models that are

suitable for their conditions and environmental contexts.

Second, this paper also makes contributions to the business model literature

by discussing the theoretical foundation of business models of non-commercial

organizations. Our reconceptualization of extant business model frameworks using

RDT and public administration literature provides a theoretical basis to make sense

of why and how a focal firm develops particular business model configurations. By

doing so, we extend the business model literature and open the possibility to use

business model frameworks in non-commercial organizations. At this point, our

effort parallels with emerging research that aims to include non-commercial aspects,

such as the sustainability perspective (Bocken et al., 2014; Boons & Lüdeke-Freund,

2013; Stubbs & Cocklin, 2008; Wilson & Post, 2013), and normative theorizing

(Randles & Laasch, 2016) in the extant business model literature.

Boundary conditions and limitations

Our proposed business model framework is subject to several boundary

conditions and limitations. First, this framework serves to help transforming non-

profits identify the potential business models that they can adopt. Our proposed

typology specifically looks at the potential business models of these emerging social

ventures, particularly in the context where they still need to manage public and

private resources altogether. Transforming non-profits often still need to tap into

their existing public resources, such as government partners, grant agencies, as well

as community networks to survive, in addition to new market-based resources that

they start to embrace. Due to this particular boundary condition, the proposed

typology is not exhaustive and it does not include all kinds of social venture models.


Other empirical projects, such as the international comparative project on Social

Enterprise business models, may provide diverse empirical models from different

countries and capture different variations of business models from social enterprises

around the world (ICSEM, 2017).

Second, our framework is most likely to work best in supporting social

ventures in developing nations where they often need to juggle between market

funding sources and fluctuating streams of domestic and overseas grant funding

(Parks, 2008). Declining government grant funding pushes non-profits to enter the

market and transform into social ventures. This is a common phenomenon in many

developing nations. As an example, along with the improving economic status of

many developing countries in Southeast Asia, such as Indonesia, grant-making

organizations shift their focus and attention to poorer countries, for example, those in

Africa. While this policy may not completely eliminate grant funding for local non-

profits, this support may no longer be sufficient to sustain the activities of these non-

profits. This condition requires the emerging social ventures to balance market and

non-market resources and manage the tensions arising from market (trading

activities) and non-market (grant funding organizations) forces.

Despite this, we argue that our typology framework may also be useful in

selected developed country contexts. In light of the increasing trends of social

procurement in developed countries, such as in the United Kingdom and Australia

(Furneaux & Barraket, 2014), a focal social venture needs to manage the external,

non-market environment due to the fact that they may be subject to political and

public pressures, in addition to their existing market-based activities. These social

ventures may still need to meet government demands and work with public

organizations to achieve their objectives.


Third, while the framework might also apply to other types of non-profits,

our business model framework is most useful to support the transforming

‘development non-profits’: NGOs that deal with poverty reduction and livelihood

issues. The main beneficiaries of these emerging social ventures are poor and

marginalized people; some of the beneficiaries are often the poorest of the poor in a

marginalized community. As we theorize on the involvement of selected

beneficiaries in the business process of one of the emerging social venture business

models, our typology might not apply to transforming non-profits where the

beneficiaries are not people, such as environmental non-profits.

Potential future research

We can identify several potential future research areas arising from this

typology framework. First, further research may look at how and why social

entrepreneurs in the non-profit sector develop different social venture business model

designs. Much entrepreneurship research has given its attention to how entrepreneurs

create value and develop new venture ideas (Davidsson, 2015; Scott &

Venkataraman, 2000); business model frameworks have been used to analyse this

particular process (Demil et al., 2015).

Further research in social venture business models may also follow the path

that links social entrepreneurs and venture ideas or venture creation. Understanding

how and why social entrepreneurs choose a particular venture design is important to

the achievement of social goals (Agafonow, 2014). Further research on social

venture business models may develop research questions around the relationship

between different typologies of social entrepreneurs – social bricoleur, social

constructionist, and social engineer - (Zahra et al., 2009) and different social venture


business model designs. For example, how do social bricoleur types of social

entrepreneurs – those who are motivated to address specific local needs – develop

their business model configurations?

Second, further research may look at how these social ventures innovate or

renew their business models. Understanding business model innovation may help

ventures succeed (Linder & Cantrell, 2000). In existing entrepreneurship and

business model research, scholars have paid attention to business model innovation

or renewal as a source of new sustainable competitive advantage (Casadesus-

Masanell & Ricart, 2010; Demil & Lecocq, 2010; Voelpel, Leibold, & Tekie, 2004).

Future research in social venture business models may use insights in existing

business model innovation and renewal research to make sense of how and why

social ventures innovate and renew their business models for survival. For example,

do social ventures innovate and renew their business models because they need to

adapt to the changing environment (e.g., changes in policy environment)?

Furthermore, other research might approach business model innovation and the

renewal process as a strategy for social venture growth: how do social ventures

innovate and renew their business models for growth?

Third, further research may also look at the consequences of social venture

business models to changes at the societal level. Understanding the dynamics is

important to ensure that the activities of social ventures translate into actual societal

transformation. Several existing business model researchers pay attention to the role

of disruptive innovation to social change and the appropriate business models that

may induce the change (e.g., Brown & Wyatt, 2010; Christensen, Baumann, Ruggles

& Sadtler, 2006). Further research on social venture business models may follow

their path by focusing on how these models may play an important role as vehicles


for intended social change. For example, how do efficiency-centred social venture

business models – models that only support beneficiaries with willingness to pay –

induce social change?

Implication for national-level policy development

This paper highlights several implications for national-level policy

development. First, national and overseas development assistance organizations need

to develop appropriate phasing-out policies for the non-profits or social organizations

that they support. Due to unequal power relations, grant-making organizations have

often been criticized for creating donor dependence and homogenization (Aldaba et

al., 2000; Kamstra & Schulpen, 2015). In light of this, we believe appropriate

support to help non-profits transform into social ventures should be included in the

project or program plans from the beginning. The proposed social venture business

model configuration typology may serve as one of many available important tools

that could be embedded in this transition support.

Second, we believe that national authorities need to provide supporting

policies for these non-profits to successfully adopt the proposed business models.

Tax incentive schemes and appropriate legal forms that reflect the unique

characteristics of social ventures and the subsequent business model configurations

may become mportant factors that contribute to the success of these emerging social

ventures.

Conclusion

Social ventures are gaining popularity because they offer sustainable

solutions. They have missions to provide solutions arising from the absence of public

services and market solutions to reduce poverty, especially in neglected areas such as


developing nations. This popularity has brought many existing non-profits to

embrace business models and to transform into social ventures. The social

entrepreneurship literature has conducted extensive discussions on this subject under

the “earned-income” school of thought. Despite this, few studies have focused on the

potential business models that appropriately manage tensions between business and

public aspects. To fill this gap in the literature, using RDT and public administration

this research re-conceptualized extant business model frameworks to make sense of

social ventures and identified the unique characteristics, type, and business model

configurations of the emerging social ventures. We discussed the implications,

boundary conditions, limitations, as well as potential future research.


References

Afuah, A. (2003). Redefining firm boundaries in the face of the Internet: Are firms

really shrinking? Academy of Management Review, 28(1), 34-53. Agafonow, A. (2014). Toward a positive theory of social entrepreneurship: on

maximizing versus satisficing value capture. Journal of Business Ethics, 125(4), 709-713.

Agafonow, A. (2015). Value creation, value capture, and value devolution.

Administration & Society, 47(8), 1038-1060. Alchian, A. A., & Demsetz, H. (1972). Production, information costs, and economic

organization, The American Economic Review, 62(5), 777-795. Aldaba, F., Antezana, P., Valderrama, M., & Fowler, A. (2000). NGO strategies

beyond aid: Perspectives from Central and South America and the Philippines, Third World Quarterly, 21(4), 669-683.

Alter, K. (2010). Social enterprise typology, Retrieved January 1, 2017 from

http://www.4lenses.org/setypology/print Amit, R., & Zott, C. (2001). Value creation in e-business. Strategic Management

Journal, 22(6/7), 493-520. Amit, R., & Zott, C. (2015). Crafting business architecture: The antecedents of

business model design. Strategic Entrepreneurship Journal, 9(4), 331-350. Andrews, R., Boyne, G. A., & Walker, R. M. (2011). Dimensions of publicness and

organizational performance: A review of the evidence. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 21(suppl 3), i301-i319.

Anheier, H. K., & Ben-ner, A. (2003). The study of nonprofit enterprise: Theories

and approaches. New York: Kluwer Academic/Plenum Publishers. Arthur, L., Keenoy, T., Scott-Cato, M., & Smith, R. (2016). Where is the ‘social’ in

social enterprise? In D. Fuller, A. E. G. Jonas, & R. Lee (Eds.), Interrogating alterity: Alternative economic and political spaces (pp. 207-222). New York: Routledge.

Ashden (2017a). Case study summary: Barefoot Power Ltd, Africa and global.

Retrieved February 17, 2017 from https://www.ashden.org/winners/Barefoot12

Ashden (2017b). Nazava water filters. Keeping households healthy with clean water.

Retrieved February 17, 2017 from https://www.ashden.org/winners/nazava16 Ashden (2017c). IBEKA, Indonesia community-owned micro hydro. Retrieved

February 17, 2017 from http://www.ashden.org/winners/ibeka12


Austin, J., Stevenson, H., & Wei-Skillern, J. (2006). Social and commercial

entrepreneurship: Same, different or both? Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 31(1), 1-12.

Barney, J. (1991). Firm resources and sustained competitive advantage. Journal of

Management, 17(1), 99-120. Battilana, J., & Lee, M. (2014) Advancing research on hybrid organizing – insights

from the study of social enterprises. Academy of Management Annals, 8(1), 397-441.

Baum, J. A., & Oliver, C. (1991). Institutional linkages and organizational mortality.

Administrative Science Quarterly, 36(2), 187-218. BBC (2017). About the BBC. Retrieved February 17, 2017 from http://www.bbc.co.uk/aboutthebbc/ Becchetti, L., & Borzaga, C. (2010). The economics of social responsibility: The

world of social enterprises. London: Routledge. Ben-ner, A., & van Hoomissen, T. (1991). Nonprofit organizations in the mixed

economy. Annals of Public and Cooperative Economics, 62(4), 519-550. Bocken, N., Short, S. W., Rana, P., & Evans, S. (2014). A literature and practice

review to develop sustainable business model archetypes. Journal of Cleaner Production, 65, 42-56.

Boons, F., & Lüdeke-Freund, F. (2013) Business models for sustainable innovation:

state-of-the-art and steps towards a research agenda. Journal of Cleaner Production, 45, 9-19.

Borzaga, C., & Defourny, J. (2001). The emergence of social enterprise. London:

Routledge. Bowman, C., & Ambrosini, V. (2000) Value creation versus value capture: Towards

a coherent definition of value in strategy. British Journal of Management, 11, 1-15.

Boyne, G. A. (2002). Public and private management: What’s the difference?

Journal of Management Studies, 39(1), 97-122. Bozeman, B. (1987). All organizations are public: Bridging public and private

organizational theories (1st ed.). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Bozeman, B. (2013). What organization theorists and public policy researchers can

learn from one another: Publicness theory as a case-in-point. Organization Studies, 34(2), 169-188.


Bozeman, B., & Moulton, S. (2011). Integrative publicness: A framework for public management strategy and performance. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 21(suppl 3), i363-i380.

British Council. (2017). Skills for social entrepreneurs. Retrieved January 1, 2017

from https://www.britishcouncil.org/partner/international-collaboration/track-record/skills-social-entrepreneurs

Brown, T., & Wyatt, J. (2010). Design thinking for social innovation. Development Outreach, 12(1), 29-43. Bull, M. (2008). Challenging tensions: Critical, theoretical and empirical

perspectives on social enterprise. International Journal of Entrepreneurial Behavior & Research, 14(5), 268-275.

Burns, T., & Stalker, G. M. (1961) The management of innovation. London:

Tavistock. Casadesus-Masanell, R., & Ricart, J. E. (2010). From strategy to business models

and onto tactics. Long Range Planning, 43(2-3), 195-215. Casciaro, T., & Piskorski, M. J. (2005). Power imbalance, mutual dependence, and

constraint absorption: A closer look at resource dependence theory. Administrative Science Quarterly, 50(2), 167-199.

Chesbrough, H., & Rosenbloom, R. S. (2002). The role of the business model in

capturing value from innovation: Evidence from Xerox Corporation's technology spin-off companies. Industrial and Corporate Change, 11(3), 529-555.

Child, J. (1972). Organizational structure, environment and performance: The role of

strategic choice. Sociology, 6(1), 1-22. Choi, N., & Majumdar, S. (2014). Social entrepreneurship as an essentially contested

concept: opening a new avenue for systematic future research. Journal of Business Venturing, 29(3), 363-376.

Christensen, C. M., Baumann, H., Ruggles, R., & Sadtler, T. M. (2006). Disruptive

innovation for social change. Harvard Business Review, 84(12), 94. Connel, C. (2010) Social entrepreneur powers - and empowers - Indonesian villages.

Retrieved September 30, 2016 from http://iipdigital.usembassy.gov/st/english/mobile/2010/08/20100810152731sjrro0.3364069.html#axzz4YuUESCxM

Dart, R. (2004). Being “business-like” in a nonprofit organization: A grounded and

inductive typology. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 33(2), 290-310.


DaSilva, C. M., & Trkman, P. (2014). Business model: What it is and what it is not. Long Range Planning, 47(6), 379-389.

Davidsson, P. (2015). Entrepreneurial opportunities and the entrepreneurship nexus:

A re-conceptualization. Journal of Business Venturing, 30(5), 674-695. Davis, G. F., & Cobb, J.A. (2010). Resource dependence theory: past and future. In F. Dobbin & C. B. Schoonhoven (Eds.), Stanford's organization theory renaissance, 1970–2000 (pp. 21-42). Bingley, NY: Emerald Group Publishing Limited. Davis, J. A., Marino, L. D., Aaron, J. R., & Tolbert, C. L. (2011). An examination of

entrepreneurial orientation, environmental scanning, and market strategies of nonprofit and for-profit nursing home administrators. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 40(1), 197-211.

Dees, J. G. (1998). Enterprising nonprofits. Harvard Business Review, 76(1), 54-67. Defourny, J. (2001). From third sector to social enterprise. In C. Borzaga and J.

Defourny (Eds.), The emergence of social enterprise (pp. 1-28). New York: Routledge.

Defourny, J., Hulgard, L., & Pestoff, V. (2014). Introduction to the ‘SE field’. In J.

Defourny, L. Hulgard, & V. Pestoff (Eds.), Social enterprise and the third sector (pp. 1-14). Abingdon, Oxon: Routledge.

Defourny, J., & Nyssens, M. (2008). Social enterprise in Europe: Recent trends and

developments. Social Enterprise Journal, 4(3), 202-228. 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.

Demil, B., & Lecocq, X. (2010). Business model evolution: In search of dynamic

consistency. Long range planning, 43(2), 227-246. Demil, B., Lecocq, X., Ricart, J. E., & Zott, C. (2015). Introduction to the SEJ

Special Issue on business models: Business models within the domain of strategic entrepreneurship. Strategic Entrepreneurship Journal, 9(1), 1-11.

Demsetz, H. (1967). Toward a theory of property rights. The American Economic

Review, 57(2), 347-359. DiMaggio, P., & Powell, W. W. (1983). The iron cage revisited: Collective

rationality and institutional isomorphism in organizational fields. American Sociological Review, 48(2), 147-160.

Diochon, M., & Anderson, A. R. (2009). Social enterprise and effectiveness: a

process typology. Social Enterprise Journal, 5(1), 7-29.


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.

Doty, D. H., & Glick, W. H. (1994). Typologies as a unique form of theory building: toward improved understanding and modelling. Academy of Management Review, 19(2), 230-251. Downing, S. (2005). The social construction of entrepreneurship: narrative and dramatic processes in the coproduction of organizations and identities. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 29(2), 185-204. Drees, J. M., & Heugens, P. P. (2013). Synthesizing and extending resource

dependence theory: A meta-analysis. Journal of Management, 39(6), 1666-1698.

Eikenberry, A. M., & Kluver, J. D. (2004). The marketization of the nonprofit sector:

Civil society at risk? Public Administration Review, 64(2), 132-140 Emerson, R. M. (1962). Power-dependence relations. American Sociological Review,

27(1), 31-41. Emery, F. E., & Trist, E. L. (1965). The causal texture of organizational

environments. Human Relations, 18(1), 21-32. Ferris, J. M. (1993). The Double-edged sword of social service contracting: Public

accountability versus nonprofit autonomy. Nonprofit Management and Leadership, 3(4), 363-376

Fiss, P. C. (2011). Building better causal theories: A fuzzy set approach to typologies

in organization research. Academy of Management Journal, 54(2), 393-420. Froelich, K. A. (1999). Diversification of revenue strategies: Evolving resource

dependence in nonprofit organizations. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 28(3), 246-268.

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

typology of social procurement. Public Money & Management, 34(4), 265-272.

George, G., & Bock, A. J. (2011). The business model in practice and its

implications for entrepreneurship research. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 35(1), 83-111.

Gras, D., & Mendoza-Abarca, K. I. (2014) Risky business? The survival implications

of exploiting commercial opportunities by nonprofits. Journal of Business Venturing, 29(3), 392-404.

Grassl, W. (2012). Business models of social enterprise: A design approach to

hybridity. ACRN Journal of Entrepreneurship Perspectives, 1(1), 37-60.


Greenwood, R., Oliver, C., Sahlin, K., & Sudabby, R. (2008). The Sage handbook of

organizational institutionalism. London: Sage. Guo, B. (2006). Charity for profit? Exploring factors associated with the

commercialization of human service nonprofits. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 35(1), 123-138.

Hansmann, H. B. (1980). The role of nonprofit enterprise. The Yale Law Journal,

89(5), 835-901. Hillman, A. J., Withers, M. C., & Collins, B. J. (2009). Resource dependence theory:

A review. Journal of Management, 35(6), 1404-1427. Hughes, O. E. (2012). Public management and administration. New York, NY:

Palgrave. ICSEM (2017). Overall presentation of the 'International Comparative Social

Enterprise Models' (ICSEM) project. Retrieved from http://www.iap-socent.be/sites/default/files/20151005%20ICSEM%20overall%20presentation.pdf

Kamstra, J., & Schulpen, L. (2015) Worlds apart but much alike: Donor funding and

the homogenization of NGOs in Ghana and Indonesia. Studies in Comparative International Development, 50(3), 331-357.

Kerlin, J. A., & Pollak, T. H. (2011). Nonprofit commercial revenue: A replacement

for declining government grants and private contributions? The American Review of Public Administration, 41(6), 686-704.

Khieng, S. (2013). Funding mobilization strategies of nongovernmental

organizations in Cambodia. VOLUNTAS: International Journal of Voluntary and Nonprofit Organizations, 25(6), 1441-1464.

Kopernik. (2017). Lessons from a multi-tasking wonder women. Retrieved February

17, 2017 from https://kopernik.info/update/lessons-from-a-multi-tasking-wonder-woman

Lepak, D. P., Smith, K. G., & Taylor, M. S. (2007).Value creation and value capture:

A multilevel perspective. Academy of Management Review, 32(1), 180-194. Lewis, I. A., & Zolin, R. (2004). The public to private continuum measure and the

role of stakeholder boards as a proxy for markets in the governance of air navigation services: a comparative analysis. International Public Management Review, 5(2), 52-77.

Linder, J., & Cantrell, S. (2000). Carved in water: Changing business models

fluidly. Accenture Institute for Strategic Change Research Report, pp. 8-10.


Magretta, J. (2002). Why business models matter. Harvard Business Review, 80(5), 86-92.

Maier, F., Meyer, M., & Steinbereithner, M. (2016). Nonprofit organizations

becoming business-like: A systematic review. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 45(1), 64-86.

March, J. G. (1991). Exploration and exploitation in organizational learning.

Organization Science, 2(1), 71-87. Markides, C. (2008). Game-changing strategies: How to create new market space in

established industries by breaking the rules. New York: Jossey-Bass. Miller, T. L., & Wesley II, C. L. (2010). Assessing mission and resources for social

change: An organizational identity perspective on social venture capitalists' decision criteria. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 34(4), 705-733.

Mizik, N., & Jacobson, R. (2003). Trading off between value creation and value

appropriation: the financial implications of shifts in strategic emphasis. Journal of Marketing, 67, 63-76.

Nicholls, A. (2006). Social entrepreneurship: New paradigms of sustainable social

change. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press. Oliver, C. (1991). Network relations and loss of organizational autonomy. Human

Relations, 44(9), 943-961. Osborne, S. P., Radnor, Z., Vidal, I., & Kinder, T. (2014). A sustainable business

model for public service organizations? Public Management Review, 16(2), 165-172.

Osborne, S. P., Radnor, Z., & Strokosch, K. (2016). Co-production and the co-

creation of value in public services: A suitable case for treatment? Public Management Review, 18(5), 639-653.

Osborne, S. P., & Strokosch, K. (2013) It takes two to tango? Understanding the co-

production of public services by integrating the services management and public administration perspectives. British Journal of Management, 24(1), 31-47.

Osterwalder, A., Pigneur, Y., & Tucci, C. L. (2005). Clarifying business models:

Origins, present, and future of the concept. Communications of the Association for Information System, 16(1), 1-24

Parks, T. (2008). The rise and fall of donor funding for advocacy NGOs:

Understanding the impact. Development in Practice, 18(2), 213-222. Pearce, J. (2003). Social enterprise in any town. London, UK: Calouste Gulbenkian

Foundation.


Perry, J. L., & Porter, L. W. (1982). Factors affecting the context for motivation in public organizations. Academy of Management Review, 7(1), 89-98.

Perry, J. L., & Rainey, H. G. (1988). The public-private distinction in organization

theory: a critique and research strategy. Academy of Management Review,13(2), 182-201.

Pfeffer, J., & Salancik, G. R. (1978). The External control of organizations: A

resource dependence perspective. New York: Harper & Row. Pfeffer, J., & Salancik, G. R. (2003). The external control of organizations: A

resource dependence perspective. Stanford, Calif.: Stanford Business Books. Pratono, A. H., & Sutanti A. (2016). The ecosystem of social enterprise: Social

culture, legal framework, and policy review in Indonesia. Pacific Science Review B: Humanities and Social Sciences, 2(3), 106-112

Rainey, H. G., & Steinbauer, P. (1999). Galloping elephants: Developing elements of

a theory of effective government organizations. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 9(1), 1-32.

Randles, S., & Laasch, O. (2016). Theorising the normative business model.

Organization & Environment, 29(1), 53-73. Richardson, J. (2008). The business model: An integrative framework for strategy

execution. Strategic Change, 17(5-6), 133-144. Ridley-Duff, R. (2008). Social enterprise as socially rational business. International

Journal of Entrepreneurial Behavior & Research, 14(5), 291-312. Ridley-Duff, R., & Bull, M. (2016). Understanding social enterprise. London, UK:

Sage Publications Ltd. Santos, F. M. (2012). A positive theory of social entrepreneurship. Journal of

Business Ethics, 111(3), 335-351. Scott, S., & Venkataraman, S. (2000). The promise of entrepreneurship as a field of

research. Academy of Management Review, 25(1), 217-226. Seanor, P., Bull, M., Baines, S., & Purcell, M. (2014). Where social enterprise

practitioners draw the line: Towards an understanding of movement from social entrepreneurship as boundary work. International Journal of Public Sector Management, 27(4), 353- 368.

Seanor, P., Bull, M., Baines, S., & Ridley-Duff, R. (2013). Narratives of transition

from social to enterprise: You can't get there from here! International Journal of Entrepreneurial Behavior & Research, 19(3), 324-343.

Shoham, A., Ruvio, A., Vigoda-Gadot, E., & Schwabsky, N. (2006). Market

orientations in the nonprofit and voluntary sector: A meta-analysis of their


relationships with organizational performance. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 35(3), 453-476.

Snow, C. C., & Ketchen, D. J. (2014). Typology-driven theorizing: A response to

Delbridge and Fiss. Academy of Management Review, 39(2), 231-233. Stubbs, W., & Cocklin, C. (2008). Conceptualizing a ‘sustainability business model’.

Organization & Environment, 21(2), 103-127. Teece, D. J. (2010). Business models, business strategy and innovation. Long Range

Planning, 43(2-3), 172-194. Thank You. (2016). The Thank You model. Retrieved September 30, 2016 from

https://thankyou.com/structure Vickers, I., & Lyon, F. (2014). Beyond green niches? Growth strategies of

environmentally-motivated social enterprises. International Small Business Journal, 32(4), 449-470.

Voelpel, S. C., Leibold, M., & Tekie, E. B. (2004). The wheel of business model

reinvention: How to reshape your business model to leapfrog competitors. Journal of Change Management, 4(3), 259-276.

Williamson, O. E. (1979). Transaction-cost economics: The governance of

contractual relations. The Journal of Law and Economics, 22(2), 233-261. 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(3), 715-737.

Wirtz, B. W., Pistoia, A., Ullrich, S., & Göttel, V. (2016). Business models: Origin,

development and future research perspectives. Long Range Planning, 49(1), 36-54.

Wright, B. E. (2007). Public service and motivation: Does mission matter? Public

Administration Review, 67(1), 54-64. Wright, B. E., & Pandey, S. K. (2011). Public organizations and mission valence:

When does mission matter? Administration & Society, 43(1), 22-44. Wry, T., Cobb, J. A., & Aldrich, H. E. (2013). More than a metaphor: Assessing the

historical legacy of resource dependence and its contemporary promise as a theory of environmental complexity. Academy of Management Annals, 7(1), 441-488.

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.


Zott, C., & Amit, R. (2007). Business model design and the performance of entrepreneurial firms. Organization Science, 18(2), 181-199.

Zott, C., Amit, R., & Massa, L. (2011). The business model: Recent developments

and future research. Journal of Management, 37(4), 1019-1042.

116 Chapter 4: Paper 2 – Organizational Characteristics and Forms

Chapter Transition Note (Paper 1 to Paper 2)

Paper 1 highlighted three important results: (a) the paper used resource

dependence theory (RDT) and public administration theory (i.e., publicness theory)

to re-conceptualise the understanding of extant business models; (b) based on this re-

conceptualization, four characteristics of social ventures for transforming non-profits

were conceptually generated (social mission, private ownership logic, private

funding, and public control); (c) three types of effective social venture business

models were theorized (Types I, II and III) and one was characterized as a non-

effective type (Type IV). In this thesis, Paper 1 served as typology-driven theory

generation study and, therefore, the paper served to demonstrate the logical adequacy

of the typology-driven theory using RDT and publicness theory.

In the next chapter (Chapter 4), Paper 2 further elaborates the characteristics

and the typology in Paper 1, aiming to serve the theory elaboration purpose (Fisher &

Aguinis, 2017) by: (a) developing construct validity of the characteristics outlined in

Paper 1 (social mission, private ownership logic, private funding, and public control)

using a qualitative approach; (b) using the validated characteristics to identify the

emerging social venture business model types from data; and (c) generating insights

into the theorized relationship between the types developed in Paper 1 and

organizational effectiveness. In Paper 2 (Chapter 4), Paper 1 is generally referred to

as “the theoretical study on social venture business model forms and outcomes” or

“the theoretical study

Chapter 4: Paper 2 – Organizational Characteristics and Forms 117



1. they meet the criteria for authorship in that they have participated inthe conception, execution, or interpretation, of at least that part of thepublication in their field of expertise;

2. they take public responsibility for their part of the publication, exceptfor the responsible author who accepts overall responsibility for thepublication;

3. there are no other authors of the publication according to thesecriteria;

4. potential conflicts of interest have been disclosed to (a) grantingbodies, (b) the editor or publisher of journals or other publications,and (c) the head of the responsible academic unit, and

5. they agree to the use of the publication in the student’s thesis and itspublication on the QUT’s ePrints site(http://www.moqut.edu.au/F/F_01_03.jsp) consistent with anylimitations set by publisher requirements.


“Organizational Characteristics and Forms: Empirical Insights from Business Models of Social Ventures”

This manuscript is submitted and currently under review in Organization Studies journal (SCOPUS, Q1)

Contributor Statement of contribution 1.Ari Margiono Wrote the manuscript, conducted data collection, coding, case

narrative development, arranged and facilitated the inter-rater reliability check, data analysis, and developed the storyline 14 Dec 2017

2.Artemis Chang Provided suggestion and feedback on the methodology and thestoryline, read the manuscript and checked the comparison table and analysis

3.Roxanne Zolin Provided general feedback, provided support on the storyline,read the manuscript and checked the comparison table and analysis

Principal Supervisor Confirmation I have sighted email or other correspondence from all co-authors confirming their certifying authorship. (If the Co-authors are not able to sign the form please forward their email or other correspondence confirming the certifying authorship to the RSC).

A/Prof Artemis Chang ________signed________ 14 December 2017 Name Signature Date



Chapter 4: Paper 2 - Organizational Characteristics and Forms:

Empirical Insights from Business Models of Social Ventures

Abstract

Organizational forms affect outcomes; yet, little is known on this mechanism in the

social entrepreneurship context. A recent theoretical study highlights how social

venture characteristics and forms affect outcomes differently from commercial

ventures. By comparatively analyzing 12 cases of social ventures in Indonesia, this

research attempts to empirically elaborate this theoretical study and to extend

understanding of how organizational characteristics and forms affect outcomes in the

social entrepreneurship context. We found that characteristics of social ventures play

an important role in constituting different social venture forms. Our data showed

that different social venture forms can structure business model configurations and

can affect different effectiveness configurations. Four overall configurational

patterns were identified.

Introduction

Organizational forms, defined as arrangements of core features in focal organizations

(Rao & Singh, 1999), influence organizational outcomes. Much research on

structure and forms of organizations indicate that types of organizations, such as

designs of structures (Burns & Stalker, 1961; Sine, Mitsuhashi, & Kirsch, 2006;

Colombo & Grilli, 2013; Csaszar, 2012) or ownership nature (Mahoney, 1992;


Bozeman, 1987) as well as governance of transactions (Williamson, 1973) affect

organizational outcomes (David & Han, 2004). However, the extant knowledge on

the relationship between organizational forms and outcomes is mainly developed

within the context of large, mature, and mostly commercial organizations where the

arrangements of core features are aimed for profit maximization and sustainable

competitive advantage (DaSilva & Trkman, 2014). Thus, there is a need for a better

understanding of the mechanisms that connect organizational forms and outcomes in

an increasingly popular type of hybrid organizations that aim to prioritize social

mission over profit maximization: social ventures (Huybrects & Haugh, 2017; Mair,

Mayer, & Lutz, 2015).

A recent theoretical study indicates that social venture characteristics and the

arrangement of social venture core features, i.e. business model, affect outcomes

differently from other organizations (Margiono, Zolin, & Chang 2017). Defined as

entrepreneurial ventures that combine social, public benefit aims with business-like

management (Anheier & Ben-ner, 2003; Becchetti & Borzaga, 2010; Borzaga &

Defourny, 2001), social ventures are a subset of hybrid organizations that embrace

particular types of business model arrangement due to constant tensions arising from

pressures exerted by public (e.g. government, beneficiaries) and private (e.g.

investors, shareholders) stakeholders (Bull, 2008; Ridley-Duff, 2008). Business

model designs of social ventures – “the system of interdependent activities

performed by a focal firm and its partners and the mechanisms that link these

activities to each other” (Amit & Zott, 2015, p. 331) – are theorized to be configured

by combinations of specific public and private characteristics (social mission, private

ownership logic, funding, and external control); and therefore they are different from

the extant business models of commercial ventures that are mostly driven by sole


characteristic of private organizations, i.e. profit maximization (Margiono et al.,

2017). While this theoretical study offers a unique perspective in understanding

arrangements of core features in social ventures and their consequences towards

outcomes, as far as we know there is not yet any empirical evidence supporting these

arguments. Empirical elaboration of these arguments will further extend existing

literature by validating the role of organizational characteristics and business models

on outcomes, especially in the social entrepreneurship context. Thus, using this

theoretical study as a point of departure we ask: (a) What are the characteristics of

social ventures as they emerge from the empirical data? (b) What are the emerging

social venture forms resulting from these characteristics? and (c) How do different

social venture forms correspond to business models and effectiveness?

Embracing a theory elaboration approach (Lee, Mitchell, & Sablynski, 1999),

this research aims to further elaborate this theoretical study (throughout this paper,

we use the term ‘theoretical study’ to refer to the Margiono et al. (2017)’s study) and

to expand our understanding of how different social venture forms may affect

outcomes, especially by attempting to improve the validity of the characteristics that

constitute different social venture forms (Fisher & Aguinis, 2017) and by looking at

the empirical relationship between social venture forms and their outcomes. To do

so, we utilised multi-case research methods to compare and contrast 12 social

venture cases in Indonesia (Meckstroth, 1975; Seawright & Gerring, 2008).

The major results of the study were the empirical validation of social venture

characteristics that can lead to a better understanding of social venture organizational

forms and insights around the mechanisms that connect social venture forms and

outcomes. In addition to the theorized characteristics (mission, ownership, private

funding, and public control), we empirically found a new characteristic of social


ventures – financial wealth motivation – from our data that resembles Wasserman’s

(2012) tension of wealth and control in entrepreneurial ventures. This finding further

led to the identification in the cases of three forms of social ventures that correspond

to different configurations of social venture business models and effectiveness.

This paper contributes to existing literature in several ways. First, this paper

exhibits an empirical evidence of factors that contribute to organizational design in

the social entrepreneurship context that follow resource dependence theory tenets. By

empirically validating the characteristics, social venture business models and their

connection to effectiveness, our paper extends organizational design and business

model literature where extant research tends to focus on designs of structures (Burns

& Stalker, 1961); ownership (Bozeman, 1987; Mahoney, 1992); or governance of

transactions (Williamson, 1973) as factors that explain organizational outcomes. The

results from the social entrepreneurship context demonstrate the important roles of

public and private organizational characteristics. This paper shows how these

characteristics structure business model designs in social ventures. By this, the

contribution of this paper overlaps with recent efforts in the literature that looks at

the characteristics of founders of a venture and their relationship to organizational

forms and outcomes (Fauchart & Gruber, 2011; Wasserman, 2012; Wasserman,

2017). Second, this paper extends the theoretical study (Margiono et al., 2017) by

identifying a new characteristic that leads to an improved typology of social venture

business models and outcomes. In doing so, this paper also contributes to the social

entrepreneurship literature by providing empirical insights on different social venture

types and business model configurations. This paper extends the discussions in the

literature that investigate different types and models of social ventures (Defourny &

Nyssens, 2017; Ridley-Duff & Bull, 2016).


In the following sections, we first outline the major tenets of the recent

theoretical study that we aim to elaborate on in this paper. We then proceed with the

method section where we describe in detail the processes of case research and

analysis that we utilized in this paper. We then describe our findings and conclude by

linking these insights with extant discussions in the organizational design and

business model literature.

A theoretical study of social venture business model forms

Unlike most organizations, social ventures embrace unique, hybrid

organizational forms (Doherty, Haugh, & Lyon, 2014). Social ventures combine

public and private forms of organization (Ridley-Duff & Bull, 2016) and therefore,

social ventures have different institutional and “core feature” arrangement than those

of commercial ventures (Battilana & Lee, 2014).

In a recent theoretical study, Margiono et al. (2017) argued that

organizational characteristics structure social venture business model forms

differently from those of commercial ventures because social ventures do not aim to

maximize profit and gain sustainable competitive advantage. The theoretical study

borrows from public administration literature and publicness theory dimensions

(Bozeman, 1987) to outline distinctive characteristics of social ventures and build on

resource dependence theory (Pfeffer & Salancik 1978, 2003) to examine the

relationship between social venture forms and their outcomes. The theoretical study

offers unique insights into the link between internal arrangements, forms, and

outcomes in the social entrepreneurship context. Since our research in this paper

attempts to validate and extend our understanding of social venture characteristics,


business model forms and outcomes developed by this theoretical study, this section

briefly outlines the central tenets of the study.

Social venture characteristics, the public administration literature, and publicness theory

There have been extensive discussions of the distinguishing characteristics of

public and private organizations in the public administration literature (Andrews,

Boyne, & Walker, 2011; Bozeman, 1987; Perry & Rainey, 1988; Wright & Pandey,

2011). The mission of an organization has been the primary locus of the differences.

The primary mission of public organizations is to create value for society (Wright,

2007). In contrast, the mission of private organizations is to capture value for

shareholders (Mizik & Jacobson, 2003). In addition, publicness theory highlights the

dimensions that distinguish public and private organizations (Bozeman, 1987), which

are ownership, funding, and control (Perry & Rainey, 1988). Social ventures, as

organizations that embrace both public and private forms, are assumed to combine

these characteristics.

Based on this point of view, four characteristics of social ventures are

theorized: social mission; private ownership logic; private funding; and public

control. All social ventures exhibit a mission orientation similar to public

organizations, that is they aim to deliver public/social goods. A social mission,

according to the theoretical study, refers to “the prioritization of the creation of

public and social value over value capture”. The focus on public and social value

creation distinguishes social ventures from commercial ventures; and subsequently

this may affect organizational outcomes differently. For example, despite extensive

value creation activities, the effectiveness of Facebook and Google are measured

from the extent to which they can capture this created value for their shareholders.


In contrast, the effectiveness of social ventures may be perceived from the value that

they create for the public. Furthermore, social ventures operate like private

companies and, therefore, they embrace private ownership logic. Private ownership

logic, according to the theoretical study, refers to fact that owners have the exclusive

right to exclude other people inside and outside the organizations in profit

appropriation; and this characteristic separates social ventures from non-profit

organizations. The latter organizations have no private ownership logic because they

are bound with the non-distributive principle. These two characteristics separate

social ventures from other organizations and serve as the main building blocks of a

social venture (see Figure 4.1a).

Further, the privateness and publicness of organizations can be seen as a

continuum (Lewis & Zolin, 2004) and, therefore, among different social ventures,

sources of their funding may vary along a public and private spectrum. Similar to

private organizations, social ventures receive private funding from trading activities,

but some social ventures also receive funding from public sources, similar to public

organizations. Thus, private funding according to the theoretical study refers to

“private sources of funding, such as sales, etc.”. Moreover, different social ventures

have different levels of public control. Just like public organizations, some social

ventures are exposed to higher public control, such as close monitoring from funding

or government grant agencies while some others have lower levels of public control

due to more engagement in business activities. According to the theoretical study,

public control refers to “political and public as well as stakeholder control, such as

terms that are attached within certain government funding, such as oversight”. The

theoretical study argues that social ventures need to manage publicness and

privateness and adopt appropriate business models to ensure effectiveness.


Social venture forms and business model configurations

These tensions between public and private characteristics are theorized to

configure different social venture forms: Types I, II, III and a non-existent, non-

effective Type IV (see Figure 4.1b). Type I social ventures are those with low private

funding and high public control. These social ventures receive most of their funding

from public sources, that is, government grants, and are exposed to high public

control. Building on resource dependence theory (Pfeffer & Salancik, 1978, 2003),

this type is theorized to be associated with lock-in business model configuration

where stakeholders are retained in value creation networks (Amit & Zott, 2001); this

is because to achieve financial sustainability, the social ventures need to lock their

partners (especially their funders) into their network so they can continue providing

necessary resources to these social ventures. Type II social ventures are those with

high private funding yet high public control. These social ventures source their

funding from trading activities, yet they are subject to strong public scrutiny. This

type is theorized to embrace the novelty business model configuration where

participants are innovatively arranged (Amit & Zott, 2001); this is due to the need to

manoeuvre between strong public scrutiny and the need to be financially sustainable

through innovative and novel market activities. Type III social ventures are those

with high private funding and low public control. These social ventures are relatively

independent because they raise their own revenue and have less public scrutiny. This

type is associated with the efficiency business model configuration where transaction

and operational costs are low (Amit & Zott, 2001); this allows these social ventures

to gain financial profit despite their focus on a social mission by acquiring resources

that allow the focal social ventures to reduce transactions efficiency. Lastly, Type IV


is a theorized, non-effective form, that is less likely to exist. This is due to its

conflicting priorities that cancel each other. This form has low private funding (high

public funding) yet low public control (high private control). High public funding is

usually associated with higher public scrutiny and, therefore, social ventures with

high public funding but low public control may be prone to corruption or low social

legitimacy and tend to fail.

Methods

Research design and setting

We embraced a theory elaboration approach that uses “pre-existing

conceptual ideas or [a] preliminary model [to] drive [a] study design” (Lee et al.,

1999, p. 164). We specifically utilized the construct specification tactic in the theory

elaboration approach to improve the construct validity and scope of the existing

theory under investigation as well as to generate insights from empirical evidence

(Bacharach, 1989; Fisher & Aguinis, 2017). In this research, we were interested to

further improve the validity and scope of the theoretical study’s constructs indicated

in the previous section: social mission, private ownership logic, private funding, and

public control. We also took a step further to see how these characteristics

constituted different social venture forms and examined how these forms

corresponded to different outcomes.

Theory elaboration studies have used qualitative methods to achieve their

objectives (Fisher & Aguinis, 2017) and, therefore, this research used a multiple case

study method to select cases and to analyse the data. We employed a multiple case

research strategy of the ‘most different systems design’ (MDSD) (Meckstroth, 1975;

Seawright & Gerring, 2008) that focuses on “formulating statements that are valid


regardless of the systems within which observations are made” (Przeworski &

Teune, 1970, p. 39). Unlike other case methods that examine between-group and

within-group differences (Eisenhardt, 1989), MDSD looks specifically at within-

group (in our case, a group of successful social ventures) variance (Otner, 2010). In

an MDSD research strategy, independent and dependent variables that covary in

cases are held constant to allow maximum heterogeneity in other (independent)

variables (Meckstroth, 1975). Thus, in an MDSD research design, “variation on

independent variables is prized, while variation on the outcome is eschewed”

(Gerring, 2007: 139). While MDSD has been criticized for a lack of robustness in

identifying causality (Gerring, 2007), the method fitted our purpose because in this

paper, we did not intend to explore causality; instead, we sought to elaborate a

theoretical study by developing construct validity of different characteristics and by

seeking further evidence of the connection between characteristics, social venture

business model forms and outcomes within a sample of effective social ventures.


Figure 4.1 Characteristics of effective social ventures, organizational forms and their business models (Adapted from Margiono, Zolin, & Chang, 2017)

Type I: More Public Form and Lock-in centred business models

Effective business model configurations of social ventures (Characteristics 3 and 4 in Figure 4.1b)

Type II: Mixed Form and Novelty-centred business models

Type IV: Non-Existent Category

Cha

ract

eris

tic 4

: pub

lic c

ontr

ol

Figure 4.1a. The characteristics of effective social venture business models.

Figure 4.1b. How private funding and public control identify different business model configurations of social ventures (from Figure 4.1a).

Type III: More Private and Efficiency-centred business models

Characteristic 3: private funding

High

High Low

Purpose: delivering sustainable solutions in neglected areas

Characteristic 1: having a mission to create social/public value

Characteristic 2: having private ownership logic

Low


We used theoretical sampling to select 12 cases of social ventures. We

selected four cases to represent a group of Type I social ventures (Charlie), four

cases to represent a group of Type II social ventures (Beta), and four cases to

represent a group of Type III social ventures (Alpha). For each group of social

ventures, we carefully chose social ventures with different features, for example

different areas of interventions and size, to ensure maximum heterogeneity (see

Table 4.1). Following the MDSD logic, we ensured that each case in our sample had

a similar ‘social mission’, ‘private ownership logic’ (e.g., independent variables) and

‘effectiveness’ (e.g., dependent variable) characteristics. Essentially, by doing this

this paper “selects cases that display some common background features … and that

display some variation on some aspects” (Rihoux & Lobe, 2009: 230) to ensure

representativeness (Gerring, 2007).

The cases were social ventures in Indonesia. Indonesia was selected because

the country represents the contextual boundaries outlined in the theoretical study that

guided the case selection: (a) that there have been systematic programs assisting

NGOs to transition to social ventures in Indonesia (British Council, 2017); and most

importantly (b) that these emerging social ventures need to have combined public

and private organizational forms and face tensions, such as balancing trading

activities with the need to work with government grant organizations. Table 4.1

describes the 12 cases examined in this research.

To ensure that our cases represented the theoretical types of these social

ventures, we conducted a preliminary screening from media reports and from

informants who facilitated many training sessions and workshops with social

ventures in Indonesia. We applied the following procedure: first, we looked at the


media reports to initially identify the potential social ventures for our cases; second,

we asked our informants to verify our analysis (we asked informal questions such as:

“which social enterprises do you think are efficient and profitable, unique and novel,

or dependent – locked-in – to their donor organizations?”; “which social enterprises

have large trading revenue than donor funding?”, etc.). The interviews with these

informants were informal and casual. We also asked similar questions of our

respondents and, thus, some of the selection of the cases also followed the snowball

sampling technique.

Data collection

We collected data from interviews and secondary sources. Semi-structured

interviews using an interview protocol were conducted with the leaders of the social

ventures in our sample. These leaders were CEOs, directors, CFOs and/or owners of

the social ventures. We conducted 12 interview sessions between the end of 2014

and end of 2015 at their offices. Three of these sessions were group interviews

(where directors/CEOs invited their leadership team to participate in the interviews).

In total, we conducted interviews with 17 leaders of social ventures in Indonesia.

Interviews typically lasted between 45 and 90 minutes (see Table 4.1). Interviews

were conducted in Bahasa Indonesia and were transcribed from audio recordings. We

asked the respondents open-ended questions about their organizations, business

models and activities. For example, ‘tell me about your social venture’, ‘what are

your value propositions?’, ‘how do you collaborate with your partners?’, etc.


Table 4.1 Social Venture Cases in This Research

Social ventures

Description of the social ventures

Size Sector Scope of activities

Participants’ position (Duration)

Secondary sources (Type, length)

Length of case narratives (Pages)

Alpha One Offering community/social

strategic development to corporate clients

Medium Community development

National CEO, Directors (60 minutes)

Website (5 pages) 9

Alpha Two Publishing free magazine and facilitating community environment campaigns

Medium Education

National CEO/Director (90 minutes)

Website, flyers (10 pages)

9

Alpha Three Providing safe water in peri-urban and rural areas via cheaper and reliable alternatives to boiling or buying water.

Large Environment

International CEO/Co-Founder (60 minutes)

Media coverage (15 pages), flyers (5 pages)

9

Alpha Four Providing biogas solutions for cooking in peri-urban and poor houses

Small Environment

National CEO/Co-Founder (90 minutes)

Media coverage (10 pages)

7

Beta One Empowering youths through holistic youth development programs and also education and access to finance

Large Education

International CEO/Founder (90 minutes)

Media coverage (15 pages), PowerPoint (56 pages), report (100 pages)

13


Table 4.1 - continued Social Venture Cases in This Research Social ventures





Length of case narrative (Pages)

Beta Two Empowering poor families through work, education, and an increase in their quality of life

Small Community development

National CEO/Founder (60 minutes)


9

Beta Three Connecting simple, life-changing technologies to communities in very remote parts of the worlds

Large Technology

International Director (60 minutes)

Media coverage (15 pages), PowerPoint (40 pages), websites (30 pages)

12

Beta Four Raising people’s awareness to love the environment by selling reusable shopping bags and by doing campaigns

Medium Education and Environment



8

Charlie One Providing education and awareness of sexual violence and offering recovery programs for survivors

Small Community Development



8

Charlie Two Facilitating and providing a “creative space” for people in cities

Medium Community Development

Local Coordinator (60 minutes)


6


Table 4.1 - continued Social Venture Cases in This Research Social ventures





Length of case narrative (Pages)

Charlie Three Providing education facilities, such as a library, in poor, remote, rural areas of Indonesia

Small Education

National CEO/Founder (45 minutes)

Book (246 pages) 6

Charlie Four Focusing on awareness campaigns and developing market access for rice farmers in rural areas

Small Environment National CEO, Director (60 minutes)

Media coverage (5 pages), websites (5 pages)

7


We also collected secondary data to complement the interviews involving

power-point presentations, media coverage, books, and reports from different

sources, including from the owners and the CEOs, that were published between 2014

and 2016. These secondary sources were in both Bahasa Indonesia and English. In

total, we gathered 597 pages of secondary data from all 12 social ventures in our

study (see Table 4.1).

Data analysis

To analyse the collected data, we followed the case data analysis procedure

prescribed by Eisenhardt (1989) and Brown and Eisenhardt (1997) in generating

insights. We built individual case study narratives and developed comparison tables

to compare and to contrast across cases to generate insights. The data analysis

process was divided into three stages. Figure 4.2 depicts the data analysis process

and stages.

Stage 1: Coding the data

In stage 1, interviews from all cases were transcribed from audio recordings

and translated into English, and we then developed the codebook. Since the aim of

this research was to elaborate theory, we developed the codebook according to

theoretical themes outlined in Figures 4.1a and 4.1b: social venture characteristics

(social mission, private ownership logic, private funding, public control). We also

developed the codebook on themes of business model dimensions (value proposition,

value creation and delivery, value capture; Richardson, 2008) as well as on


autonomy, social legitimacy, and market legitimacy themes (see Appendix A for an

example of the codebook). The codebook described the theoretical definitions of

each of the themes as well as the initial qualitative anchors that defined the value of

each theme (high, moderate, low).

In using the codebook, the first author coded the interview transcripts and the

secondary sources. The first author, who is native in Bahasa Indonesia, used both the

original Bahasa Indonesia and English translations of the transcripts during the

development of the case study narrative to ensure that the translations captured the

original meanings.

During the coding process, the codebook was treated as a living document.

Thus, the development of the codebook followed the abductive principle where the

definitions and the qualitative anchors were continuously adjusted to the context of

the data (DeCuir-Gunby, Marshall, & McCulloch, 2011). During this process, we

found the new characteristic of financial wealth motivation. This procedure

demonstrated Eisenhardt’s (1989) suggestion in developing construct validity from

case research: authors should be “(1) refining the definition of the construct and (2)

building evidence which measures the construct in each case” where “[t]his occurs

through constant comparison between data and construct” (p. 541). Table 4. 2

displays an example of a final codebook.


Figure 4.2 Data analysis process

Secondary sources

Continuous check by second and third authors

Stage 0 Stage 1 Stage 2 Stage 3

Interviews

Data collection

Transcribing and translating

Coding process

Case narratives

Codebook development

Comparison tables

Theory framework

Inter-coder reliability process

12 months 6 months 6 months 3 months


Stage 2: Case narrative development

In stage 2, we wrote a case study narrative in English for each case using the

coded interview data and secondary sources. We triangulated data from secondary

sources to complement information that we gathered from the interviews (Denzin,

1978). This process enabled us to construct a more complete picture for each case

using this particular method of triangulation. In total, we wrote 103 pages of case

narratives with an average of 8.58 pages for each case (see Table 4.1). A typical

nine-page double-spaced case narrative (e.g, the case of Alpha Three – see Appendix

A) consisted of a section on the brief history and background of the social venture,

including social mission and private ownership logic characteristics of the social

venture (2 pages, 22%), a section on autonomy and legitimacy (1 page, 11%), a

section on private funding, public control, and financial wealth motivation (2 pages,

22%), and a section on value proposition, value creation, and value capture (4 pages,

44%).

After all the case narratives were completely written, two qualitative PhD

researchers from Australian universities who were researching in the

entrepreneurship and small business fields were invited to check the developed case

narratives. These researchers spoke native Bahasa Indonesia and were fluent English

users and, therefore, they could access the original transcripts and secondary sources

in Bahasa Indonesia, and the translated transcripts as well as the case narratives that

were written in English. They audited 25% of the raw data (33 out of 132 coding

units), as suggested in Hruschka, Schwartz, St. John, Picone-Decaro, Jenkins, and

Carey (2004). The researchers read the raw data (transcripts and secondary sources)

and checked whether case narrative reflected the stories emerging from the raw data.

We reached an acceptable inter-coder reliability score of 0.87 (5 disagreements from


33 coding units) (Miles & Huberman, 1994). Furthermore, these researchers

provided feedback on the disagreement points and the first author adjusted all case

narratives and codebook based on their suggestions. A consensus was reached after

the codebook and case narratives were revised.

Stage 3: Comparison table analysis

We conducted cross-case analyses after we finished writing the revised case

narratives. Using methods suggested by Miles and Huberman (1994) as well as

Eisenhardt (1989), we developed tables to identify similarities and differences among

the cases in our sample. In doing so, using the revised codebook and the revised case

narratives, the first author generated the comparison table of all the cases. To ensure

further reliability in the final stage of the analysis, the second and the third authors

continuously checked the comparison tables against the case narratives in English

using the revised codebook. We report the findings and the insights from the analysis

in the following sections.

Results

Empirical evidence was found from the data that helped to improve the

understanding of each characteristic (construct validity and scope) and the

relationship of the emerging social venture forms with business model

configurations. In this section, we first outline characteristics and empirical

organizational forms found from the data. We then outline the emerging business

model and social venture effectiveness configurations that were found to be

associated with certain types of social venture forms. At the end of this section, we


generate a conceptual framework that highlights the relationship between social

venture forms, business model configurations, and social venture effectiveness.

Characteristics and social venture forms: Construct validity and scope

Social ventures have unique characteristics. As they combine traits from

different sectors, social ventures absorb different characteristics. Following the

abductive reasoning of theory elaboration studies, we used theoretical definitions and

case data to further examine the characteristics of social ventures. We found all four

characteristics in our data and one additional characteristic that emerged from the

data. The first two characteristics were constructs that we found constant in all of our

cases: social mission and private ownership logic. The other three characteristics –

private funding, public control, and financial wealth motivation – had different

values from one case to another. Table 4.2 highlights the constructs, definitions, and

the scope/data-driven qualitative anchors that we developed from the iterative

process of the data analysis.

Social mission

Social mission has been characterized as the main component for social

ventures since it distinguishes social ventures from their commercial counterparts

(see Figure 4.1a). Much literature has argued that social ventures prioritize value

creation over value capture (Agafonow, 2015, 2014; Santos, 2012). Following this

body of literature, the theoretical study offers a theoretical definition of social

mission as “the prioritization of the creation of public and social value over value

capture”. Our data shows consistency with this particular theoretical argument as all

of our cases indicated a social mission characteristic as a position where “social


venture explicitly prioritizes social/public benefit over profit”. As owners of social

ventures, our respondents repeatedly emphasized that they focused on prioritizing

social or public benefit. For example, a director at Alpha One said: “We have

dividends to be shared, but we are activists by heart… so we tell ourselves our

business is commercial but we are inclined to the right (social) one”.


Private ownership logic is argued as the characteristic that distinguishes a

social venture from non-profits (see Figure 4.1a). This is due to the non-distributive

principle in non-profits that restricts profit distribution to ‘shareholders’. Social

ventures, on the other hand, seek profit and, therefore, their ownership structure is

designed to allow value capture. Private ownership logic is defined in the theoretical

study as a characteristic where the “owners have the exclusive right to exclude other

people inside and outside the organizations in profit appropriation”. Our data also

supported this argument and revealed this characteristic as an attitude where “social

venture shows intention to seek profit”. As an example, Charlie One, a social venture

that aimed to take care of survivors of sexual violence, has been seen externally as a

non-profit organization because it embraces a non-profit legal structure. Yet, the

owner of Charlie One had a positive attitude towards profit. As she said: “We can

provide consultation on how the safety measures should be run, or how to refer and

so on. All of these can be monetized”.


Table 4.2 Construct Validity and the Scope of the Characteristics (An Example from the Codebook) Construct Definition Scope/data-driven qualitative anchor Example

Social mission

“the prioritization of the creation of public and social value over value capture”

Yes: “social venture explicitly prioritizes social/public benefit over profit”

(YES) “This is not only care of the environment but it is a pity if we throw this manure into the river and make the river become green-coloured because of this. In 2000, I tried to build biogas [reactor] and trialled with different designs”, B

No: “social venture does not explicitly prioritize social/public benefit over profit”

Private ownership logic “owners have the exclusive right to exclude other people inside and outside the organizations in profit appropriation”

Yes: “social venture shows intention to seek profit”

(YES) “We offered a pro-bono to some previous cases requiring supporting counselling. However, we also consider that this can be monetized …”, W

No: “social venture shows no intention to seek profit”

Private funding “Private sources of funding, such as sales, etc.”

High: “social venture receives a significant amount of revenue from private sources, such as sales, investors, etc.”

(HIGH) “[the investor] will provide money for two years … one year for preparing [the social enterprise] … in the second year we will be working on the … programs”, N (MODERATE) “60% restricted (public) and 40% unrestricted (private)… 40% to buy books … send the books …”, N (LOW) “until now [the largest] is … the one with [government]”, L

Moderate: “social venture receives mixed funding from government and trading sales, or from private donors” Low: “social venture receives a significant amount of revenue from government sources”


Table 4.2 - continued Construct Validity and the Scope of the Characteristics (An Example from the Codebook)

Construct Definition Scope/data-driven qualitative anchor Example

Public control

“political and public as well as stakeholder control, such as terms that are attached within certain government funding, such as oversight”

High: “social venture receives significant control from external organizations”

(HIGH) “we’ve also got a donor who specifically says that he wants to support us to open a library and he will contribute the operational costs … so we have to make a report”, N (MODERATE) “Of course … we aren’t established yet [since we still have Oxfam as our main funder] … what we want is [to gain profit] … from what I said [catering and business]”, I (LOW) “ … for decision making, we’re planning to do this [involving stakeholders] … [but] we haven’t done that yet”, P1

Moderate: “social venture shows mixed external monitoring and presence of shareholder control” Low: “social venture receives significant owner/shareholder control”

Financial wealth motivation “the motivation of owners (including equity investors) to receive financial return from the social venture”

High: “intention of the owners (including, shareholders or investors) to appropriate profit from the social venture as dividends”

(HIGH) “[we will share dividends] if we have a remaining balance”, P3 (LOW) “That’s okay if it (the business profit) is small but as long as it can support our monthly operational costs”, W

Low: “intention of the owners (including shareholders or investors) to use the profit for social venture missions”


Private funding

Social ventures receive funding from different sources, including private

sources, such as trading activities or private donation, and public sources, such as

government grants. Public administration literature has indicated that the private and

the public funding sources of an organization can be seen on a continuum (Lewis &

Zolin, 2004). We found evidence for this continuum in our data. While the

theoretical study defined private funding as “private sources of funding, such as

sales, etc.”, we found three different variations of private funding in our cases. First

was the high private funding, defined as the situation where “a social venture

receives a significant amount of revenue from private sources, such as sales,

investors, etc”. Second was the low private funding, defined as the situation where

“a social venture receives a significant amount of revenue from government

sources”. In between, there was moderate private funding, defined as the situation

where “social venture receives mixed funding from government and from trading

sales, or from private sources”. Alpha Two, for example, was a social venture with

high private funding because all of its funding sources came from trading sales or

investor support.

Public control

All organizations are subject to public control (Bozeman, 1987). In social

ventures public control is especially important because they aim to deliver

social/public value. In the theoretical study, public control referred to “political and

public as well as stakeholder control, such as terms that are attached within certain

government funding, such as oversight”. Public control increases tensions in social


ventures due to owners’ or shareholders’ interest in independent decision-making.

We encountered evidence of varying levels of public control in our data. High public

control is a situation where “a social venture receives significant control from

external organizations”. Low public control is the situation where “a social venture

receives significant owner/shareholder control”. In between these, moderate public

control is the situation where “a social venture indicates mixed external monitoring

and the presence of shareholder control’. As an example, Charlie Four had high

public control and, therefore, it was not allowed to use the grant money without

appropriate consultation. The co-founder illustrated the scrutiny that the grant

organization made in the day-to-day financial management of the social venture:

“They had arguments with our staff… because he did not tell them that the money

was used for unapproved spending”.

Financial wealth motivation

Another characteristic of social ventures emerged from our data: financial

wealth motivation. Financial wealth motivation is defined as “the motivation of

owners (including equity investors) to receive financial returns from the social

ventures”. Financial wealth motivation indicates whether owners of social venture

are interested in appropriating profit for themselves from the social ventures (high)

or whether owners would like to reinvest the profit, if there is any, for the purpose of

their social mission (low). This characteristic resembles Wasserman’s (2012)

proposal of the tension between wealth and control in entrepreneurial firms.

Entrepreneurs are often faced with having to decide whether they would like to

become ‘king’ (retaining control of the enterprise) or ‘rich’ (accumulating wealth but

losing control of the enterprise to external parties, such as investors) (Wasserman,


2012). Our data revealed that social entrepreneurs seemed to exhibit a similar

tension. In addition to public control, they seemed to also have to deal with the

tension between wealth (high financial wealth motivation) and owners’ control (low

financial wealth motivation) to focus on the creation of social/public value. For

example, Beta One’s owner was reluctant to have investors in her social venture

because she preferred to reinvest all the profit in her social venture activities and

retain control of value creation. When asked whether she would like to work with

investors, she said: “Nope … that’s why when there are investors coming to us and

ask, ‘May I invest equity in your social venture?’ I said I don’t want to have

investors… because if they go into equity, the [ownership] equilibrium will change”.

Social venture forms

Our data indicated that these characteristics served as important building-

blocks of different organizational forms. We identified three broad patterns of social

venture forms emerging from the case data: ‘more private’, ‘more public’, and

‘mixed’. Table 4.3 shows the data that builds these social venture forms.

Social ventures with ‘more private’ organizational forms tended to receive

high/moderate private funding, moderate/low public control, and high financial

wealth motivation. These forms resembled commercial ventures; yet, they differed

because they prioritized their social mission and in some cases had mixed public and

private funding. For example, Alpha Three, a social venture that sold water

purification filters to poor societies to improve their health and to reduce carbon

emissions, received moderate private funding because in addition to sales revenue,

they also received support from grant organizations. Despite receiving support from


grant organizations, the data showed that their trading revenue was significantly

higher.

The ‘more private’ social ventures were less constrained by public control.

Alpha One, a CSR consultant firm that operated in a social entrepreneurship fashion,

exhibited low public control because it used a legal status that was like commercial

ventures. Contrary to a foundation or cooperative legal status (Pratono & Sutanti,

2016), having limited liability status did not require the company to have extensive

relationships with stakeholders. A director in Alpha One indicated that the company

did not involve their stakeholders in corporate decision-making: “we’re planning to

do this… [but] we haven’t done that yet”. All social ventures in ‘more private’ forms

have high financial wealth motivation. Their owners, including investors, were

interested to appropriate profit in terms of dividends. Alpha Two was an example

where its investors invested in the social venture for the first two years and expected

to start gaining financial returns in the third year. The co-founder explained that: “in

the beginning he told me [that] the first two years he will support… in the third year,

he asked me to start profiting”.

In contrast, social ventures with ‘more public’ organizational forms have

low/moderate private funding, high public control, and low financial wealth

motivation characteristics. Charlie Two, a social venture that facilitated ‘creative

city’ movements, received the majority of its funding from the government. A

coordinator of Charlie Two reported that that she received some funding from

donations and small trading activities, such as training that it provided to a few

organizations; however, according to her: “until now, the largest is the one that we

receive from the government”.


Table 4.3 Characteristics and Organizational Forms

Organizational forms

Cases Private funding Public control Financial wealth motivation

More private More private More private

Alpha One

High “So if asked, our income stream is from ..it’s almost all from our clients”, P2

Low “ … for decision-making, we’re planning to do this [involving stakeholders] … [but] we haven’t done that yet”, P1

High “[we made dividend distributions] .. yes in 2011”, P1

Alpha Two

High “[the investor] will provide [all] money for two years …”, N

Moderate Shareholder control: “ … [the investor] asked me to start [profiting]”, N External monitoring: “we can’t be bad [in business] … because of our [close] relationship with communities”, N

High “ensuring (the investor) that investing in [Alpha Two] won’t be useless in the future (good dividends)”, N

Alpha Three

Moderate “we partner with NGOs [that buy our products] and NGOs mostly hand it out for free [to the beneficiaries], L Alpha Three also received grant funding

Moderate External monitoring: Grantees are also contractually bound by control mechanisms, such as providing regular program activity and financial reports (GAIN document) Shareholder control: “the hardest discussion about unit cost and the margins [with investors]”, L

High “they (the investors) talked about their return”, L


Table 4.3 - continued Characteristics and Organizational Forms



More private Alpha Four

High “I have never got that kind of [government] grants [our income only from sales]”, B

Moderate External monitoring: “[the NGOs] determined the design and the price”, B Shareholder control: “for me the line between profit and being sustainable is so thin so I have to [properly manage to get sustainable profit]”, B

High “if it’s not giving profit, we don’t have to do it (because we are wasting time)”, B

More public More public

Charlie Two

Low “until now [the largest] is … the one with government”, L

High “[w]e are optimistic that we could report the [use of government] funds”, F

Low “[we don’t take dividends now] we need to assess the risk … when we become profit-seeking”

Charlie Three

Moderate “60% restricted (public) and 40 % unrestricted (private)”, N

High “we’ve also got a donor … so we have to make a report”, N

Low “I don’t think it is right (to take dividends) … I think I can earn money from other sources”, N

More public

Charlie Four

Low “Since 2005, [foreign government donors] have been a major [funding] supporter”, T

High “It is possible to make [budget allocation] changes as long as it was below 10% of the total amount of fund … and there is a prior notice”,

Low “to this day we have never taken it (the financial surpluses)”, T





Mixed 1 (social businesses) Mixed 1 (social businesses) Mixed 1 (social businesses)

Beta One Moderate “ … my revenue is corporate sponsors … donations [and project funds]”, V

Moderate External monitoring: “we [have to] provide reports … [to] the donors”, V Shareholder control: “I’m a control freak … I want to control [the organization] ..”, V

Low [Interviewer: do you wish to take dividends from your social venture?] V: “Nope”

Beta Two High “our [training] services contribute more, around 70% …”, A

Moderate External monitoring: “we determine the price [of products] together [with our stakeholders]”, A Shareholder control: “then I started to control the [quality] of the product [to ensure profit]”, A

Low “I have got another job, stable income, so … I haven’t taken any money from it (Beta Two)”, A

Beta Three

Moderate “60% came in form of grant … 40% came in form of other sort of income generating [activities]”, T

Moderate External monitoring: We will send you (funders) updates as the technology is delivered (FAQ document) Shareholder control: “the profits [we make are] from consultant works with CSR activities”, T

Low “[we’re avoiding dividends] by design, we think the social enterprise is not ready to receive equity investments”, T



Organizational forms Cases Private funding Public control Financial wealth motivation

Mixed 1 (social businesses)

Beta Four High “80% [from market]”, P1

Moderate External monitoring: “one more thing about donors, [they became the reason for] the birth of different social divisions [in our organization]”, P2 Shareholder control: “they [the investors] help .. consult … network … establish [new business]”, P1

Low “[no dividends] because we need to make the [social venture] better …”, P1

Mixed 2 Charlie One High

“the large proportion [of it] individual [donations]”, W

Moderate External monitoring: “[supervisory] board [always] monitors … usually reviews on-going program …”, W Shareholder control: “as I have said earlier, we need to ensure [getting less dependent and having] the financial stability ourselves”, W

Low “yes, we need to make money, but that does not mean we want to get dividends”, W


Because they are inclined to more publicness, ‘more public’ social ventures

in the data exhibited high public control. Charlie Three, for example, a social venture

aiming to develop children libraries in remote, rural islands in Indonesia, was

required to provide a report to their funders; the funders controlled the activities of

the social venture by allocating money to particular activities. The co-founder

explained that funders often specified how they wanted their money to be spent:

“we’ve also got a funder who specifically says that he wants to open a library and he

will contribute the costs … we have to make a report”. Furthermore, owners of all

‘more public’ social venture forms had low financial wealth motivation. Their

attention seemed to be on creating profit that they could re-invest in the operations

for the benefit of social/public value creation. For example, all the surpluses from

Charlie Three’s fundraising activities – selling second-hand English novels in urban

areas – were reinvested.

These two forms are consistent with the theoretical typology presented in

Figure 4.1b. The ‘more private’ form corresponds to the Type III social venture

(high private funding and low public control), while the ‘more public’ form

corresponds to the Type I social venture (low private funding and high public

control). However, in contrast to the theoretical study, we found more diverse

‘mixed’ organizational forms in the data; they included the Type II (high private

funding and high public control) form and another variant that we called ‘social

businesses’. In the ‘mixed’ category were social ventures that received

high/moderate public control and had low financial wealth motivation and

high/moderate private funding. Charlie One, for example, fitted into Type II and the

‘mixed’ classification because it received high private funding and high public

control and low financial wealth motivation. Furthermore, among the ‘mixed’ forms


there were the ‘social business’ social ventures which included Beta One to Beta

Four. These ‘social businesses’ reflected relatively moderate private funding,

moderate public control, and low financial wealth motivation that implied the

characteristics of particular social ventures in the literature that tended to reinvest

their profits back into the operation of the enterprises (Ridley-Duff & Bull, 2016;

Yunus, 2010).

These findings resulted in a different typology of the empirical organizational

forms from the theoretical study’s initial typology (see Figure 4.1b). In Figure 4.3,

we developed a three-dimensional typology that summarizes the characteristics of

social ventures and social venture forms found from the case data.

In figure 4.3 we can also infer the types of ‘hypothetical’, non-effective

organizational forms (grey boxes with thin lines) resulting from our identification of

the characteristics and the effective forms of social ventures, despite the lack of data

of non-effective forms. The non-effective form 1, for example, reflects a

configuration of low private funding, low public control, and low financial wealth

motivation. Social ventures with this configuration may be non-effective because

they will have to face the conflicting logic of public funds and shareholder control

resulting from low public control. Public funds defy shareholder control because the

government grants are restrictive in their nature. Further, the non-effective form 2,

where it has similar characteristics to the non-effective form 1 except that it has high

financial wealth motivation, is also non-sustainable because the social ventures may

be prone to failure from conflicting external and internal interests. The non-effective

form 3, on the other hand, has high public control, low private funding, yet high

financial wealth motivation. A social venture with these characteristics may also be

prone to failure because it embraces strong public characteristics, yet it also expects


to generate wealth. Finally, the non-effective form 4 has high private funding, high

public control, and high financial wealth motivation. Social ventures embracing this

form may also be prone to failure because their high financial wealth motivation

conflicts with external control from government or stakeholders. Our inference of

non-effective forms is consistent with extant configurational approach tenets that

have argued that non-effective outcomes may not be simply expressed by the

absence of characteristics that lead to effective outcomes. Non-effectiveness requires

a configurational ‘causal mix’ that differs from the effective ones (Fiss, 2011; Ragin,

2008).

Social venture forms and patterns of business model configurations

The evidence from this study resonates with the arguments in the extant

literature that predict the relationship between organizational forms and inter-

organizational arrangements (Albers, Wohlgezogen, & Zajac, 2016; Gomes, Barnes,

& Mahmood, 2016; Lavie, Haunschild, & Khanna, 2012). In this research, we

consider that business model configurations represent inter-organizational

arrangements that focal firms engage in because they are essentially arrangements of

activities between focal firms and their partners in a systemic level. Business models

constitute value proposition, value creation, and value capture dimensions

(Osterwalder, Pigneur, & Tucci, 2005; Richardson, 2008).

Our data showed four patterns of business model configurations that were

linked to the emerging social venture forms (see Figure 4.3). Three of these –

efficiency (associated with ‘more private’ forms), novelty (associated with ‘mixed’

forms), and lock-in (associated with ‘more public’) – corresponded to the theoretical

study (see Figure 4.3); however, we also found a hybrid model that combined known


business model configurations. Table 4.4 highlights the characteristics of each

business model configuration and the associated social venture organizational forms

found in the data.

All efficiency business model configurations, where transaction costs among

partners are efficient (Amit & Zott, 2001), in the present study’s cases were

characterized by integrated social and business value propositions, as well as

efficient value creation and value capture activity characteristics. Cases in the data

showed that efficiency business models were also linked to the ‘more private’

organizational form. For example, Alpha Three, a social venture with a ‘more

private’ organizational form, embraced integrated social and business value

propositions. Having one, integrated value proposition allowed the focal social

ventures to achieve the social and business benefits simultaneously and thus they

reduced transaction and operation costs. Alpha Three offered cheap, no-frills ceramic

water-filters to the bottom of the pyramid customers and involved beneficiaries in the

business processes as distributors. By offering this proposition, it achieved its social

objective – to reduce the likelihood of water-borne diseases, such as diarrhoea – and

its business objectives at the same time. As a result, value creation and value capture

activities across the network were cost-efficient.


Figure 4.3 A three-dimensional illustration of effective social venture organizational forms and business models based on the case data.

- PRIVATEFUNDING+

-PU

BLICCONT

ROL+

More private form (Type III) (Moderate/high private funding, moderate/low public control, high financial wealth motivation, efficiency-centred business model)

More public form (Type I) (Low/moderate private funding, high public control, low financial wealth motivation, lock-in-centred business model)

Mixed 2 form (Type II) (High private funding, High public control, Low financial wealth motivation, hybrid business model)

Mixed 1 (“social businesses”) form (Moderate/high private funding, moderate public control, low financial wealth motivation, novelty-centred business model)


In contrast, the lock-in business model configurations – where participants

were locked into the value creation network (Amit and Zott, 2001) – reflected single,

public value propositions, and network lock-in value creation and capture

characteristics. The data showed that social ventures embracing this business model

ensured that participants were reluctant to leave the network and that they continued

to support the focal social ventures. Cases in the data showed that lock-in business

models were empirically associated with the ‘more public’ organizational form. As

an example, Charlie Three’s value proposition was to offer free libraries for children

on remote, rural islands. To achieve this, it collaborated with high profile

organizations and locked their network into its value creation and value capture

activities. Charlie Three worked with a large international publisher and conducted a

‘buy one, donate one’ campaign. The publisher donated a children’s story book to

Charlie Three’s library every time a customer read an e-book. The management of

the company was very excited with the program and they kept supporting Charlie

Three. As the co-founder of Charlie Three mentioned: “In the next two years, they

donated another 5,000 books for us”. This choice, we believed, was associated with

the low private funding and the ‘more public’ form that it embraced. Having low

private funding restricted profit; therefore, Charlie Three might potentially have been

lacking financial sustainability. To cope with this, it had to ensure that their network

– including donors – continued to support and were locked into Charlie Three’s

causes.


Table 4.4. Organizational Forms and Business Model Configurations


Cases Business model configurations

Value propositions

Value creation and delivery

Value capture

More private More private More private More private

Alpha One

Efficiency Efficiency Efficiency Efficiency

Integrated “so, the [client] pays [for our services] … other parties [local communities] are the ones who benefit”, P3

Efficient “this is also what makes us different … [our network] … provides access [to fulfil our business tasks]”, P2

Efficient “we want things that benefit the network … but [they] should be aligned with our business vision and mission [so we can profit]”, P1

Alpha Two

Integrated “we were closer to community … campaign [with customers] was effective here … changing behaviours [of beneficiaries]”, N

Efficient “we choose journalists [as our beneficiaries] young journalists … and want [them] to report [as campaign and promotion]”, N

No value capture yet “Two years he will support … [the third year] he asked me to start selling”, N

Alpha Three

Integrated “we’re really going to target poor people [as customers] .. that was really like the cheapest container we could find”, L

Efficient “[our distributors are] like mothers who might have another job in a health centre …”, L

Efficient “Kiva [microloans] is free .. I’m really happy with Kiva [to help increase sales and profits]”, L

Alpha Four

Integrated “I sell … organic waste biogas is specifically designed for remote areas, in villages [and waste biogas for urban areas]”, B

Efficient “so the targeted beneficiaries are .. urban for waste biogas and rural for organic waste biogas”, B

Efficient “[the NGOs] came and subsidized 2 million … [so it is easier to sell the products]”, B


Table 4.4 - continued Organizational Forms and Business Model Configurations



Value proposition Value creation and delivery

Value capture


Charlie Two

Lock-in Lock-in

Single, public “this is our proposition: to empower economic potential to improve the wellbeing of local societies, so people, place, and ideas always go together”, L

Network lock-in “the most important is to build trust from communities to governments who will become our clients”, L

Network lock-in “[network capitalization] depends on who is the coordinator .. her network is in business so she gets sponsorship from business”, L

Charlie Three

Single, public “Why books and education … if we want to change something in the future … it should start with [children education]”, N

Network lock-in “[our partners are so happy] in the next two years, they donated another 5,000 books for us”, N

Network lock-in “we’ve got large numbers of volunteers at [fundraising activity] … a hundred can come to us”, N

More public Charlie Four

Lock-in Single, public “we’re trying to connect the dots … what other people don’t do … we aim to connect”, T

Network lock-in “[funding network] needed a partner (us) who was capable of managing campaigns”, T

Network lock-in “we’re not brave enough to flip over to the 90% [donor funding] and 10% [private funding]”, T

Mixed 1 (Social Businesses)

Beta One Novelty Separated Beneficiaries: “ … started from anti-drug campaigns [for children] … [to] microfinance programs for poor housewives”, V Clients: “So, our business model is similar to Timezone … we [open our business units] at malls”, V

Novel “Our micro-finance program is … education-linked microfinance, where children of the mothers who borrow our money have to go to [Beta One] free schools”, V

High Cost “those kinds of things (heavy burden of costs) make difficulties … we are sustaining, but not greatly growing”, C


Table 4.4 - continued Organizational Forms and Business Model Configurations



Value propositions


Value capture


Beta Two Novelty Separated Beneficiaries: “we’ve got all elements: the children, the families, and the teenagers”, A Clients: “we give trainings, consultancies, and stuff like that”, A

Novel “It (our shop) was on Facebook … so many buyers … I felt excited”, A

High cost “if I take [profit] from here, I will have less [swing machines]”, A


Beta Three

Novelty Separated Beneficiaries: “so main beneficiaries are the community”, T Clients: “we do work with a lot of companies”, T

Novel “so we go to [our beneficiary community] in NTT and then we get the data so that data get into [the clients]”, T

High cost “we need the non-profit model because we want to serve the most difficult places”, E


Beta Four Novelty Separated Beneficiaries: “the program is called plastic bag diet ... this is one of the campaigns [to public]”, P2 Clients: “we had [reusable] bags production and … sold [them] …”, P1

Novel “As one example, [selling of the bags] helps here … because [the bags] and the plastic bag diet campaigns are connected”, P2

High cost “[we can get] breakeven for a short time … but [because of] operational costs … it’s fluctuating”, P1

Mixed 2 Charlie One

Hybrid Integrated “we start saying straight [to companies]: we offer you the [sexual awareness and education] training … but you need to pay [donation]”, W

Network lock-in “we’ve also got a prominent partner … [they] have been very helpful to ensure our survey went viral …”, W

Network lock-in “we have started partnering [with others] … [to] receive [public] grants”, W


Moreover, the novelty business model configuration – where participants are

combined in novel and innovative arrangements (Amit & Zott, 2001) – is indicated

by the separated social and business value propositions, novel value creation

activities, and high cost operation activities that discourage value capture. The

present study’s data indicated that social ventures with this particular business model

introduced a novel approach to manage different social and business value

propositions. Novel business model configuration cases in the data were linked to

some of the ‘mixed’ organizational forms we identified earlier. We noticed that only

those social ventures with relatively moderate private funding, moderate public

control, and low financial wealth motivation (Mixed 1/‘social businesses’) were

associated with this particular business model configuration. For example, Beta

Three was a social venture that served as a hub that connected simple technology

producers and poor communities and introduced novel value creation activities by

connecting the previously two un-connected markets (poor community market and

technology market). To do this, Beta Three needed to offer separated social and

business value propositions. Managing two different activities may have been

expensive; therefore, value capture seemed less likely in novel configurations. The

co-founder of Beta Three said: “We want to serve the most difficult places that

nobody gets to. It is really expensive to transport goods there. From a market

perspective, it doesn’t make sense”.

Moreover, we found a hybrid business model configuration that was

characterized by a combination of efficiency and lock-in configurations. In the data,

the focal social venture with hybrid business model attempted to offer integrated

social and business value propositions; yet, it operated in a similar way with those

social ventures that embraced lock-in business models. The only case in the data that


embraced the hybrid business model was Charlie One where it had Mixed 2

characteristics – high private funding, has high public control, and low financial

wealth motivation. Charlie One offered paid sexual violence awareness training to

its corporate clients; yet, it showed significant dependency on their value creation

and capture networks.

Social venture effectiveness: Autonomy and legitimacy

Autonomous and legitimate social ventures are able to survive because they

can acquire and maintain resources (Desa & Basu, 2013; Pfeffer & Salancik, 1978,

2003). From the case data, we found evidence that connected different social venture

forms and business model configurations with autonomy and legitimacy

configurations. We also found some cases displayed different configurations of

autonomy and legitimacy. Table 4.5 highlights the emerging focal social venture

autonomy and legitimacy configurations and their association with business model

configurations and social venture forms.

‘More autonomous’ focal social ventures have high autonomy, high market

legitimacy, yet low to moderate social legitimacy. In the data, ‘more autonomous’

social ventures were associated with efficiency business model configurations and

‘more private’ organizational forms. Alpha Four was an example of a ‘more

autonomous’ social venture that exhibited more freedom in managing its internal

resources. As the co-founder argued: “We gave bonuses besides salaries to our

employees”. In the data, autonomy of the focal social ventures seemed to correspond

to the level of market legitimacy that they received, and it seemed that autonomous

organizations sent signals to the market that they offered potential market

performance (Drees & Heugens, 2013).


‘More autonomous’ social ventures seemed to have lower levels of social

legitimacy. In our cases, they had moderate to low social legitimacy. Alpha One, for

example, needed to encounter resentment from stakeholders when they promoted

social entrepreneurship to communities. A director of Alpha One told us, “We got

mocked, they said: ‘what is this, inviting farmers to market? Capitalists!’”.

Alpha Two, on the other hand, showed high social legitimacy. It was a free

environmental magazine that aimed to increase environmental awareness. It had just

recently been bought by a commercial investor who shared Alpha Two’s causes, but

was not expecting profit in the first two years (overlapping with the period of this

study). We suspected that the fact that Alpha Two had yet to capture value may have

been responsible for this anomaly (i.e., having ‘more autonomous’ configuration yet

possessing high ‘social legitimacy’).

In contrast, ‘more socially legitimate’ focal social ventures showed low

autonomy and low market legitimacy, yet high social legitimacy configuration.

‘More socially legitimate’ focal ventures corresponded with lock-in business model

configurations and ‘more public’ organizational forms. Charlie Two was an example

of a ‘more socially legitimate’ social venture. It received high stakeholder supports.

For example, it had an extensive network and was supported inside and outside

Indonesia. Due to this extensive network, people continued to give support to it.

Charlie Two’s coordinator illustrated: “The network support is from local to

international. This is the MoU made with UC Berkeley for youth participation…

then UN habitat”.

Chapter 4: Paper 2 – Organizational Characteristics and Forms

Table 4.5. Organizational Forms, Business Model Configurations and Effectiveness Configurations


Cases Business model Effectiveness Autonomy Market legitimacy Social legitimacy


Alpha One Efficiency Efficiency Efficiency Efficiency

More autonomous More autonomous More autonomous More autonomous

High “we retained it [the profit] for our own purposes”, P2

High “positioning-wise, we are middle up [in terms of pricing]”, P1

Low “we got mocked … [they said] ‘ inviting [poor] farmers to the market? Capitalist!”, P2

Alpha Two High “we could manage [the money] … for staff salaries”, N

High “[the investor] we’re working together and making money”, N

High “I had discussions with [our stakeholders] … asked for their opinion (and to get supports)”, N

Alpha Three High “make sure [we] hired more staff in the sales department or marketing that will lead to more sales”, L

High “when we’re engaging with [the investors]: ‘okay, show me the cash flow’”, L

Moderate Support: Alpha Three received the prestigious Silicon Valley Tech award 2013 Resistance: “[many said]: [if you] don’t give them for free, you’re not social”, L

Alpha Four High “we gave bonuses besides salary [to our employees]”, B

High “we were able to [sell] and build 1,054 [biogas reactors]”, B

Moderate Support: Alpha Four received a national Social Entrepreneurship award in 2016 Resistance: “But NGO just wants us to do some advocacy. Advocating but not doing sales that is nonsense”,B


Table 4.5 - continued Organizational Forms, Business Model Configurations and Effectiveness Configurations




Charlie Two Lock-in Lock-in

More socially legitimate More socially legitimate

Low “The rest of [our staff] are volunteers [and we have less control of them]”, L

Low “the market [capacity] is still low”, L

High “network [support] is from local to international”, L

Charlie Three

Low “yeah, it’s pure donation … [donations] are for buying books … depends on the request (so we are less autonomous in resource arrangement)”, N

Low “[we have no market capacity] we only have one project coordinator”, N

High “I received the Tupperware SheCan! award in 2011”, N

More public Charlie Four

Lock-in More socially legitimate

Low “we should communicate [resource allocation change] first to the donor”, T

Low “[the market is] not yet [accepting] … we’re still an NGO”, T

High “we have more connection with [poor] farmers …”, T






Beta One Novelty Balanced Moderate “[we design resource arrangement] as shared resources (to ensure flexibility)”, V “But it doesn’t have legality, it means no [legal control]”, V

High “investors coming to us and ask”, V

High “[Beta One] was recommended to receive a UN award”, V


Beta Two Novelty Balanced Moderate “[as] foundation [we] cannot take profit”, A “[however, we can arrange that] out of 100, we take 40 and use it [as salaries] for people”, A

Moderate “I will not [fully rely on production capacity] of this area because the community is poor”, A

Moderate Support: Beta Two received the Danone Youth Social Entrepreneurship award in 2015 Resistance: “I was so shocked they would reject [our support]”, A






Beta Three Novelty Balanced Moderate “I think [regulations are] the limitation [and] there are barriers to [autonomy] … so for example, we can’t hire people”, T “[However], that’s (to use the surpluses of business units) within our control, our discretion to use however we want”, T

High “[our] strategy [to attract more clients] is focusing more on kind of early stage testing (of new technologies)”, T

High “This [award for us] is like the Oscar for renewable energy. The prize is granted during the Abu Dhabi Sustainability Week”, E.

Mixed 1 (social business)

Beta Four Novelty Balanced High “so, we never return the surplus … it’s for other activities in the PT (company)”

High “The sales of [bags] was steadily increasing”, P1

Moderate Support: Beta Four selected to participate in various programs (Bayer Young Environmental Envoy, etc) Resistance: “[our colleagues said:] ‘we felt we only talked money .. why is our goal now money? Aren’t we social?’”, P1





Mixed 2 Charlie One Hybrid Balanced Moderate [we’re an NGO but], the donations are not binding (we have some flexibility in using the donations)”, W

Moderate “[our client] is still on-going. Three sessions”, W

High “[stakeholders’] involvements are all pro-bono”, W


Furthermore, ‘balanced’ focal social ventures indicated moderate-to-high

autonomy, market legitimacy, and social legitimacy. The ‘balanced’ configuration

was associated with both novel and hybrid business model configurations. It was also

associated with all types of ‘mixed’ organizational forms. For example, Beta Two

had autonomy because it had relative freedom to manage internal resources, for

example, in managing their own finance and in attracting and allocating volunteers to

participate in their activities. At the same time, it also had social legitimacy, for

example, winning a national social entrepreneurship award.

Venture forms, business models, and effectiveness: A conceptual framework

Our findings indicated that private funding, public control, and financial

wealth motivation seemed to constitute social venture forms and structure the

emerging types of business model and effectiveness (autonomy and legitimacy)

configurations. Table 4.6 summarizes the findings.

We noticed that this relationship seemed consistent with resource dependence

theory (RDT) (Pfeffer & Salancik, 1978, 2003) as indicated in the theoretical study.

Extant research has shown that internal organizational characteristics and

organizational forms can play important roles in configuring external inter-

organizational arrangement (Albers et al., 2016; Gomes et al., 2016; Lavie et al.,

2012). This is primarily due to the fact that focal organizations need to manage

resource dependence from other organizations (Pfeffer & Salancik, 1978, 2003). To

cope with resource dependence, organizations engage in inter-organizational

arrangements to establish autonomy, which is the freedom to arrange internal

resources (Oliver, 1991), and legitimacy, which is social acceptance of a firm’s


actions (Suchman, 1995). Autonomous and legitimate organizations are effective

because they are able to acquire resources that they need (Yuchtman & Seashore

1967). Pfeffer and Salancik (1978, 2003) offered several inter-organizational

engagement strategies that a firm could take. Among others were a merger and

acquisition, joint-ventures, and board interlock.

Yet, Pfeffer and Salancik’s (1978, 2003) proposed inter-organizational

strategies have been criticized as being limited because they are dyadic in nature and

do not reflect the richness of resource dependence theory’s propositions that allow

investigations of complex, non-dyadic, inter-organizational arrangements (Wry,

Cobb, & Aldrich, 2013); a call to further explore other kinds of inter-organizational

arrangement strategies has been made in the literature (Davis & Cobb, 2010).

In light of this, business model configurations qualify as complex, non-dyadic

inter-organizational arrangements that focal firms generate to cope with resource

dependence. From this point of view, business models essentially depict how focal

social ventures manage inter-organizational activities at the system level to achieve

effectiveness

Figure 4.4 displays a conceptual framework that we developed illustrating

this connection. To further understand the connection between social ventures and

outcomes, we outline each emerging pattern in light of the resource dependence

theoretical perspective, as suggested by Short, Moss, and Lumpkin (2009).

In pattern 1, ‘more private’ social ventures with more private funding, less

public control, and high financial wealth motivation are associated with efficient

business models and more autonomous effectiveness configurations because the

focal venture needs to ensure that they are able to acquire and maintain essential

resources. The demands of financial wealth (e.g., return on investment), for example,


put pressure on the focal venture to generate surpluses and profits, which requires the

focal social ventures to be more autonomous so that they can acquire and maintain

resources that they need to make profit while delivering their primary social mission.

Autonomous organizations lead to profit.

To do so, social ventures with high private funding structure their value

propositions, value creation, and value capture configurations in an efficient manner

so that transaction costs are low for every business model participant and the

business model becomes attractive for potential participants. In the study’s cases, this

was evident in the way ‘more private’ social ventures included the beneficiaries in

their business value chain.

Alpha Three, for example, reduced transaction costs in two ways. First, by

having integrated value propositions it could efficiently cater for social and business

consumers at once. Second, inclusion of beneficiaries into the value chain helped

reduced costs because by having them in the business as employees, Alpha Three

reduced transactions to achieve its dual social and business objectives.

While reducing transaction costs and operating in efficient configurations

seemed to increase autonomy, it was also likely to increase market legitimacy

because the focal social ventures seemed attractive to investors. The cases showed

that ‘more private’ social ventures were attractive to investors. Yet, the data also

showed that these social ventures had a lower level of social legitimacy; we

suspected that stakeholders perceived them as operating under profit maximization

principles and, therefore, they were considered to be prone to mission drift.


Table 4.6 Summary of Findings Organizational forms


Autonomy Private funding


Market legitimacy

Social legitimacy

Public control


Alpha One Efficiency High High High High Low Low Alpha Two Efficiency High High High High Higha Moderate Alpha Three Efficiency High Moderate High High Moderate Moderate Alpha Four Efficiency High High High

High Moderate Moderate


Charlie Two Lock-in Low Low Low Low High High Charlie Three

Lock-in Low Moderate Low Low High High

More public Charlie Four Lock-in Low Low Low Low High High Mixed 1 Mixed 1 Mixed 1 Mixed 1

Beta One Novelty Moderate Moderate Low High High Moderate Beta Two Novelty Moderate High Low Moderate Moderate Moderate Beta Three Novelty Moderate Moderate Low High High Moderate Beta Four Novelty High High Low High Moderate Moderate

Mixed 2 Charlie One Hybrid Moderate High Low Moderate High High

Note. All cases exhibit high social mission and high private ownership logic. aWe suspected that this anomaly (high social legitimacy in a more private organizational form) was due to the fact that Alpha Two had yet to capture value.


Figure 4.4 Effectiveness patterns and conceptual relationship between configurations.

More Private

More Public

Mixed variant 1 (Social Businesses) Mixed variant 2

Efficiency

Lock-in

More Autonomous

Social Venture Organizational Forms Focal Social Venture Effectiveness Configurations Business Model Configurations

Social Mission

Fund

ing

Value Propositions

More Socially Legitimate

Valu

e C

aptu

re

Autonomy

Fina

ncia

l wea

lth m

otiv

atio

n

Patte

rn 1

Pa

ttern

2

Exte

rnal

Con

trol

Patte

rn 3

a Pa

ttern

3b

Private Ownership Logic

Novelty

Hybrid

Value Creation and Delivery

Balanced

Market Legitimacy

Soci

al L

egiti

mac

y


In pattern 2, ‘more public’ social ventures, characterized by less private

funding yet more public control and low financial wealth motivation were associated

with a lock-in configuration and a ‘more socially legitimate’ effectiveness

configuration because they aimed to achieve financial sustainability. Demand to

offer public/social value propositions, reflected in the relatively high public funding

and public control, placed substantial pressures to social ventures, and this may have

reduced their venture autonomy. They were subsequently constrained from

conducting trading activities and generating profits. To ensure sustainability, they

needed to rely on their network, to lock the participants into their network, and to

ensure that their partners always provided resources that the social ventures needed.

Thus, ‘more public’ social ventures structured value creation and value capture in a

way that they reflected the network lock-in principle. Our cases indicated that social

ventures coped with dependency on their network by collaborating with high profile

partners. Because working with high profile partner is likely to increase legitimacy

(Suchman, 1995), this strategy can make other partners ‘fall in love’ with the social

ventures and be willing to participate in the business model and provide necessary

resources for the focal social venture. Charlie Two, for example, established

collaboration with reputable organizations abroad so the social venture became

respected and increased the loyalty of its network.

‘Mixed’ social ventures reflected two distinctive patterns. We argue that

pattern 3a and 3b were cases of equifinality in the configurational analysis where

different starting points may have led to similar outcomes (Doty, Glick, & Huber,

1993). In pattern 3a, for example, social ventures with relatively moderate to high

private funding, moderate public control, and low financial return (Mixed 1/‘social


businesses’) were associated with the novelty business model configuration and with

the ‘balanced’ effectiveness configuration. These social ventures attempted to find a

fine balance between their social and business objectives by introducing novel value

creation approaches. ‘Social businesses’ often need to cater for different kinds of

‘customers’, commercial and beneficiaries, and this particular choice demands

different value creation and delivery approaches. To create a surplus and to be

financially sustainable, these social ventures need to engage in novel value creation

and delivery activities. Engaging in innovative activity arrangements may help them

to acquire and maintain external resources. As an example, the focal social ventures

may link to two previously unconnected markets to offer value to participants in

each market.

In pattern 3b, despite similar ‘balanced’ effectiveness configurational

outcomes, mixed variant 2, where the social venture had high private funding, high

public control, and low financial wealth motivation, was associated with a hybrid

business model configuration that combined the efficient and the lock-in

characteristics. This variant was only represented by one organization in the cases,

Charlie One. This variant was unique because its high private funding came from

private donations that did not require reporting and were non-restrictive. Thus,

despite having high private funding, Charlie One seemed to structure their value

creation activities in similar ways to those with ‘more public’ social venture forms

that were lock-in value creation activities. Yet, unlike these social ventures that

received larger public funds, Charlie One may have had the freedom to use private

donation funds. We suspected that because they did not have appropriate market

revenues, they were dependent on donors to support them with resources and,


therefore, this explained why Charlie One needed to lock their donors into their

value creation activities to be sustainable.

Discussion and conclusion

We started this study by indicating that there was limited understanding in

the organizational design literature of the relationship between organizational forms

and outcomes in small, social entrepreneurial firms because extant literature had

focused on the relationship in large, commercial organizations. A recent theoretical

study (Margiono et al., 2017) attempted to address this issue and built a typology of

social venture business model forms based on their unique characteristics and further

theorized on the relationship between social venture characteristics, business model

forms and outcomes. However, to the best of our knowledge there is not yet any

empirical research that validates the theoretical study. By comparatively analysing

12 cases from different types of social ventures, we aimed to empirically identify the

characteristics of social ventures, to explore the social ventures that emerged from

these characteristics, and to seek insight into how social venture forms affected

outcomes. We used the ‘construct development’ tactic in the theory elaboration

strategy to improve the construct validity and scope of the theoretically-derived

characteristics of social ventures in the cases - social mission, private ownership

logic, private funding, and public control – and of a new construct found from the

data of financial wealth motivation. We also found that these characteristics

constituted different social venture forms of ‘more private’, ‘more public’, ‘mixed’

and ‘social business’. The data indicated that these forms corresponded to different

business model (efficiency, lock-in, and novelty) and effectiveness configurations

(‘more autonomous’, ‘more socially legitimate’, and ‘balanced’). We then


developed a conceptual framework that captured four unique patterns that linked

venture forms, business models, and effectiveness.

In doing so, we contributed to the theoretical advancement in the literature in

several ways. By empirically validating the characteristics (social mission, private

ownership logic, private funding, public control, and financial wealth motivation)

and their importance to business models and effectiveness in the social

entrepreneurship context, our paper extends existing organizational design literature.

Much research in this body of literature focuses on designs of structures (Burns &

Stalker, 1961); ownership (Bozeman, 1987; Mahoney, 1992); or governance of

transactions (Williamson, 1973) in explaining organizational effectiveness. In

contrast, the findings in this research show an empirical evidence that connects

social venture characteristics, business models, and effectiveness in a way that is

consistent to the tenets of resource dependence theory. The characteristics of an

organization seem to structure its forms to achieve organizational effectiveness.

Therefore, in doing so, the research in this paper parallels with the recent works in

the literature that focus on the role of founder characteristics and organizational

arrangement in venture outcomes, such as the role of founder identity (Fauchart &

Gruber 2011; Sieger, Gruber, Fauchart, & Zellweger, 2016), and the role of founder

strategic choices (Wasserman, 2012; Wasserman, 2017) in entrepreneurial venture

outcomes. The results of this study also have implications for the business model

literature. The extant business model literature has used commercially-based theories

and the framework to analyse commercial firms. Our findings extend the business

model literature by providing empirical evidence of business model designs in social

ventures. The data showed that business models of social ventures were best

perceived as inter-organizational arrangements that these ventures enter to establish


autonomy and legitimacy. With this point of view, we depart from the commercial-

centric view of business models, which tends to consider business models as

strategies to achieve competitiveness. Our findings also enrich the understanding of

how organizational forms structure business model configurations. The extant

business model literature has assumed that only commercial characteristics structure

business models (DaSilva & Trkman, 2014; Wirtz, Pistoia, Ullrich, & Gottel, 2016).

Commercial characteristics, such as profit maximization and sustainable competitive

advantage, condition the selection of value propositions and value creation so that

the focal firm can maximize value capture. In contrast, our study, using insights from

the public administration literature, showed that public and private characteristics,

and their cross-overs, played important roles in structuring the business model

configurations. By doing this, we answered a recent call made in the literature to

further examine business models of social ventures (Demil, Lecocq, Ricart, & Zott,

2015).

This paper also extends the theoretical study (Margiono et al., 2017) by

empirically validating a new characteristic that leads to the identification of new

business model typology of social ventures and outcomes. In doing so, this paper

also contributed to the social entrepreneurship literature, especially the “earned-

income” school of thought (Defourny & Nyssens, 2010), since this paper further

highlights the ways in which distribution of revenues and profits are managed in

effective social ventures.

Limitations and future research

There were several limitations of this research. First, due to the selected case

method, our study did not establish causal relationships between social ventures and


outcomes. Most different system design (MDSD) case research has been recognized

for its lack of robustness in establishing causal relationships between variables under

investigation (Gerring, 2007); therefore, we did not attempt to do so. This limitation

of MDSD case research is due to the ways in which cases are selected. MDSD

focuses on within-group variance (i.e., cases with one similar IV and DV, but vary in

other variables). By not considering between-group differences, or systemic

differences among cases (Yin, 2009), MDSD “truncates” the dependent variable

which make it difficult to isolate variables that are responsible for the emergence of

a dependent variable. Thus, to explore causality, future research should employ case

research or inductive studies that allow the elimination of alternative plausible

explanations from the selection of contrasting cases, such as those suggested by

Eisenhardt (1989) and Yin (2009).

Second, our sampling was limited to successful social ventures in Indonesia

and, therefore, more research is required to ensure results that can be generalized to a

broader context. Our sampling is also limited to the theoretical types outlined in the

theoretical study (Types I, II, and III). A consequence of this sampling approach is

that this research did not cover other social venture types that may empirically exist

outside the theoretical typology. Future studies may employ statistical techniques,

such as taxonomic analysis, to identify different social venture organizational forms

and their corresponding business models. Moreover, examining the configurations

via set-theory methods, such as fuzzy set qualitative comparative analysis (Fiss,

2011; Ragin, 2008) may also be useful because this particular method may reveal

causal relationships among relevant concepts in this research.

In conclusion, organizational forms affect outcomes in both large and small

organizations. In social ventures, the results of this study suggested that the


mechanism were influenced by their characteristics and the types of organizational

forms that emerged. Using public administration literature and publicness theory, as

well as resource dependence theory, we identified patterns that describe how

organizational forms structure inter-organizational arrangements in order to reach

effectiveness. Recognizing these patterns may help social entrepreneurs to steer their

organizations to success. In the end, successful social ventures may help increase the

quality of life of people in their respective areas.


References

Agafonow, A. (2014). Toward a positive theory of social entrepreneurship: On



Administration & Society, 47(8), 1038-1060. Alter, K. (2010). Social enterprise typology. Retrieved June 30, 2017 from

http://www.4lenses.org/setypology Albers, S., Wohlgezogen, F., & Zajac, E. J. (2016). Strategic alliance structures: An

organization design perspective. Journal of Management, 42(3), 582-614. Amit, R., & Zott, C. (2001). Value creation in e-business. Strategic Management

Journal, 22(6/7), 493-520. Amit, R., & Zott, C. (2015). Crafting business architecture: The antecedents of

business model design. Strategic Entrepreneurship Journal, 9(4), 331-350. Andrews, R., Boyne, G.A., & Walker, R. M. (2011). Dimensions of publicness and

organizational performance: A review of the evidence. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 21(suppl 3), i301-i319.

Anheier, H. K, & Ben-ner, A. (2003). The study of nonprofit enterprise: Theories

and approaches. New York: Kluwer Academic/Plenum Publishers. Bacharach, S. B. (1989). Organizational theories: Some criteria for evaluation.

Academy of Management Review, 14(4), 496-515. Barney, J. (1991). Firm resources and sustained competitive advantage. Journal of

Management, 17(1), 99-120. Becchetti, L., & Borzaga, C. (2010). The economics of social responsibility: The

world of social enterprises. London: Routledge. Borzaga, C., & Defourny, J. (2001). The emergence of social enterprise. London:

Routledge. Bozeman, B. (1987). All organizations are public: Bridging public and private

organizational theories. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass: Brown, S. L., & Eisenhardt, K. M. (1997). The art of continuous change: Linking

complexity theory and time-paced evolution in relentlessly shifting organizations. Administrative Science Quarterly, 42(1), 1-34.


British Council. (2017). NGO transformation to social enterprises. Retrieved June 30, 2017 from https://www.britishcouncil.id/en/programmes/society/social-entrepreneurs/transformation-enterprise

Burns, T. E., & Stalker, G. M. (1961). The management of innovation. London:

Tavistock. Colombo, M. G, & Grilli, L. (2013). The creation of A middle-management level by

entrepreneurial ventures: Testing economic theories of organizational design. Journal of Economics & Management Strategy, 22(2), 390-422.

Csaszar, F. A. (2012). Organizational structure as a determinant of performance:

Evidence from mutual funds. Strategic Management Journal, 33(6), 611-632. Dart, R. (2004). Being “business-like” in a nonprofit organization: A grounded and

inductive typology. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 33(2), 290-310.

Dasilva, C. M, & Trkman, P. (2014). Business model: What it is and what it is not.

Long Range Planning, 47(6), 379-389. David, R. J., & Han, S. K. (2004). A systematic assessment of the empirical support

for transaction cost economics. Strategic Management Journal, 25(1), 39-58. Davis, G.F., & Cobb, J. A. (2010). Chapter 2 resource dependence theory: Past and

future. In C. B. Schoonhoven, & F. Dobbin (Eds.), Stanford's organization theory renaissance, 1970–2000 (pp. 21-42). Bingey, UK: Emerald Group Publishing Limited.

DeCuir-Gunby, J. T, Marshall, P. L, & McCulloch, A. W. (2011). Developing and

using a codebook for the analysis of interview data: An example from a professional development research project. Field Methods, 23(2), 136-155.

Defourny, J., & Nyssens, M. (2017). Fundamentals for an international typology of

social enterprise models. Voluntas: International Journal of Voluntary and Nonprofit Organizations, 1-29. doi: 10.1007/s11266-017-9884-7

Demil, B., Lecocq, X., Ricart, J. E., & Zott, C. (2015). Introduction to the SEJ

special issue on business models: business models within the domain of strategic entrepreneurship. Strategic Entrepreneurship Journal, 9(1), 1-11.

Denzin, N. K. (1978). The research act: A theoretical orientation to sociological

methods. New York: McGraw-Hill. Desa, G., & Basu, S. (2013). Optimization or bricolage? Overcoming resource

constraints in global social entrepreneurship. Strategic Entrepreneurship Journal, 7, 26-49.

Diochon, M., & Anderson, A. R. (2009). Social enterprise and effectiveness: A

process typology. Social Enterprise Journal, 5(1), 7-29.


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.

Doty, D. H., Glick, W. H., & Huber, G. P. (1993). Fit, equifinality, and

organizational effectiveness: A test of two configurational theories. Academy of Management Journal, 36(6), 1196-1250.

Drees, J. M., & Heugens, P. P. (2013). Synthesizing and extending resource


Eisenhardt, K. M. (1989). Building theories from case study research. Academy of

Management Review, 14(4), 532-550. Fauchart, E., & Gruber, M. (2011). Darwinians, communitarians, and missionaries:

The role of founder identity in entrepreneurship. Academy of Management Journal, 54(5), 939-957.

Fisher, G., & Aguinis, H. (2017). Using theory elaboration to make theoretical

advancements. Organizational Research Methods, 20(3), 438-464. Fiss, P. C. (2011). Building better causal theories: A fuzzy set approach to typologies

in organization research. Academy of Management Journal, 54(2), 393-420. Gerring, J. (2007). Case study research: Principles and practices. Cambridge, UK:

Cambridge University Press. Gomes, E., Barnes, B. R., & Mahmood, T. (2016). A 22 year review of strategic

alliance research in the leading management journals. International Business Review, 25(1), 15-27.

Hannan, M. T., & Freeman, J. (1977). The population ecology of organizations.

American Journal of Sociology, 82(5), 929-964. Hannan, M. T., & Freeman, J. (1989). Organizational ecology. Cambridge, Mass.:

Harvard University Press. Hruschka, D. J., Schwartz, D., St. John, D. C, Picone-Decaro, E., Jenkins, R. A., &

Carey, J. W. (2004). Reliability in coding open-ended data: Lessons learned from HIV behavioral research. Field Methods, 16(3), 307-331.

Huybrechts, B., & Haugh, H. (2017). The roles of networks in institutionalizing new

hybrid organizational forms: Insights from the European Renewable Energy Cooperative Network. Organization Studies, DOI: 10.1177/0170840617717097


Lavie, D., Haunschild, P R., & Khanna, P. (2012). Organizational differences, relational mechanisms, and alliance performance. Strategic Management Journal, 33(13), 1453-1479.

Lee, T. W., Mitchell, T. R., & Sablynski, C. J. (1999). Qualitative research in

organizational and vocational psychology, 1979-1999. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 55, 161-187.

Lewis, I. A., & Zolin, R. (2004). The public to private continuum measure and the

role of stakeholder boards as a proxy for markets in the governance of air navigation services: a comparative analysis. International Public Management Review, 5(2).

Margiono, A., Zolin, R., & Chang, A. (2017). A typology of social venture business

model configurations. International Journal of Entrepreneurial Behavior and Research. doi: 10.1108/IJEBR-09-2016-0316

Mahoney, J. T. (1992). The choice of organizational form: Vertical financial

ownership versus other methods of vertical integration. Strategic Management Journal, 13(8), 559-584.

Mair, J., & Martí, I. (2006). Social entrepreneurship research: A source of

explanation, prediction, and delight. Journal of World Business, 41(1), 36-44. Mair, J., Mayer, J., & Lutz, E. (2015). Navigating institutional plurality:

Organizational governance in hybrid organizations. Organization Studies, 36(6), 713-739.

Meckstroth, T. W. (1975). “Most Different Systems” and “Most Similar Systems” a

study in the logic of comparative inquiry. Comparative Political Studies, 8(2), 132-157.

Miles, M. B., & Huberman, A. M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis: A sourcebook.

Beverly Hills: Sage Publications. Miller, T. L., & Wesley II, C. L. (2010). Assessing mission and resources for social


Mizik, N., & Jacobson, R. (2003). Trading off between value creation and value

appropriation: the financial implications of shifts in strategic emphasis. Journal of Marketing, 67(January 2003), 63-76.

Oliver, C. (1991). Network relations and loss of organizational autonomy. Human

Relations, 44(9), 943-961. Osterwalder, A., Pigneur, Y., & Tucci, C. L. (2005). Clarifying business models:

Origins, present, and future of the concept. Communications of the Association for Information System, 16(1), 1-25.


Otner, S. M. G. (2010). Most different systems design. In A. J. Mills, G. Durepos, & E. Wiebe (Eds.), Encyclopedia of case study research (pp. 571-572). Thousand Oaks: Sage.

Perry, J. L., & Rainey, H. G. (1988). The public-private distinction in organization

theory: A critique and research strategy. Academy of Management Review, 13(2), 182-201.

Pfeffer, J., & Salancik, G. R. (1978). The external control of organizations : A


resource dependence perspective. Stanford, Calif.: Stanford Business Books. Pratono, A., & Sutanti, A. (2016). The ecosystem of social enterprise: Social culture,

legal framework, and policy review in Indonesia. Pacific Science Review B: Humanities and Social Sciences, 2(3), 106-112.

Przeworski, A., & Teune, H. (1970). The logic of comparative social inquiry. New

York: Wiley-Interscience. Ragin, C. C. (2008). Redesigning social inquiry: Fuzzy sets and beyond. Chicago:

Chicago University Press. Rao, H., & Singh, J. (1999). Types of variation in organizational populations: The

speciation of new organizational forms. In J. A. C. Baum, & B. McKelvey (Eds.), Variations in organization science, Thousand Oaks, California: Sage.

Richardson, J. (2008). The business model: An integrative framework for strategy

execution. Strategic Change, 17(5-6), 133-144. Ridley-Duff, R. (2008). Social enterprise as socially rational business. International

Journal of Entrepreneurial Behavior and Research, 14(5), 291-312. Ridley-Duff, R., & Bull, M. (2016). Understanding social enterprise: Theory and

practice. London: Sage Publications Ltd. Santos, F. M. (2012). A positive theory of social entrepreneurship. Journal of

Business Ethics, 111(3), 335-351. Seawright, J., & Gerring, J. (2008). Case selection techniques in case study research:

A menu of qualitative and quantitative options. Political Research Quarterly, 61(2), 294-308.

Short, J. C., Moss, T. W., & Lumpkin, G. T. (2009). Research in social

entrepreneurship: Past contributions and future opportunities. Strategic Entrepreneurship Journal, 3, 161-194


Sine, W. D., Mitsuhashi, H., & Kirsch, D. A. (2006). Revisiting Burns and Stalker: Formal structure and new venture performance in emerging economic sectors. Academy of Management Journal, 49(1), 121-132.

Sieger, P., Gruber, M., Fauchart, E., & Zellweger, T. (2016). Measuring the social

identity of entrepreneurs: Scale development and international validation. Journal of Business Venturing, 31(5), 542-572.

Suchman, M. C. (1995). Managing legitimacy: Strategic and institutional

approaches. Academy of Management Review, 20(3), 571-610. Suddaby, R. (2010). Editor's comments: Construct clarity in theories of management

and organization. Academy of Management Review, 35(3), 346-357. Wasserman, N. (2012). The founder's dilemmas: Anticipating and avoiding the

pitfalls that can sink a startup. Princeton, New Jersey: Princeton University Press.

Williamson, O. E. (1973). Markets and hierarchies: Some elementary considerations.

American Economic Review, 63(2), 316-325. Wirtz, B. W., Pistoia, A., Ullrich, S., & Gottel, V. (2016). Business models: Origin,

development, and future research perspective. Long Range Planning, 49(1), 36-54

Wright, B. E. (2007). Public service and motivation: Does mission matter? Public

Administration Review, 67(1), 54-64. Wright, B. E, & Pandey, S. K. (2011). Public organizations and mission valence:

When does mission matter? Administration & Society, 43(1), 22-44. Wry, T., Cobb, J. A., & Aldrich, H. E. (2013). More than a metaphor: Assessing the


Yin, R. K. (2009). Case study research: Design and methods. Thousand Oaks: Sage. Yuchtman, E., & Seashore, S. E. (1967). A system resource approach to

organizational effectiveness. American Sociological Review, 32(6), 891-903. Yunus, M. (2010). Building social business: The new kind of capitalism that serves

humanity's most pressing needs. New York, NY: Public Affairs. 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

Chapter 5: Paper 3 – A Taxonomy of Social Venture Business Models 187

Chapter Transition Note (Paper 2 to Paper 3)

Paper 2 generated several findings; they were: (a) four social venture

characteristics developed in Paper 1 (social mission, private ownership logic, private

funding, and public control) were validated using a case study approach; (b) a new

social venture characteristic emerged from the data - financial wealth motivation; (c)

a new, improved typology emerged based on five social venture characteristics; and

(d) insights into the relationships between emerging social venture forms, business

model types and organizational effectiveness were generated. Paper 2 fulfilled the

theory elaboration role (Fisher & Aguinis, 2017) by developing construct validity of

the characteristics. Paper 2 also improved the typology and generated insights into the

relationship between emerging social venture forms, business model types and

organizational effectiveness. In the next chapter (Chapter 5), Paper 3 uses five

qualitatively validated characteristics from Paper 2 as a basis to develop measurement

scales of social venture characteristics (see Appendix B). The development of the

measurement scales employs scale development steps (DeVellis, 2012) to achieve

further construct validity (convergent and discriminant validity); and predictive

validity by testing the developed scales against dependent variables in a larger sample.

Using developed measures, Paper 3 aims to generate an empirical taxonomy and to

establish a preliminary indication of predictive adequacy of the relationship between

social venture types (or taxonomy), business model configurations, and organizational

outcome (social and financial performance) as part of a theorizing effort to establish a

falsifiable, typology-driven theory of social venture business models for transforming

non-profits. In Paper 3, Paper 1 is referred to as “the theoretical study”; and a specific

reference to Paper 2 was not made in Paper 3.

188 Chapter 5: Paper 3 – A Taxonomy of Social Venture Business Models



1. they meet the criteria for authorship in that they have participated inthe conception, execution, or interpretation, of at least that part of thepublication in their field of expertise;

2. they take public responsibility for their part of the publication, exceptfor the responsible author who accepts overall responsibility for thepublication;

3. there are no other authors of the publication according to thesecriteria;

4. potential conflicts of interest have been disclosed to (a) grantingbodies, (b) the editor or publisher of journals or other publications,and (c) the head of the responsible academic unit, and

5. they agree to the use of the publication in the student’s thesis and itspublication on the QUT’s ePrints site(http://www.moqut.edu.au/F/F_01_03.jsp) consistent with anylimitations set by publisher requirements.


“A Taxonomy of Social Venture Business Models for Transforming Non-Profit Organizations”

This manuscript is submitted and currently under review in the Research Policy (RP) journal (SCOPUS, Q1)

Contributor Statement of contribution 1. Ari Margiono Wrote the manuscript, developed the storyline, collected data,

conducted data preparations (scale development, EFA, CFA), and conducted quantitative data analysis 14 Dec 2017

2.Artemis Chang Provided feedback on the methodology and the storyline, readthe manuscript

3.Stephen Cox Provided support on the methodology, read the manuscript 4.Roxanne Zolin Provided general feedback on the storyline, including the

naming of the profile labels

Principal Supervisor Confirmation

I have sighted email or other correspondence from all Co-authors confirming their certifying authorship. (If the Co-authors are not able to sign the form please forward their email or other correspondence confirming the certifying authorship to the RSC).

A/Prof Artemis Chang _________signed________ 14 December 2017 Name Signature Date



Chapter 5: Paper 3 - A Taxonomy of Social Venture Business

Models for Transforming Non-Profit Organizations

Abstract

Many non-profit organizations in developing countries have been transforming to

become social ventures due to declining public funding support. Social ventures can

provide innovative avenues for these non-profit organizations to achieve financial

sustainability and, at the same time, to create value for society. A growing body of

literature has discussed these transformation processes. Despite this, limited

research has focused on the business models of the social ventures emerging from

these transformation processes. By analysing 205 social ventures that underwent

transformation from non-profits in Indonesia, this study developed a taxonomy of

social venture business models based on their theorized unique characteristics using

latent profile analysis (LPA). Three types of social ventures associated with

different levels of locked-in, efficient, and innovative business models and

performance outcomes were found: The “enterprise-focused”, The “mixed-focused”,

and The “social-focused”. Several policy and management insights were generated

and discussed in this paper.

Keywords: typology, venture forms, business models, social venture, social

entrepreneurship, taxonomy


Introduction

The non-profit sector, along with the state and market sectors, serve as

important building blocks in an economy (Considine, 2003; Hansmann, 1980). The

non-profit sector has played an important role in providing unmet public and social

services in societies, especially in many developing countries (Anheier & Salamon,

1998). Many organizations in the non-profit sector receive funding support from

government and grant-making agencies in performing these tasks.

In the last few years, especially in developing countries that are now

categorized as middle income countries (World Bank, 2017), such as Indonesia, the

Philippines, and Cambodia, there has been a decline in public funding support from

grant-making agencies to the non-profit sector organizations (Khieng, 2013; Parks,

2008). This decline in public funding support has presented challenges, as well as

opportunities for existing organizational practices. For non-profit organizations, the

decline in funding support served as a catalyst to embrace innovation and novel

approaches in managing their organizations (Dart, 2004). This environmental context

has encouraged many non-profit organizations to transform into social ventures

(Bull, 2008; Nicholls, 2006; Pearce, 2003). Defined as an entrepreneurial form of an

organization that uses innovation in combining social, or public benefit aims with

business-like management (Anheier & Ben-ner, 2003; Becchetti & Borzaga, 2010;

Mair & Martí, 2006), social ventures have provided avenues much needed by these

non-profit organizations to achieve financial sustainability in creating public and

social value.

A growing body of literature has studied the transformation of non-profits in

becoming more entrepreneurial and business-like (Defourny & Nyssens, 2010), and

much research in this area has investigated the processes of the transformation of


non-profit organizations (Davis et al., 2011; Gras et al., 2014; Guo, 2006). Other

research has focused on income-generation strategies taken by non-profits in

developing countries to perform effectively amid increasing scarcity in grant funding

(Khieng, 2013). Various research has concentrated on the boundaries and the

definition of market-based non-profits (Dart 2004; Defourny & Nyssens, 2010;

Eikenberry & Kluver 2004). Some other streams have focused on ethics in the

marketization of non-profit organizations (Eikenberry, 2009).

Despite much research in these areas, there have been limited insights in this

body of literature regarding the social venture business models that these non-profits

may adopt when they transform (Demil et al., 2015). In contrast to the commercial

context of the existing business model frameworks (DaSilva & Trkman, 2014; Wirtz,

et al., 2016; Zott et al., 2011), the business model context of these emerging social

ventures is unique. They do not only embrace the social elements (Wilson & Post,

2013) that are absent in most commercially-driven business model analyses (Wirtz et

al., 2016), but they also need to address the continuing tensions from public and

private forces that affect the ways they manage value creation activities (Margiono et

al., 2017; Ridley-Duff, 2008).

An empirical, taxonomic analysis of emerging social venture business model

configurations is, therefore, necessary to achieve improved insights into what they

are and how they affect outcomes, especially in a developing country context where

tensions between public and private forces are high. A taxonomy refers to an

empirically derived classification of organizations (Rich, 1992). Focusing on this

effort has important managerial and policy purposes because this helps the emerging

social ventures navigate the public and private tensions during the transformation

process by identifying high performing business models. Furthermore, an


understanding of this could also support policy-makers in identifying the appropriate

policy environment, such as the supportive legal structure and incentives that

correspond to particular business model arrangements, to ensure social venture

performance and sustainability. Thus, this paper puts forward the following research

questions: Are there different social venture business models that are empirically

identifiable, and if so, how do they differ?

This paper employs a taxonomic analysis of social venture business models

by using survey data of 205 non-profits that have transformed to social ventures in

Indonesia. These non-profit organizations were involved in the non-profit

transformation training conducted by the British Council in Indonesia, and they had

undergone a transformation process to become social ventures. Latent profile

analysis (LPA) was used to generate the taxonomy (Gabriel et al., 2015; Lanza et al.,

2013). LPA is an appropriate method for capturing sub-population heterogeneity in a

particular sample (Muthen, 2001; Muthen, 2004; Nylund et al., 2007). An existing

typology of social venture business models was used to further interpret the

empirical taxonomy findings (Margiono et al., 2017). A typology refers to

conceptually defined organizational types that are believed to affect particular

outcomes (Doty & Glick, 1994). Using a typology to interpret an emerging

taxonomy is advised in the configuration literature to establish a better understanding

of particular phenomena (Khelil, 2016).

This paper provides several contributions to the literature. First, it

contributes to the social entrepreneurship literature by providing a more nuanced

understanding of social venture business models grounded in unique empirical data

of transformed non-profits in a developing country. Second, this paper also makes

an empirical contribution to the business model literature by showing the


relationship between social venture forms and business models; thus, this paper

responds to the call in the business model literature to further investigate the

business model of social ventures (Demil et al., 2015).

In the next section, business models in a social entrepreneurship context are

outlined, highlighting extant literature that discusses business models of social

ventures. In the following section, an existing conceptual framework is described

that is used as the basis for generating the empirical taxonomy. The study design is

described in the next section. The results from the LPA are reported along with a

discussion of the emerging social venture business model configurations. The paper

closes with a discussion on the contributions, limitations, and suggestions for further

research.

Business models in social entrepreneurship

A business model illustrates how a firm conducts its business and reflects a

“system of interdependent activities performed by a focal firm and its partners and

the mechanisms that link these activities to each other” (Amit & Zott 2015, p. 31).

Business models originated in the information technology literature (Zott et al.,

2011) and they have now spilt over into different kinds of literature. There are many

“streams” of business model perspectives in the literature, yet most are dominated by

discussions of the business models of commercial firms (Wirtz et al., 2016). Zott et

al. (2011) identified three broad areas in the commercial literature that have used

business models: e-commerce, strategy, as well as technology and innovation

management. Wirtz et al. (2016) highlighted that the literature has identified

different building blocks of business model components, although these different

components can be collapsed into three essential dimensions: value proposition,

value creation, and value capture (Richardson, 2008).


In recent years, emerging business model research has started to discuss

sustainability and business models of non-commercial entities (Bocken et al., 2014;

Boons & Lüdeke-Freund, 2013; Osborne et al., 2014; Randles & Laasch, 2016).

These studies have attempted to incorporate socio-environmental (Bocken et al.,

2014), public (Osborne et al., 2014), as well as normative aspects (Randles &

Laasch, 2015) with the existing understanding of business model configurations.

In the social entrepreneurship literature, an exploration of different social

venture models has also taken place (Defourny & Nyssens, 2016; Wilson & Post,

2013; Yunus et al., 2010). A recent theoretical study has specifically focused on the

public and private tensions that social ventures can face in developing countries and

it explains how business models are configured as a response to these aspects

(Margiono et al., 2017). This paper draws from this theoretical study to describe the

typology of social venture business models that are outlined in the next sections.

Public and private tensions, social venture characteristics, and business models

Emerging social ventures that are transformed from non-profits must deal

with public and private tensions (Bull, 2008; Margiono et al., 2017; Ridley-Duff,

2008). This means that from the perspective of resource dependence theory (Pfeffer

& Salancik, 1978, 2003), these emerging social ventures are dependent on both

public (non-market) and private (market) resources that are available in other

organizations to survive (Yuchtman & Seashore, 1967). Organizations often enter

into inter-organizational arrangements to cope with these resource dependencies

(Pfeffer & Salancik, 1978, 2003). Business model configurations, understood as a

system of interdependent activities, are essentially non-dyadic, inter-organizational

arrangements between focal firms and partners that ventures embrace to achieve

effectiveness (Margiono, et al., 2017). Business models are inter-organizational


arrangements of how value propositions, value creation, and value capture activities

are configured between the focal firm and its key partners (Osterwalder et al., 2005;

Richardson, 2008). Since the configuration of these business model dimensions are

dependent on organizational characteristics (see Figure 5.1), in this section the

characteristics of social ventures are outlined to make sense of the corresponding

social venture business model configurations.

Social venture characteristics

The public administration literature has hosted extensive discussions on the

distinguishing characteristics of public and private organizations. In addition to the

differences between their missions (Wright, 2007), public and private organizations

differ according to their ownership nature, funding, and control (Bozeman, 1987;

Perry & Rainey, 1988). In public organizations, ownership is public and, therefore,

unlike private organizations, owners have no property rights over their organizations

(Demsetz, 1967). Similarly, funding in public organizations is from public money

and, therefore, they cannot appropriate profit like private organizations. Unlike

private organizations, public control is high in public organizations and this affects

their decision-making processes, especially in relation to value capture and profit.

Social ventures combine the logic of different sectors (Doherty et al., 2014);

therefore, they display characteristics of both public and private organizations. The

‘publicness’ and ‘privateness’ of organizations can be considered a continuum

(Lewis & Zolin, 2004); thus, social ventures embrace different degrees of publicness

or privateness. In light of this, on the one hand social ventures have a social mission

and public control characteristics like public organizations, but on the other hand,

they can simultaneously have private funding and use ownership logic like private

organizations.


Figure 5.1 Configuring effective business models in public and private organizations (from Margiono et al. 2017).

Market resource dependence

Non-market resource dependence

Mission to profit/capture value

Priv

ate

fund

ing

sour

ces

Priv

ate

owne

rshi

p

Private control

Public control Mission to create public/social value

Publ

ic fu

ndin

g so

urce

s

Publ

ic

owne

rshi

p

Publ

ic o

rgan

izat

ions

Pr

ivat

e or

gani

zatio

ns

Key characteristics of private organizations

Key characteristics of public organizations

Effective business model configurations

Commercial value proposition

Public/social value proposition

Val

ue c

aptu

re

Val

ue c

reat

ion

and

deliv

ery

Extant business model Dimensions

Leg

itim

acy

Aut

onom

y

Effective business model configurations – those that strengthen the autonomy and the legitimacy of focal organizations from market and non-market resource dependence – reflect how the characteristics of public and private organizations configure traditional business model dimensions.


These four unique characteristics (social mission, private ownership logic,

private funding, and public control) of social ventures are summarized next, as

outlined in the theoretical study by Margiono et al. (2017). However, since recent

literature has indicated that the financial motivation of entrepreneurs can also affects

the various ways in which a venture manages resource dependency (Wasserman,

2012, 2017), this paper also considers the financial wealth motivation of owners (i.e.,

social entrepreneurs) as an important theoretical characteristic in addition to the

original characteristics outlined in the theoretical study.

Social mission

A social mission distinguishes social ventures from their commercial

counterparts (Austin et al., 2006; Seanor et al., 2013). This is because in contrast to

commercial ventures a social venture aims to prioritize value creation over value

capture (Santos, 2012). Even though social ventures use business methods in

achieving their objectives, they put a social mission ahead of their business mission.

This differs from commercial ventures where the aim is primarily to capture value

(Bowman & Ambrosini, 2000).


Private ownership logic, the logic of exclusive profit distribution to owners

of social ventures, distinguishes social ventures from non-profit organizations. In

private organizations, owners and shareholders have the exclusive right to exclude

others in profit appropriation (Demsetz, 1967). In contrast, since the public is the

“owner” of a public entity, public and non-profit organizations are not allowed to

distribute profit to a group of people. Social ventures, despite their social mission,


use private ownership logic as they can have limited profit distribution (Defourny et

al., 2014; Defourny & Nyssens, 2008, 2010). This, therefore, separates them from

non-profit organizations where in the latter, an organization’s profit distribution is

restricted due to the non-distributive nature of non-profits (Ben-ner & van

Hoomissen, 1991; Defourny, 2001; Hansmann, 1980).

Private funding

Social ventures usually receive funding from different sources (Dees, 1998;

Seanor, et al., 2013), and each funding source can affects social ventures differently.

Sales revenue from private or market sources allows social ventures to be flexible in

surplus management. In contrast, government funding restricts social ventures to

generate and manage financial surpluses. Private funding, thus, refers to the

proportion of funding received by social ventures from market activities. The degree

of private funding eventually influences how a business model is configured in the

social entrepreneurship context (Margiono et al., 2017). For example, larger private

funding directs the value propositions of the social venture towards value creation

that also has the potential for profit generation (value capture).

Public control

Different levels of public control can affect different social venture business

models (Margiono et al., 2017). Public control refers to the extent to which a social

venture is dependent on external public organizations, such as governments, grant

making organizations, or stakeholder organizations. In social ventures with high

public control, value capture is limited. Therefore, these social ventures are less able

to generate profit for shareholders. Similar to public organizations, business model


decision-making in social ventures with high public control is rather constrained; for

example, these social ventures need to develop value propositions and have value

creation activities that serve the interests of the public or the stakeholders.


Social ventures may be owned or operated by different types of social

entrepreneurs (Zahra et al., 2009). Therefore, they may also differ in their levels of

wealth motivation. A recent study on the founders of enterprises showed that

founders differed in wealth motivation levels (Wasserman, 2012). Founders who

sought wealth often needed to give up their control of the ventures because

generating wealth required the focal ventures to acquire resources that were only

available externally (Wasserman, 2012). Working with investors, for example,

increased the potential to generate more profit but the founders needed to give up

some aspects related to the control of the ventures to them as founder control

contradicted with the valuation of the start-ups (Wasserman, 2017). In contrast,

founders who sought to retain control of the ventures may have kept their ventures

small and needed to manage their wealth motivation or expectations (Wasserman,

2012).

Social venture business model configurations

Altogether, these five characteristics form different types of social ventures

business models. These types are “ideal types” (Weber, 1978), meaning that in real

life it is likely that these types and models are combined (Cahnman, 1965). Based on

the social venture characteristics, the types and configurations that are proposed to

lead to particular performance characteristics are described in Table 5.1.


Table 5.1. A Typology of Social Venture Business Model Configurations (Adapted from Margiono et al., 2017)

Type

Social venture characteristics Business model configurations

Performance characteristics Social

mission Private

ownership logic

Financial wealth

motivation

Private funding

Public control

Type I (more public)

High

High

Low

Low

High

Lock-in-centred business model

Higher social performance (more legitimacy)

Type II (mixed)

High High Low High High Novelty-centred business model

Relatively balanced

Type III (more private)

High High High High Low Efficiency-centred business models

Higher financial performance (more autonomy)

Type I (more public) and lock-in business model configurations

Social ventures in Type I are rather similar to public organizations because

they have low financial wealth motivation, low private funding, and high public

control. Their low private funding and high public control make social ventures in

this configuration less able to generate profit and dependent on external

organizations and, therefore, to establish financial sustainability, these social

ventures need to ensure that their value creation partners are locked into a network

that continuously supports the focal social ventures (Margiono et al., 2017). Thus, to

effectively perform, these emerging social ventures establish a business model like a

lock-in configuration in the literature. A lock-in-centred configuration discourages

partners to leave the network because the costs of doing so are high (Amit & Zott,

2001, 2015). Being more public, this type of a social venture may have higher social


performance but lower financial performance than others. Social performance is

defined as the outcomes that social ventures have in the environmental, social and

governance domains (Orlitzky et al., 2015), while financial performance refers to the

achievement of set financial/profit targets (Cowen et al., 1987).

Type II (mixed) and novelty business model configurations

In Type II, the emerging social ventures have low financial wealth

motivation, high private funding, and high public control. They have a mixture of

high private funding and high public control. As a result, they need to introduce

novel and innovative inter-organizational arrangements to ensure value creation in

this conflicting environment between external control (public control) and the need

for surplus generation and management (private funding) (Margiono et al., 2017).

This particular inter-organizational arrangement is similar to the novelty-centred

business model in the literature (Amit & Zott, 2001, 2015). Furthermore, having

mixed private funding and public control may yield a balanced social and financial

performance.

Type III (more private) and efficiency business model configurations

Type III social ventures resemble private organizations due their similar

characteristics (high financial wealth motivation, high private funding, low public

control); however, unlike commercial companies, they prioritize value creation over

value capture (Agafonow, 2015; Santos, 2012). These social ventures have high

financial wealth motivation and high private funding. Therefore, they need to

manage their value creation activities in a way that transaction costs are reduced.

With low public control, these emerging social ventures can generate and manage a

surplus to fulfil both their wealth motivation and social mission (Margiono et al.,

2017). In doing so, they embrace a business model similar to an efficiency-centred


business model (Amit & Zott, 2001, 2015) in the literature due to their interest in

reducing transaction costs across the value creation network. Being more efficient,

these social ventures may exhibit more financial performance but less social

performance than others.

Method

This paper uses a configurational approach (Fiss, 2011; Miller, 1996; Short et

al., 2008), as opposed to the conventional variable-centric approach, to analyse 205

empirical cases collected from transformed non-profits associated with the British

Council NGO transformation training programs. A configurational analysis

perceives organizations as a whole and focuses on the relationship between

dimensional variables that configure typologies and taxonomies of organizations

(Fiss, 2011; Short et al., 2008).

This paper uses the configurational approach method of latent profile

analysis (LPA) to generate an empirical taxonomy of social venture business models.

Unlike other configurational analysis methods, such as a traditional cluster analysis

(Ketchen & Shook 1996), LPA uses a probabilistic method to generate sub-

population profiles (Nylund et al., 2007). LPA uses three simultaneous steps to

determine the number of profiles and to analyse how these resulting profiles differ

significantly for selected dependent variables. The first step, which establishes the

most appropriate number of latent classes, is conducted by specifying a two-profile

latent class up to a number where the fit indices indicate that the number of profiles

is no longer useful. In the second step, with the number of classes specified, as

explained by Asparouhov and Muthen (2014), class membership of the individual

case is obtained based on the posterior distribution taken from the previous step. In


the third step, auxiliary variables, the distal outcomes, are examined against the

profile solutions.

Context, participants, and procedures

The context of this paper is the developing country of Indonesia, which has

recently been ranked as a lower middle income country by the World Bank (2017).

In Indonesia, social entrepreneurship has been present since the pre-independence

era (Idris & Hati, 2013). During the pre-independence period, social

entrepreneurship mainly contributed to the country’s struggle for independence. In

the post-independence period, the popularity of social entrepreneurship was

relatively in decline because non-profit sectors received substantial financial support

from the government as well as from foreign grant-making agencies (Harney &

Olivia, 2003). This dynamic started to change in the first half of the decade of 2010

because foreign grant-making agencies shifted their funding policy and reduced

public funding to non-profits (Aspinal, 2010; UNESCO, 2014), partly due to the

status of Indonesia as a lower middle income country. As a result, along with the

rising popularity of the entrepreneurship movement in Indonesia, social

entrepreneurship started to regain its ground. During this period, many non-profits

started transforming into social venture to survive.

The sampling frame of this study was 834 social ventures from British

Council’s Indonesian social entrepreneurship development programs. The program

helps non-profits to transform to become social enterprises by providing various

kinds of training programs and assistances (British Council, 2017). These programs

were started in 2012 and consisted of training in a social venture design. Many of the

social enterprises in the sample were relatively new and young, and they may still be


experimenting with different business model types. Thus, the sample in this study

was heterogeneous and it was suitable for an analysis of different social venture

business model configurations.

The data was collected in two stages via a telephone survey in 2016. A

telephone survey was chosen because the respondents were scattered across different

Indonesian cities and islands. Initially, the invitations were sent to social

entrepreneurs in the list via email and/or text messages and asked for their

willingness to participate in the survey. In total, 307 social ventures responded to the

invitation (36% response rate). During the first stage, 102 social ventures were

telephone surveyed. This pilot sample was used as the development sample to

develop scales for the social venture characteristics and to conduct an initial

exploratory factor analysis (EFA) following the expert panel consultations and a pre-

test of the initial scales with the social entrepreneurs to ensure content validity. In

the first stage, data was collected on four characteristics of the social ventures (social

mission, private ownership logic, private funding, and financial wealth motivation).

In the second stage, using the improved survey questions based on the

findings in the pilot study, a further 205 social ventures were telephone surveyed. In

the second stage, data was collected on all five characteristics of social ventures

(social mission, private ownership logic, private funding, financial wealth

motivation, and public control) as well as the business model configurations

(efficiency, novelty, lock-in) and the social and financial performance data. To

reduce common method bias (Podsakoff et al., 2003), the social and financial

performance data was collected two weeks after the data on the characteristics and

business model configurations were gathered. The second stage of data was used to


conduct the final EFA and confirmatory factor analysis (CFA). The second stage of

the data was also used to conduct the LPA.

Measures

The measures were self-report/subjective and were utilized to capture latent,

psychologically abstract constructs in the minds of the social entrepreneurs. “Hard

data” was not used for several reasons. First, since the size of the social ventures in

the sample was small and they were transformed from non-profits, they tended not to

keep actual metrics or “hard data” – such as public vs. private funding.

Subsequently, there was no published data on the financial characteristics of social

ventures in Indonesia. Second, using direct measures could be misleading in a social

entrepreneurship context; for example, using the proportion of private ownership

(e.g., using shareholder data) to determine the ‘privateness’ of social ventures may

be misleading, as many social ventures have a non-company legal status and yet still

reflect private logic (e.g,. profit distributions) in their activities. Third, using

subjective and perceptual measures in social entrepreneurship literature is common

(Liu et al., 2015), and because managerial decisions are driven by perceptions (Dess

& Robinson, 1984), perceptual measures have been used as reliable and valid

assessments of a construct to replace actual “hard data”, for example: subjective

measures of financial performance (Gu et al., 2008). The following is a descriptive

summary of the measures used. All of the items were measured by a 6-point Likert

scale, from 1 = strongly disagree to 6 = strongly agree (Appendix B in this thesis

provides the details of measurement item development).


Social mission: Three items measured the social mission orientation of the social

venture (e.g., “you prioritise aspects that benefit society when doing organizational

planning”).

Private ownership logic: Six items measured the private ownership logic of the

social venture (e.g., “your social enterprise is not restricted to distribute financial

returns to owners”).

Private funding: Five items measured private funding, using a proxy of surplus

management capability (e.g., “your social enterprise has high flexibility in managing

generated surplus”).

Public control: Two items measured external public control, using perceived social

entrepreneurs’ dependence on NGOs and the government (e.g., “how dependent are

you on the following institutions”).

Financial wealth motivation: Three items measured the financial wealth

motivation of owners (e.g., “owners establish a social enterprise because they want

to gain financial return”).

Efficiency-centred business model configuration: Three items measured the

efficient business model configuration of the social venture, which was adapted from

Zott and Amit (2007, 2008) (e.g., “the business model of your social enterprise

offers transaction efficiency”).


Novelty-centred business model configuration: Five items measured the novelty

business model configuration of the social venture, which was adapted from Zott and

Amit (2007, 2008) (e.g., “there are aspects of the business model that make it

novel”; “the business model of your social enterprise is novel”).

Lock-in-centred business model configuration: Six items measured the lock-in

business models of the social venture, which was developed from Amit and Zott

(2001) and adapted in the social entrepreneurship context (e.g., “loyalty of the

stakeholders to your social enterprise needs to be properly maintained”; “the

business model of your social enterprise maintains the loyalty of the stakeholders”).

Social performance: Six items measured the social performance that were adapted

from Liu et al. (2013) (e.g., “your social enterprise serves more beneficiaries”).

Financial performance: Two items measured the financial performance that were

adapted from Liu et al. (2013) (e.g., “last year’s financial target was achieved”).

Measurement model

Social mission, private ownership logic, private funding, public control, and

financial wealth motivation were newly developed measures, while business model

configurations (efficiency, novelty, and lock-in) and performance measures were

adapted from the extant literature. Appendix 5A lists the items of the newly

developed measures. A CFA model with 10 latent factors (i.e., all variables involved

in this study) showed that all items loaded above .30 and the model exhibited good

fit when analysed using IBM AMOS version 23 (χ2 = 1018.18; df = 933; p = .00 ;


NFI = .80; CFI = .93; IFI = .93; TLI = .92; SRMR = .05; RMSEA = .04). All the

factors showed discriminant validity, yet one scale (public control) exhibited lower

construct reliability than the recommended cut-off of .7, possibly because the scale

only had two items (Cortina, 1993). As expected, the scale showed a rather low AVE

(average variance extracted) score.

Analytical method

An LPA guideline was followed, as outlined in Nylund et al. (2007) to

determine the number of profile solutions. A latent statistical software, MPlus

version 8, was used to conduct the LPA. Since the typology (see Table 5.1) indicated

that the variance among different types exists only in three characteristics (financial

wealth motivation, private funding, and public control), these variables were used as

profile indicators in the LPA. First, a two-latent class/profile analysis was specified.

The number of profiles estimated was increased sequentially until the model fit

indices showed that an increase in the number of profiles was no longer useful.

Then, the model fit indices were examined to determine the optimum number of

profiles. Following Gabriel et al. (2015) and Foti et al. (2012), seven fit statistics

were examined: LL (log likelihood), Akaike information criterion (AIC), Bayesian

information criterion (BIC); sample-size adjusted BIC (SSA-BIC), Lo-Mendell-

Rubin (LMR) likelihood ratio test, Bootstrap likelihood ratio test (BLRT), and

entropy.

Unlike other fit indices in a statistical analysis, there is no cut-off point for

the LPA indices (Gabriel et al., 2015). According to previous research, an ideal

model tends to have the LL, AIC, BIC, and SSA-BIC scores lower than the other

profile solution. BIC and SSA-BIC are considered superior fit indices as a basis to


decide the number of clusters when the LPA uses continuous variables (Nylund et

al., 2007). Researchers have also interpreted the statistical results of the LMR and

BLRT tests. However, the sample size may affect the result of these fit indices

(Dziak et al., 2014); the normality of the data can also yield an incorrect p value of

the BLRT (Nylund et al., 2007). Further, entropy needs an inspection and ideally

needs to be higher than .7 to ensure classification accuracy (Jung & Wickrama,

2008).

Despite these fit statistics, deciding the number of profiles should be done

according to the theoretical meaning of the solutions, and researchers may select the

profile solutions by heavily using theories and past research (Foti et al., 2012;

Lawrence & Zyphur, 2011; Lubke & Muthén, 2005; Morin et al., 2011). To

determine the number of profiles, researchers should also inspect whether profiles

are redundant and whether the membership in each profile is sufficient (Bennett et

al., 2016; Nylund, et al., 2007), for example, more than 20 (Hair et al., 2010).

Appendix 5B at the end of the chapter illustrates the flowchart to decide the number

of profiles using LPA.

Having decided the number of profiles, a test was conducted to determine

whether the profiles differed significantly along selected distal outcomes (business

model configurations, and social and financial performance) by using an approach

described by Lanza et al. (2013) and programmed into MPlus via the DCON

command which automatically estimated the relationship between cluster

membership and a set of distal continuous outcome variables. To make further sense

of the results, differences among profiles were transformed into a standardized effect

size (Cohen’s d) to see the effect of each resulting profile on the emerging business

model configurations and performance. The effect size is considered small if the


value of Cohen’s d score falls below < .20; moderate if it is equal to .50; and large if

it is larger than .80 (Cohen, 1988).

Results

The means, standard deviations and correlations of the variables are

presented in Table 5.2. Furthermore, an inspection of the fit statistics resulting from

the LCA revealed several potential profile solutions (see Table 5.3). The six-profile

solution was first inspected. One profile contained only 10 members (less than 5% of

the total sample); thus, the six solutions may not have been reliable (Arnold et al.,

2017), and no further increase in the number of profiles was requested. The six-

profile solution was not selected. The two-profile solution was then investigated. The

fit statistics showed that the two-profile solution provided a better model fit because

it had a lower LL, BIC, a highly significant LMR and BLRT as well as high entropy

(> .8). However, a further investigation showed that the two-profile solution was less

theoretically meaningful because 70% of the social ventures in the sample fell into

one profile; therefore, there was a possibility that more than one profile was

collapsed into one profile. Therefore, the two-profile solution was not selected. The

four-profile solution was then inspected, for which some of the fit indices were

supported as a viable solution. However, an ANOVA showed that the profile

indicator variables did not differ significantly across the profiles: financial wealth

motivation, F(3, 201) = 1.11, p = .345; private funding F(3, 201) = .63, p = .597;

public control, F(3, 201) = 2.23, p = .086; and, therefore the four-profile solution

was also not selected.

Chapter 5: Paper 3 - A Taxonomy of Social Venture Business Models 211

Table 5.2 Means, Standard Deviations, and Correlations of the Variables

M SD 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Social mission 5.42 .51 .68


4.58 1.04 -.12 .96


3.45 1.14 .03 .46** .78

Private funding 4.17 1.10 .09 .18** .37** .90

Public control 3.34 1.24 .04 -.07 -.01 .06 .51

Lock-in business models

5.32 .48 .16* .00 .20** .02 .07 .80

Efficiency business models

4.73 .72 .17* .05 .02 .16* -.02 .17* .77

Novelty business models

4.89 .69 .20** .14* .10 .10 -.00 .22** .29** .83

Social performance

4.88 .77 .35** -.10 .04 -.01 .06 .29** .22** .16* .82

Financial performance 4.01 1.06 .22** -.01 .13 .03 .00 .12 .28** .06 .36** .82

Note. Cronbach’s alphas are in the diagonal. *p < .05; ** p < .00


Table 5.3 Fit Statistics of the LPA (Three-Profile Solution Selected)

Fit Statistics Solution

Two-profile Three-profile

Four-profile

Five-profile

Six-profile

LL -933.57 -927.90 -918.12 -908.74 -902.81 AIC 1887.15 1883.80 1872.25 1861.47 1857.62 BIC 1920.38 1930.33 1932.06 1934.58 1944.02 SSA-BIC 1888.70 1885.97 1875.03 1864.88 1861.64 LMR p = .00 p = .12 p = .03 p = .17 p = .06 BLRT p = .00 p = .09 p = .01 p = .01 p = .25 Entropy 0.83 0.69 0.74 0.83 0.85

Note. LL = log-likelihood; AIC = Akaike information criteria; BIC = Bayesian information criteria; SSA-BIC = sample-size-adjusted BIC; LMR = Lo-Mendell-Rubin test; BLRT = bootstrapped log-likelihood ratio tests.

The three-profile solution was finally selected. Inspecting the BIC

and SSA-BIC fit statistics has often been used in previous research to select

the best profile solutions because these two fit statistics are seen as superior

indices when the indicators are continuous (Abenavoli et al. 2017; Lee &

Bierman, 2016; Nylund, et al., 2007). A recent study indicated the

importance of considering the AIC statistic in conjunction with the BIC and

SSA-BIC (Dziak et al., 2014). In the present research, SSA-BIC showed

that the three-profile solution had a lower score than the two-profile

solutions, which was preferable. An inspection of the AIC statistic also

showed that the three-profile solution had a lower score than the two-profile

solution and was, therefore, also preferable, even though the entropy

statistic was rather low and the results of the LMR and BLRT were

marginally significant in the three-profile solution. Furthermore, the

ANOVA analysis showed that private funding served as the most

distinguishing indicator, F(2, 202) = 357.13, p = .00, followed by financial


wealth motivation, F(2, 202) = 64.69, p = .00, and public control, F(2, 202)

= 4.28 p = .01.

The cut-off ranges were determined for the low (M = 1.00 to M =

3.49) and high mean scores (M = 3.50 to M = 6.00) to interpret the profiles.

Using dichotomous scores (high and low) was consistent with the theoretical

typology (see Table 5.1). This made the interpretation of the empirical

taxonomy more meaningful as the results could be mapped against the

identified typology outlined in section 2. An initial inspection of the means

indicated that the emerging profiles could be classified as social ventures, as

opposed to commercial ventures and non-profit organizations, because they

had a high social mission (between M = 5.39 and M = 5.55) and high private

ownership logic (between M = 4.38 and M = 4.97). Further inspection of the

mean scores of the indicators showed that they were hybrids, meaning that

they combined different characteristics despite some salient appearances

being similar to the types identified in the typology. The distribution of

profile membership showed that profile 1 consisted of 28.3% of the sample,

profile 2 consisted of 16.1% of the sample, and profile 3 consisted of 55.6%

of the sample.

The LPA result showed that profile 1 had low financial wealth

motivation (M = 2.91, SD = .97), low private funding (M = 2.67, SD = .50),

and low public control (M = 3.19, SD = 1.32). This profile was labelled as

“social-focused” because it was similar to a Type I/more public typology.

These social ventures have low private funding and low financial wealth

similar to their original non-profit organizations where they tend to have

rather low market revenue and low financial wealth because of non-


distributive principles in many non-profits. Yet, in contrast to Type I, this

profile had relatively low public control which implied that the social

ventures in this type were less dependent on external public organizations.

Profile 2 has high financial wealth motivation (M = 5.04, SD = .53),

high private funding (M = 5.31, SD = .47), and high public control (M =

3.91, SD = 1.29). They were social ventures that had Type III/more private

characteristics as they had higher mean scores for private funding and

financial wealth motivation than the other profiles. The social ventures in

this profile were labelled as “enterprise-focused” because they had more

market and wealth orientation (high private funding and high financial

wealth motivation); yet, profile 2 also embraced a characteristic of Type

I/more public social ventures as they had a higher public control mean

compared to others, implying that these social ventures were still dependent

on external public organizations, such as other NGOs and government

agencies.

Profile 3 had low financial wealth motivation (M= 3.25, SD =.94),

high private funding (M = 4.59, SD = .54), and low public control (M =

3.33, SD = 1.16). Social ventures in this profile seem to have had high

market activities but their mean score was lower when compared to the

“enterprise-focused”, and despite the low financial wealth motivation, they

seemed to have a slightly higher mean score than the “social-focused”

ventures. They were closer to Type II/mixed yet with lower public control.

This may indicate that the social ventures in this profile occupied the middle

ground and, therefore, they were labelled as mixed-focused”.


Following the interpretation of the profile solution, the results of the

auxiliary variable (distal outcome) analysis were examined. The results of

the DCON test in MPlus showed that all profiles were significantly different

across different business model configuration scores and financial

performance scores, except for social performance. This indicated that the

profiles were associated with different levels of business models and

financial performance but not social performance. The profiles exhibited a

significant variation in the lock-in business model (χ2 = 19.708, df = 2, p <

.001), the efficiency business model (χ2 = 8.089, df = 2, p < .05), the novelty

business model (χ2 = 18.238, df = 2, p < .001), and financial performance (χ2

= 20.512, df = 2, p < .001). This particular finding highlighted two

important interpretations. First, a significant difference between the profiles

and the business model configurations indicated a reflection of the resource

dependence theory logic highlighted in the theoretical typology argument.

An interpretation can be made that these social ventures embraced business

models to ensure performance because the profiles showed significant

associations with different business model configurations and performance.

Second, in contrast to the theoretical prediction, the empirical taxonomy

analysis showed that business models seemed only to be associated with

financial performance; they did not differ in social performance. Since the

profiles differed most significantly on the private funding and financial

wealth motivation characteristics, this may have indicated that revenue and

financial aspects of the social ventures were not directly relevant to the

social performance of the transforming non-profits; instead, they mattered to

the financial sustainability of the social ventures.


Further inspections of the effect sizes (Cohen’s d) of the distal

outcomes were conducted to interpret the differences between the profiles

according to different business model configurations and financial

performance. Table 5.5 indicates that most of the effects were relatively

small/medium to trivial (between d = .68 to d = .01) and Figure 5.2

illustrates the standardized mean differences of the distal outcomes. Despite

the small/medium effect sizes, substantial and meaningful differences were

observed among the profiles. The “enterprise-focused” were substantially

higher on the efficiency-centred business model than the “social-focused”

(Cohen’s d = .27); this is consistent with the extant literature because the

“enterprise-focused” had higher private funding and financial wealth

motivation mean scores compared to the “social-focused”. The “enterprise-

focused” showed a higher level of the lock-in business model than the

“mixed-focused” and the “social-focused” (Cohen’s d = .63 and .40);

although the differences between the “social-focused” and the “mixed-

focused” were small (Cohen’s d = .20). This is also consistent with the

literature where higher public control seems to lead to the higher level of

lock-in. The effect size analysis further showed that the “enterprise-focused”

tended to be the most innovative social ventures by substantially adopting

more novel business model configurations compared to the “mixed-focused”

and the “social-focused” (Cohen’s d = .38 and .37, respectively). The

“social-focused” and the ‘mixed-focused” showed no substantial differences

in innovation (Cohen’s d = .01).


Table 5.4 Profile Information and Interpretation

Profile information (LPA Outputs) M(SD) ANOVA Indicator variables Profile 1 (A) Profile 2 (B) Profile 3 (C) df F p Financial wealth motivation

2.91(.97)B,C

5.04(.53) A,C

3.25(.94) A,B

2,202

64.69

.00**

Private funding 2.67(.50)B,C 5.31(.47) A,C 4.59(.54) A,B 2,202 357.13 .00** Public control 3.19(1.32) B 3.91(1.29) A,C 3.33(1.16) B 2,202 4.28 .01* Profile membership 58 (28.3%) 33 (16.1%) 114 (55.6%) DCON χ2 Distal outcome variables df χ2 p Lock-In 5.36(.50) B,C 5.54(.38) A,C 5.26(.49) A,B 2 19.70 .00** Efficiency 4.62(.76) B 4.83(.75) A,C 4.75(.70) B 2 8.08 .01* Novelty 4.84(.69) B 5.10(.70) A,C 4.83(.69) B 2 18.23 .00** Social performance 4.94(.75) 5.08(.61) 4.78(.82) 2 4.40 .11 Financial performance 4.01(1.04) B 4.58(1.24) A,C 3.80(1.01) B 2 20.51 .00**

Profile Interpretation Configurational names “The social-

focused” “The

enterprise-focused”

“The mixed-focused”

Social venture characteristics

Social mission High High High Private ownership logic High High High Indicator variables Financial wealth motivation Low High Low Private funding Low High High Public control Low High Low Theoretical typology mapping

Type I/ more public

Type III/more private

Type II/mixed

Employees <10 persons 56.9% 69.7% 67.5% >10 persons 29.3% 24.2% 14% No Employees 13.8% 6.1% 18.4% Revenue from market 51% of total revenue 63.2% 78.8% 61.8% Revenues (monthly) <US$5,000 85.9% 75.8% 87.6% >US$5,000 14.1% 24.2% 12.4% Supported beneficiaries >500 individuals 32.76% 21.21% 30.97%

Note. ** p < .001; * p < .05; ^The analysis of the distal outcome variables used the DCON function in Mplus ver. 8. The analysis of variance (ANOVA) of indicator variables used SPSS ver. 23. The subscripts (A,B,C) next to the means and standard deviations of the indicator variables and distal outcomes indicate significantly different profiles at p < .05. For example, subscripts B and C in Financial Wealth Motivation variable in Profile A indicate that the Profile A is significantly different at p < .05 from Profile B and C in the variable.


Again, this is consistent with the extant literature because the

“enterprise-focused” may have exhibited a higher level of tension resulting

from higher levels of private funding and public control than the others.

Furthermore, the “enterprise-focused” also showed substantially higher

financial performance than the ‘mixed-focused” and the “social-focused”

(Cohen’s d = .68 and .49, respectively). “The “social-focused” only had

small differences in financial performance compared to the “mixed-focused”

(Cohen’s d = .20).

This analysis seems to indicate that the best performing social

ventures were those that had the highest scores in private funding, public

control, financial wealth motivation, and in all business model

configurations. Lower performing social ventures had relatively lower

private funding, public control, and financial wealth motivation and they did

not differ in efficiency and novelty levels. Instead, their levels of the lock-in

business model seemed to correspond to their financial performance. Thus,

these findings supported the extant business model literature which indicates

that the most innovative and efficient firms may yield highest financial

performance (Zott & Amit, 2007). However, these findings further indicate

that for social ventures, the lock-in business model seemed to play an

important role in determining the performance differences across different

profiles. The highest financially performing social ventures had the highest

lock-in business model, while the lowest financially performing social

ventures had the lowest.


Table 5.5 Cohen’s d Effect Size of the Distal Outcome Variables

Outcomes The “enterprise-focused” vs. the “social-focused”

The “enterprise-focused” vs. the “mixed-focused”

The “social-focused” vs. the “mixed-focused”

Lock-in .40 .63 .20 Efficiency .27 .11 .17 Novelty .37 .38 .01 Financial performance .49 .68 .20

Note. < .20 = small; > .80 = high.

These results may be because transformed non-profits need to ensure

that their traditional participants are still loyal and locked into the business

model network to guarantee that their network continues to contribute to the

focal social ventures. It is suspected that trust from stakeholders may play

an important role in this matter. Transformed non-profits may face a

legitimacy crisis due to dissipating trusts from their traditional stakeholders,

especially because social ventures are perceived to be associated with pro-

business, neo-conservatives and pro-market political ideology (Dart, 2004).

By increasing network loyalty, for example, via donor-organization

engagement activities, and ensuring that the new social ventures are “cut

from the same cloth” as the original non-profits in terms of their social

mission, they can regain their network trust and continue to receive

important support that connects them with higher financial performance.

A regression analysis was conducted to supplement the analysis and

to see whether the results of LPA differed from the conventional, variable-

centric approach, as suggested in the literature (Bennet et al. 2017; Gabriel

et al. 2015; Stanley et al. 2017). A hierarchical regression with three models

was conducted to analyse the role of the control variables – age and revenue


– (Model 1), social venture characteristics (Model 2), and a three-way

interaction (Model 3) towards five dependent variables (lock-in, efficiency,

novelty, social performance, and financial performance). The regression

analysis showed a significant relationship between private funding and

efficiency (B = .12, SE = .05; p = .01), which was consistent with the extant

business model literature that has found an association between more market

revenue with efficient transaction costs (Amit & Zott, 2001). However, the

regression analysis did not distinguish the difference between the

“enterprise-focused” and the “mixed-focused” profiles – both of them

embraced high private funding and efficiency configuration. In contrast, the

LPA enabled a logical analysis of the sub-population differences and

established a meaningful interpretation between these two profiles.

Furthermore, the regression analysis also showed a significant three-way

interaction of the three variables (private funding, public control, and

financial wealth motivation) on novelty business models, but not on the

other dependent variables. This revealed that focusing on patterns of

variables (i.e. the configurations) may be more important and meaningful

because they can generate more insights for an organizational analysis,

especially in non-finding cases as suggested in the literature (Carney et al.,

2014; O’Boyle et al., 2012; Stanley et al., 2017).


Figure 5.2 Standardized means of the distal outcome variables.

Discussion

This paper began with a need to answer questions regarding the

empirical taxonomy of business models of social ventures that had

transformed from non-profits in developing countries. Using the LPA

method, this paper analysed 205 cases of social ventures collected from the

British Council NGO transformation program’s sampling frame that were

transformed from non-profits, which generated several findings. First, the

analysis revealed three hybrid types of emerging social venture business

model configurations in the data: the “enterprise-focused” – that represents

social ventures with the highest financial wealth motivation, private

funding, and public control, the highest in all business model configurations

and with the highest in financial performance; the “social-focused” – social


ventures with the lowest financial wealth motivation, private funding, and

public control embracing a lower lock-in business model configuration and

with a relatively higher financial performance; and the “mixed-focused” –

those social ventures that were in the middle, embracing the lowest lock-in

business model and with the lowest financial performance.

The “enterprise-focused” social ventures may look similar to the

Nazava Water Filter social venture (Ashden 2017a). The 2016 Ashden

social entrepreneurship award recipient offers cheap and no-frills water

filters to poor, bottom of the pyramid customers in developing countries. A

typical market-performing social venture like Nazava is a limited liability

company that usually works with investors that have high financial wealth

motivation and are expecting financial returns from the business operations.

Nazava has gained high private funding from market activities (selling

water-filter) that reached US$180,000 income from sales in 2015 (Ashden

2017a); it also has high public control via its donor-funding and stakeholder

involvement in their business value chain (as suppliers and distributors of

the water filters). Having these activities, Nazava needs to be effective (to

generate surpluses for profit), be innovative (to ensure market and social

impacts), and ensure that their participants are locked-in (to ensure financial

sustainability from donors and the continuous participation of other non-

profits in the business value creation network).

Furthermore, the typical “social-focused” social ventures may be

similar to another Ashden award recipient, the IBEKA foundation (Ashden,

2017b). The foundation installed 2,260kW of micro-hydro rural power

plants in 57 off-grid communities in Indonesia. In doing so, the foundation


worked together with different organizations, including community-based

organizations. The foundation is a non-profit entity, so it has low financial

wealth motivation and it has rather low private funding because it does not

maximize its revenue from trading activities. Instead, it tends to rely on third

party support, such as government agencies and private sectors, to help

build the micro-hydro plants. In having done so, the foundation still needs

to ensure that the networks – donor funders, community organizations, etc. –

are locked-in to continuously support the cause of the social venture.

The “mixed-focused” social ventures, on the other hand, may be

similar to the reinvesting social business model outlined by Yunus (2007).

Social businesses are non-loss and non-dividend businesses where the

profits are distributed back to the social business firms (Yunus, 2007). The

“mixed-focused” may be similar to this type because they have high market

activities and, therefore, high private funding. However, they may reinvest

their surplus back to the activities as indicated by low financial wealth

motivation. Like social businesses, they are more independent because they

have the lowest lock-in business model. However, in the sample these social

ventures were associated with the lowest financial performance that may

have been related to stakeholder trust issues relevant in the context of

transformed non-profit organizations.

The second finding from the study was that different social venture

hybrids were significantly, but differentially, associated with several

business model configurations and with performance. Therefore, they

reflected the logic of resource dependence theory. Organizations engage in

an inter-organizational arrangement to ensure effectiveness and performance


(Pfeffer & Salancik, 1978, 2003). This data illustrated that social ventures

entered into inter-organizational arrangements in the form of business

models to ensure financial sustainability. This paper further showed that

different social ventures entered into different inter-organizational

arrangements, and the data indicated that these different tactics

corresponded to different levels of financial performance. These findings

indicated that business models only seemed to affect financial performance.

In contrast to the theoretical prediction, the analysis indicated that social

venture business model configurations did not significantly differ on social

performance.

Despite some consistencies with the theoretical predictions, there

were no clear-cut and linear associations found between the taxonomy and

the outcomes as theorized in the literature section in this paper, although this

was expected because the profiles were hybrids. The findings revealed that

efficiency, novelty, and lock-in business models were important for the

highest performing social ventures in this sample (the “enterprise-focused”),

showing that innovation and efficiency, along with stakeholder trust were

essential for the highly performing social ventures in the sample. However,

since the lower performing social ventures (the “social-focused” and the

“mixed-focused”) only differed on lock-in business models, the findings

seemed to imply that their ability to manage stakeholder trust may have

been responsible for the different levels of financial performance among

these profiles.

These findings generated several important insights for policy and

managerial practices. First, this data seemed to imply that to become high


performing transformed non-profits, they need to radically change their

organizational forms and business models. This dramatic transformation

path is recognized in the punctuated equilibrium model of change literature

(Gersick, 1991; Romanelli & Tushman, 1994; Tushman & Romanelli,

1985). According to this perspective, transformation should be conducted in

a radical way because ransformation is a discontinuous and pervasive

change that alters the basic and fundamental characteristics of an

organization, the “deep structures” of organizations (Gersick, 1991). This

kind of transformation is important to “break the grip of strong inertia”

(Hannan & Freeman, 1977; Romanelli & Tushman, 1994). In this data, the

“enterprise-focused” social ventures broke from their non-profit routines.

They discontinued the non-distribution principle by adopting high private

ownership logic; they also adopted higher financial wealth motivation and

private funding similar to commercial companies. They combined business

models to perform. A further interpretation of the findings (see Table 5.4)

indicated that the “enterprise-focused” social ventures also seemed to have

the smallest number of volunteers (or non-employees working in the

company) (6%) compared to others (14% and 18%), indicating that they

may have hired more commercial professionals to perform the tasks.

On the other hand, transformation can also be incremental,

continuous and linear (Brown & Eisenhardt, 1997; Feldman, 2000). This

data also showed that this pattern of change can also be rewarding for

transformed non-profits. The “social-focused” social ventures type and

configuration indicated an incremental and linear transformation from their

original non-profit organizations. Change in this perspective was achieved


via continuous improvement (Brown & Eisenhardt, 1987). For example,

non-profits transform by adopting more efficient procedures and

continuously improving their activities through organizational routines

(Feldman, 2000). Thus, they retain many attributes close to their original

non-profit “deep structures”, yet they still have better performance. The

“social-focused” had lower public funding and financial wealth motivation

similar to many non-profits, and they had low but substantial public control.

They started changing incrementally by slowly adopting private ownership

logic, which allowed them to distribute profits to their owners. This may

partly explain why the “social-focused” had a lower mean of private

ownership logic (M = 4.37), compared to the “enterprise-focused” (M =

4.97) and the “mixed-focused” (M = 4.56). Furthermore, they also started

embracing market revenues by starting to develop market-based activities.

In this data, only 60% of the the “social-focused” had market revenue above

51% of their total revenue. This was different from the more radical

“enterprise-focused” where almost 80% received a market revenue of 51%

from the total revenue of the social ventures.

The second implication is that these findings indicate that “muddling

in the middle” is less useful for the transforming non-profits. The “mixed-

focused” in this data had substantially higher financial wealth motivation

and private funding mean scores than the the “social-focused”; yet, they had

lower performance than the “enterprise-focused”. This may indicate that

they put forth a lot of effort to generate more market revenue and intended

to become more market-based by trying to distance themselves from their

original non-profit forms. However, many of their characteristics, including


their social and financial performance, were similar to the the “social-

focused”. For example, only 60% had market revenue above 51% from the

total revenue. Similarly, they were also on a par with the the “social-

focused” because they seemed to aim for a larger number of beneficiaries

(30% of them had beneficiaries of more than 500 individuals). Many of the

“mixed-focused” social ventures also seemed to rely on volunteers, similar

to the “social-focused”, as this data indicated that a number of emerging

social ventures with this type and configuration in this sample did not have

permanent employees (18% for the “mixed-focused” and 14% for the

“social-focused”).

Despite this, the “mixed-focused” may also be seen as non-profits

that were experiencing on-going transformation processes and embracing

both radical change and linear progression at the same time; this is

especially because about half of the social ventures in this sample belonged

to this category. Several scholars of the punctuated equilibrium model

(Chang, Bordia, & Duck, 2003; Wollin, 1999) have argued that

revolutionary and radical change may co-exist with an incremental and

linear transformation. Thus, from this point of view, the “mixed-focused”

may possibly have been in the process of variation and sorting through

various different forms, prior to reaching established retention (Wollin,

1999). In the variation process, a transforming entity sees the “new forms

of deep structure emerge in the vacuum of disorder” (Wollin, 1999, p. 363).

At this stage, the “mixed-focused” have begun to embrace a higher level of

private ownership logic (M = 4.56). Thus, they radically changed the

original deep structure of non-distributive principles in a non-profit


organization. However, at the same time, incremental changes at a more

“superficial” level, such as embracing a more efficient business model and

having less of a lock-in business model, show independence from their

traditional non-profit networks serving as a source of competing variations

that will affect the “deep structure” of the transforming organizations. These

processes may have taken place before the “mixed-focused” hybrids moved

into the sorting and retention stages, where the surviving variations were

selected (Wollin, 1999) and more stable social venture forms were

established.

Concluding remarks

This research contributes to the existing literature in several ways.

First, the results of this study contributed to the social entrepreneurship

literature by offering a more nuanced understanding of social venture

hybrids and how they relate to different business models, as well as to social

and financial performance, is provided. These findings extend discussions

in the social entrepreneurship literature, especially on the “earned-income”

school of thought (Defourny & Nyssens, 2010) by providing empirical

taxonomy and its interpretation using the existing typology of social venture

business models. The discussion on the transformation of non-profits in the

social entrepreneurship literature is also enriched by linking these findings

to the punctuated equilibrium model of change perspective. These findings

indicate that emerging social ventures need to embrace radical and

revolutionary change to be successful; otherwise, they need to focus on core

non-profit competence.


Second, for the business model literature, this study provided a

contribution by responding to the calls made in the literature for the need to

further understand the business models of social ventures (Demil et al.,

2015). The empirical data enriches the business model literature by

providing empirical insights from organizations that combine public and

private characteristics and face public and private tensions. While most

business model studies have focused on commercial organizations, the

present research is one among the first studies (Grassl, 2012: Wilson &

Post, 2013; Yunus et al., 2010) to investigate how business models are

configured in a social entrepreneurship context. In this context, this

research also offers empirical insights into how focal social ventures

structure business models to achieve their objectives. These findings offer

empirical insights in understanding business models as inter-organizational

arrangements that social ventures forge to cope with resource dependence

discussed in earlier literature (Margiono et. al., 2017).

This paper has several limitations. First, telephone surveys were

used to collect the data. While this approach was practical for covering

large areas of Indonesia, there were several downsides with this method.

One important issue was the participants’ willingness to participate in the

telephone interview. In this research, data from only 30% of social ventures

from the sampling frame were collected because participants were reluctant

to engage in telephone interviews. Further research may use more reliable

data collection procedures, such as face-to-face surveys, to establish trust.

Another issue was related to the time when the sample was collected.

This sample consisted of social ventures that “graduated” from different


batches of training since it was first conducted by the British Council in

Indonesia in 2012. This meant that the sample in this study was

heterogeneous across the stages of the transformation processes. Some of

the social ventures were newly transformed while others had been

transformed for many years This paper attempted to capture cross-sectional

data of social venture business models from transformed non-profits

captured at one moment in time and this was one of the first studies of its

kind. Future studies may analyse the taxonomies of individual British

Council’s training groups. This may allow researchers to compare and

analyse the taxonomies according to their position in the transformation

process.

Second, all of this study’s measures were self-report and perceptual

measures. This was due to the limited availability of hard data in social

entrepreneurship research, especially among small non-profits that had

transformed to social enterprises. The self-report and perceptual measures

were subjective and the social entrepreneurs may not have been telling the

truth regarding the conditions of their ventures, especially when asked about

their social and financial performance; thus, this may reduce the validity of

the constructs measured in this paper. Further research could attempt, as

much as possible, to use objective measures from social ventures.

The research measures of business model configurations were also

limited. While it is common in the literature to measure business model

configuration using a Likert scale and self-report (e.g,. Zott & Amit, 2007,

2008), developing configuration measures this way has been criticized in the

literature. Fiss (2011), for example, argued that using a Likert measure to


capture complex dynamics within a configuration can undermine its causal

complexity and therefore reduce the content validity of the constructs.

Thus, further research could measure business model dimensions (value

propositions, value creation, and value capture) individually and factor them

in the configuration analysis to capture the complex relationships between

different characteristics of social ventures and different business model

dimensions.

Moreover, the theoretical typology implies there were causal

connections between social venture forms, business model configurations,

and venture performance. This paper only tested associations between

empirical taxonomy, business models and venture performance. Thus, a

further analysis could test the causal connections between these constructs

and identify factors that could be eliminated to establish causal relationships

between venture forms, business models, and performance. Employing a

different method that allows a causal analysis, such as a fuzzy set qualitative

comparative analysis (fsQCA), may be necessary. In addition, fsQCA

allows for a relatively lower sample number, which is suitable for the

analysis of small and new organizations. In contrast, a latent class analysis

requires a large number of sample. When using latent class analysis, the

number of cases often range between 400-800 (e.g. Gabriel et al. 2015).


Appendix 5A

Items of the Newly Developed Measures - Social Mission, Private Ownership Logic, Financial Wealth Motivation, Private Funding, and Public

Control

Constructs/Items Survey question

Social mission

Item 1 To solve social and community problems are most important aspects of your social enterprise

Item 2 You prioritise aspects that benefit the society when doing organizational planning Item 3 You prioritise social mission when developing organizational strategy Private ownership Logic

Item 1 Your social enterprise is not prohibited from distributing profit to owners Item 2 You believe that profit distribution from your social enterprise to owners is all right Item 3 Owners can profit from your social enterprise Item 4 Owners can receive financial benefit from your social enterprise Item 5 Your social enterprise can distribute financial profit to owners Item 6 Social enterprise is not restricted in distributing financial return to owners Financial wealth motivation

Item 1 Offering financial profit to owners is a moral responsibility of your social enterprise

Item 2 Owners establish a social enterprise because they want to gain financial return Item 3 A good social venture is the one that provides financial return to owners Private funding

Item 1 Your social enterprise has high freedom in surplus management Item 2 Your social enterprise has high flexibility in managing generated surpluses Item 3 The use of surplus is not restricted in your social enterprise Item 4 Your social enterprise is free to use financial surplus Item 5 Your social enterprise is very free to utilize generated financial surplus Public control “Provide answers related to the degree of dependency of your social enterprises

on the following organizations/institutions”

Item 1 Non-profit organizations Item 2 Government institutions


Appendix 5B Flow Chart to Decide the Number of Profiles

Start LPA

Run MPlus; start with 2 profile solution

Useful Profile?

Stop Mplus; check potential profiles

Lower BIC/SSA-BIC?

Significant LMR & BLRT?

Reject Profile(s)

Check theoretical interpretation; use

ANOVA test

Good Interpretation?

Reject Profile(s)

End

Select Profile Solution

Yes

No

No No

Yes

No

Yes Yes


References

Abenavoli, R. M., Greenberg, M. T., & Bierman, K. L. (2017).

Identification and validation of school readiness profiles among high-risk kindergartners. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 38, 33-43.


Administration & Society, 47(8), 1038-1060. Albers, S., Wohlgezogen, F., & Zajac, E. J. (2016). Strategic alliance

structures: An organization design perspective. Journal of Management, 42(3), 582-614.

Amit, R., & Zott, C. (2001). Value creation in e-business. Strategic

Management Journal, 22(6/7), 493-520. Amit, R., & Zott, C. (2015). Crafting business architecture: The antecedents

of business model design. Strategic Entrepreneurship Journal, 9(4), 331-350.

Anheier, H. K., & Ben-ner, A. (2003). The study of nonprofit enterprise:

Theories and approaches. New York: Kluwer Academic/Plenum Publishers.

Anheier, H. K., & Salamon, L. M. (1998). The nonprofit sector in the

developing world: A comparative analysis (Vol. 5). Manchester: Manchester University Press.

Ashden. (2017a). Nazava Water Filter. Retrieved September 26, 2017 from

https://www.ashden.org/winners/nazava-water-filter) Ashden. (2017b). IBEKA. Community-owned microhydro. Retrieved

September 26, 2017 from https://www.ashden.org/winners/ibeka) Asparouhov, T., & Muthén, B. (2014). Auxiliary variables in mixture

modeling: Three-step approaches using M plus. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 21(3), 329-341.

Aspinall, E. (2010). Assessing democracy assitance: indonesia. Project

report asssisting democracy assistance. Retrieved September 26, 2017 from http://fride.org/download/IP_WMD_Indonesia_ENG_jul10.pdf)

Arnold, K. A., Connelly, C. E., Gellatly, I. R., Walsh, M. M., & Withey, M.

J. (2017). Using a pattern-oriented approach to study leaders: Implications for burnout and perceived role demand. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 38(7), 1038-1056


Austin, J., Stevenson, H., & Wei-Skillern, J. (2006). Social and commercial

entrepreneurship: Same, different or both? Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 30(1), 1-22

Becchetti, L., & Borzaga, C. (2010). The economics of social responsibility.

The world of social enterprises. London: Routledge. Ben-ner, A., & van Hoomissen, T. (1991). Nonprofit organizations in the

mixed economy: A demand and supply analysis. Annals of Public & Cooperative Economics, 62(4), 519.

Bennett, A. A., Gabriel, A. S., Calderwood, C., Dahling, J. J., & Trougakos,

J. P. (2016). Better together? Examining profiles of employee recovery experiences. Journal of Applied Psychology, 101(12), 1635-1654

Bocken, N., Short, S. W., Rana, P., & Evans, S. (2014). A literature and

practice review to develop sustainable business model archetypes. Journal of Cleaner Production, 65, 42-56.

Boons, F., & Lüdeke-Freund, F. (2013). Business models for sustainable

innovation: State-of-the-art and steps towards a research agenda. Journal of Cleaner Production, 45(0), 9-19.

Bowman, C., & Ambrosini, V. (2000). Value creation versus value capture:

Towards a coherent definition of value in strategy. British Journal of Management, 11, 1-15.

Bozeman, B. (1987). All organizations are public : Bridging public and

private organizational theories (1st ed.). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Brown, S. L., & Eisenhardt, K. M. (1997). The art of continuous change:

Linking complexity theory and time-paced evolution in relentlessly shifting organizations. Administrative Science Quarterly, 42(1), 1-34.

British Council (2017). NGO transformation to social enterprise workshop.

Retireved September 26, 2017 from https://www.britishcouncil.id/ngo-to-social-enterprise

Bull, M. (2008). Challenging tensions: Critical, theoretical and empirical


Cahnman, W. J. (1965). Ideal type theory: Max Weber's concept and some

of its derivations. The Sociological Quarterly, 6(3), 268-280.


Carney, M., Van Essen, M., Gedajlovic, E. R., & Heugens, P. P. (2015). What do we know about private family firms? A meta-analytical review. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 39(3), 513-544.

Chang, A., Bordia, P., & Duck, J. (2003). Punctuated equilibrium and linear

progression: Toward a new understanding of group development. Academy of Management Journal, 46(1), 106-117.

Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analyses for the social sciences.

Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbauni Associates. Considine, M. (2003). Governance and competition: The role of non-profit

organisations in the delivery of public services. Australian Journal of Political Science, 38(1), 63-77.

Cortina, J. M. (1993). What is coefficient alpha? An examination of theory

and applications. Journal of Applied Psychology, 78(1), 98. Cowen, S. S., Ferreri, L. B., & Parker, L. D. (1987). The impact of corporate characteristics on social responsibility disclosure: A typology and frequency based analysis. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 12(2), 111-122. Dart, R. (2004). Being “business-like” in a nonprofit organization: A

grounded and inductive typology. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 33(2), 290-310.

DaSilva, C. M., & Trkman, P. (2014). Business model: What it is and what

it is not. Long Range Planning, 47(6), 379-389. Davis, G. F., & Cobb, J.A. (2010). Chapter 2 Resource dependence theory:

Past and future. In C. B. Schoonhoven, & F. Dobbin, (Eds), Stanford's organization theory renaissance, 1970–2000 (pp 21-42). Bingley, UK: Emerald Group Publishing Limited.

Davis, J. A., Marino, L. D., Aaron, J. R., & Tolbert, C. L. (2011). An

examination of entrepreneurial orientation, environmental scanning, and market strategies of nonprofit and for-profit nursing home administrators. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 40(1), 197-211.

Dees, J. G. (1998). Enterprising Nonprofits. Harvard Business Review,

76(1), 54-67. Defourny, J. (2001). From third sector to social enterprise. In C. Borzaga, &

J. Defourny, (Eds.), The emergence of social enterprise (pp. 1-28). Routledge: London and New York, NY.

Defourny, J., Hulgard, L., & Pestoff, V. (2014). Introduction to the "SE

field". In J. Defourny, L. Hulgard, & V. Pestoff (Eds.), Social


enterprise and the third sector (pp. 1-14). Abingdon, Oxon: Routledge.

Defourny, J., & Nyssens, M. (2008). Social enterprise in Europe: Recent

trends and developments. Social Enterprise Journal, 4(3), 202-228. 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.

Defourny, J., & Nyssens, M. (2017). Fundamentals for an international

typology of social enterprise models. VOLUNTAS: International Journal of Voluntary and Nonprofit Organizations, 1-29. doi: 10.1007/s11266-017-9884-7

Demil, B., Lecocq, X., Ricart, J. E., & Zott, C. (2015). Introduction to the

SEJ special issue on business models: Business models within the domain of strategic entrepreneurship. Strategic Entrepreneurship Journal, 9(1), 1-11

Demsetz, H. (1967). Toward a theory of property rights. The American

Economic Review, 57(2), 347-359. Dess, G. G., & Robinson, R. B. (1984). Measuring organizational

performance in the absence of objective measures: The case of the privately-held firm and conglomerate business unit. Strategic Management Journal, 5(3), 265-273.

Doherty, B., Haugh, H., & Lyon, F. (2014). Social enterprises as hybrid


Doty, D. H., & Glick, W. H. (1994). Typologies as a unique form of theory

building: Toward improved understanding and modeling. Academy of Management Review, 19(2), 230-251.

Dziak, J. J., Lanza, S. T., & Tan, X. (2014). Effect size, statistical power,

and sample size requirements for the bootstrap likelihood ratio test in latent class analysis. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 21(4), 534-552.

Eikenberry, A. M., & Kluver, J. D. (2004). The marketization of the nonprofit sector: Civil society at risk? Public Administration Review, 64(2), 132-140. Eikenberry, A. M. (2009). Refusing the market: A democratic discourse for voluntary and nonprofit organizations. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 38(4), 582-596.


Feldman, M. S. (2000). Organizational routines as a source of continuous change. Organization Science, 11(6), 611-629.

Fiss, P. C. (2011). Building better causal theories: A fuzzy set approach to

typologies in organization research. Academy of Management Journal, 54(2), 393-420.

Foti, R. J., Bray, B. C., Thompson, N. J., & Allgood, S. F. (2012). Know thy

self, know thy leader: Contributions of a pattern-oriented approach to examining leader perceptions. The Leadership Quarterly, 23(4), 702-717.

Gabriel, A. S., Daniels, M. A., Diefendorff, J. M., & Greguras, G. J. (2015).

Emotional labor actors: A latent profile analysis of emotional labor strategies. Journal of Applied Psychology, 100(3), 863.

Gersick, C. J. (1991). Revolutionary change theories: A multilevel

exploration of the punctuated equilibrium paradigm. Academy of Management Review, 16(1), 10-36.

Gras, D., & Mendoza-Abarca, K. I. (2014). Risky business? The survival

implications of exploiting commercial opportunities by nonprofits. Journal of Business Venturing, 29(3), 392-404.

Grassl, W. (2012). Business models of social enterprise: A design approach to hybridity. ACRN Journal of Entrepreneurship Perspectives, 1(1), 37-60. Gu, F. F., Hung, K., & Tse, D. K. (2008). When does guanxi matter? Issues

of capitalization and its dark sides. Journal of Marketing, 72(4), 12-28.

Guo, B. (2006). Charity for profit? Exploring factors associated with the

commercialization of human service nonprofits. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 35(1), 123-138.

Hair, J. F., Black, W. C., Babin, B. J., & Anderson, R. E. (2010). Multivariate data analysis: A global perspective (7th ed.). New Jersey: Pearson Education Inc. Hannan, M., & Freeman, J. (1977). The population ecology of

organizations. American Journal of Sociology, 82(5), 929-964. Hansmann, H. B. (1980). The role of nonprofit enterprise. The Yale Law

Journal, 89(5), 835-901. Harms, R., Kraus, S., & Schwarz, E. (2009). The suitability of the

configuration approach in entrepreneurship research. Entrepreneurship and Regional Development, 21(1), 25-49.


Harney, S., & Olivia, R. (2003). Civil society and civil society organizations

in Indonesia. International Labour Office Geneva. Retrieved September 23, 2017 from http://www.ilo.int/public/english/protection/ses/download/docs/civil.pdf)

Idris, A., & Hati, R.H. (2013). Social entrepreneurship in Indonesia:

Lessons from the past. Journal of Social Entrepreneurship, 4(3), 277-301.

Jung, T., & Wickrama, K. A. S. (2008). An introduction to latent class

growth analysis and growth mixture modeling. Social and Personality Psychology Compass, 2(1), 302-317.

Kerlin, J. A. (2013). Defining social enterprise across different contexts: A

conceptual framework based on institutional factors. Nonprofit & Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 42(1), 84-108.

Ketchen Jr, D. J., & Shook, C. L. (1996). The application of cluster analysis

in strategic management research: An analysis and critique. Strategic Management Journal, 17(6), 441-458.

Khelil, N. (2016). The many faces of entrepreneurial failure: Insights from

an empirical taxonomy. Journal of Business Venturing, 31(1), 72-94. Khieng, S. (2013). Funding mobilization strategies of nongovernmental


Lanza, S. T., Tan, X., & Bray, B. C. (2013). Latent class analysis with distal

outcomes: A flexible model-based approach. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 20(1), 1-26.

Lawrence, B. S., & Zyphur, M. J. (2011). Identifying organizational

faultlines with latent class cluster analysis. Organizational Research Methods, 14(1), 32-57.

Leask, G., & Parker, D. (2007). Strategic groups, competitive groups and

performance within the UK pharmaceutical industry: Improving our understanding of the competitive process. Strategic Management Journal, 28(7), 723-745.

Lee, P., & Bierman, K. L. (2016). Profiles of kindergarten classroom and

elementary school contexts: Associations with the first-grade outcomes of children transitioning from head start. The Elementary School Journal, 117(1), 119-142.

Lewis, I. A., & Zolin, R. (2004). The public to private continuum measure

and the role of stakeholder boards as a proxy for markets in the


governance of air navigation services: A comparative analysis. International Public Management Review, 5(2), 52-77

Liu, G., Eng, T. Y., & Takeda, S. (2015). An investigation of marketing

capabilities and social enterprise performance in the UK and Japan. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 39(2), 267-298

Lubke, G. H., & Muthén, B. (2005). Investigating population heterogeneity

with factor mixture models. Psychological methods, 10(1), 21-39. Mair, J., & Martí, I. (2006). Social entrepreneurship research: A source of

explanation, prediction, and delight. Journal of World Business, 41(1), 36-44.

Margiono, A., Zolin, R., & Chang, A. (2017). A typology of social venture

business model configurations. International Journal of Entrepreneurial Behavior & Research. doi: 10.1108/IJEBR-09-2016-0316

Miller, D. (1996). Configurations revisited. Strategic Management Journal,

17(7), 505-512. Morin, A. J., Morizot, J., Boudrias, J. S., & Madore, I. (2011). A multifoci

person-centered perspective on workplace affective commitment: A latent profile/factor mixture analysis. Organizational Research Methods, 14(1), 58-90.

Muthen, B. (2001). Latent variable mixture modeling. In G. A. Marcoulides,

& R. E. Schumacker (Eds), New developments and techniques in structural equation modeling (pp. 1-33). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Muthén, B. (2004). Latent variable analysis. In D. Kaplan (Ed.), The Sage

handbook of quantitative methodology for the social sciences (pp. 345-368). London, UK: Sage Publications.

Nicholls, A. (2006). Social entrepreneurship: New paradigms of sustainable

social change. Oxford New York: Oxford University Press. Nylund, K. L., Asparouhov, T., & Muthén, B. O. (2007). Deciding on the

number of classes in latent class analysis and growth mixture modeling: A Monte Carlo simulation study. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 14(4), 535-569.

O'Boyle, E. H., Pollack, J. M., & Rutherford, M. W. (2012). Exploring the

relation between family involvement and firms' financial performance: A meta-analysis of main and moderator effects. Journal of Business Venturing, 27(1), 1-18.


Orlitzky, M., Louche, C., Gond, J. P., & Chapple, W. (2015). Unpacking the drivers of corporate social performance: A multilevel, multistakeholder, and multimethod analysis. Journal of Business Ethics, 144(1), 1-20.

Osborne, S. P., Radnor, Z., Vidal, I., & Kinder, T. (2014). A sustainable

business model for public service organizations? Public Management Review, 16(2), 165-172.

Osterwalder, A., Pigneur, Y., & Tucci, C. L. (2005). Clarifying business

models: Origins, present, and future of the concept. Communications of the Association for Information System, 16(1), 1-25.


Understanding the impact. Development in Practice, 18(2), 213-222. Pearce, J. (2003). Social enterprise in anytown. London: Calouste

Gulbenkian Foundation. Perry, J. L., & Rainey, H. G. (1988). The public-private distinction in

organization theory: A critique and research strategy. Academy of Management Review, 13(2), 182-201.

Pfeffer, J., & Salancik, G. R. (1978). The external control of organizations:

A resource dependence perspective. New York: Harper & Row. Pfeffer, J., & Salancik, G. R. (2003). The external control of organizations:

A resource dependence perspective. Stanford, Calif.: Stanford Business Books.

Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., Lee, J. Y., & Podsakoff, N. P. (2003).

Common method biases in behavioral research: A critical review of the literature and recommended remedies. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88(5), 879.


Organization & Environment, 29(1), 53-73. Rich, P. (1992). The organizational taxonomy: Definition and

design. Academy of Management Review, 17(4), 758-781. Richardson, J. (2008). The business model: An integrative framework for

strategy execution. Strategic Change, 17(5-6), 133-144. Ridley-Duff, R. (2008). Social enterprise as socially rational business.

International Journal of Entrepreneurial Behavior and Research, 14(5), 291-312.


Romanelli, E., & Tushman, M. L. (1994). Organizational transformation as punctuated equilibrium: An empirical test. Academy of Management Journal, 37(5), 1141-1166.

Santos, F. M. (2012). A positive theory of social entrepreneurship. Journal

of Business Ethics, 111(3), 335-351. Santos, F. M., Pache, A. C., & Birkholz, C. (2015). Making hybrids work:

Aligning business models and organizational design for social enterprises. California Management Review, 57(3), 36-58.

Seanor, P., Bull, M., Baines, S., & Ridley-Duff, R. (2013). Narratives of

transition from social to enterprise: You can't get there from here! International Journal of Entrepreneurial Behavior & Research, 19(3), 324-343.

Short, J. C., Payne, G. T., & Ketchen Jr, D. J. (2008). Research on

organizational configurations: Past accomplishments and future challenges. Journal of Management, 34(6), 1053-1079.

Spear, R., Cornforth, C., & Aiken, M. (2009). The governance challenges of

social enterprises: Evidence from a UK empirical study. Annals of Public & Cooperative Economics, 80(2), 247-273.

Stanley, L., Kellermanns, F. W., & Zellweger, T. M. (2017). Latent profile

analysis: Understanding family firm profiles. Family Business Review, 30(1), 84-102.

Tushman, M., & Romanelli, E. (1985). Organizational evolution:

Interactions between external and emergent processes and strategic choice. Research in organizational behavior, 8, 171-222.

UNESCO (2014). Aid reductions threaten education goals. Education for

All Global Monitoring Report. Retrieved September 30, 2017 from http://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0022/002280/228057E.pdf)

Wang, M., & Hanges, P. J. (2011). Latent class procedures: Applications to

organizational research. Organizational Research Methods, 14(1), 24-31.

Wasserman, N. (2012). The founder's dilemmas: Anticipating and avoiding

the pitfalls that can sink a startup. New Jersey: Princeton University Press.

Wasserman, N. (2017). The throne vs. the kingdom: Founder control and

value creation in startups. Strategic Management Journal, 38(2), 255-277.

Weber, M. (1978). Economy and society: An outline of interpretive

sociology (Vol. 1). Calif.: Univ of California Press.


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(3), 715-737.

Wirtz, B. W., Pistoia, A., Ullrich, S., & Göttel, V. (2016). Business models:

Origin, development and future research perspectives. Long Range Planning, 49(1), 36-54.

Wollin, A. (1999). Punctuated equilibrium: Reconciling theory of

revolutionary and incremental change. Systems Research and Behavioral Science, 16(4), 359.

World Bank (2017). Indonesia. Retrieved September 23, 2017 from

http://www.worldbank.org/en/country/indonesia/overview) Wright, B. E. (2007). Public service and motivation: Does mission matter?

Public Administration Review, 67(1), 54-64. Wry, T., Cobb, J. A., & Aldrich, H. E. (2013). More than a metaphor:

Assessing the historical legacy of resource dependence and its contemporary promise as a theory of environmental complexity. Academy of Management Annals, 7(1), 441-488.

Yuchtman, E., & Seashore, S. E. (1967). A system resource approach to

organizational effectiveness. American Sociological Review, 32(6), 891-903.

Yunus, M., Moingeon, B., & Lehmann-Ortega, L. (2010). Building social

business models: Lessons from the Grameen experience. Long Range Planning, 43(2–3), 308-325.

Yunus, M. (2007). Creating a world without poverty: Social business and

the future of capitalism. Public Affairs. 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.

Zott, C., Amit, R., & Massa, L. (2011). The business model: Recent

developments and future research. Journal of Management, 37(4), 1019-1042.

Zott, C., & Amit, R. (2008). The fit between product market strategy and

business model: Implications for firm performance. Strategic Management Journal, 29(1), 1-26.

Zott, C., & Amit, R. (2007). Business model design and the performance of

entrepreneurial firms. Organization Science, 18(2), 181-199.

244 Chapter 6: Discussion and Conclusion

Chapter 6: Discussion and Conclusion

Introduction

The purpose of this chapter is to provide an overall discussion and conclusion

for the thesis. This chapter first summarizes the papers and their results. It then

continues with a discussion of the theoretical contributions and implications of the

thesis. A discussion of the limitations and potential avenues for further research are

presented prior to the concluding remarks.

Summary of the papers

This thesis started with a discussion of the challenges related to the limited

understanding of and extant research on social venture business models for

transforming non-profit organizations in developing countries. This thesis addressed

the challenges by (a) developing a typology of social venture business model

configurations for transforming non-profits in developing countries; (b) establishing

construct validity of the characteristics in the typology of social venture business

model configurations; and (c) testing the typology via examination of its association

with business models and performance. In doing so, this thesis documented a

theorizing process (Weick, 1995) and employed a theory-advancement framework

(Fisher & Aguinis, 2017) to develop a falsifiable, typology-driven theory of social

venture business model configurations. The thesis developed three sequential papers

of typology-driven theory generation, theory elaboration, and theory testing. Table

6.1 summarizes the key findings of the papers in this thesis.

Chapter 6: Discussion and Conclusion 245

Table 6.1 Summary of the Papers

Paper Research question Result

Theory advancement roles and theory

evaluation criteria

Paper 1: “A Typology of Social Venture Business Model Configurations”

RQ1: How do RDT and public administration theories make sense of business model configurations, especially in social ventures? RQ2: Following this, what are the key characteristics of social ventures and how do they configure extant business model dimensions? RQ3: What are the types of social ventures for transforming non-profits in developing countries and how are these types associated with effective business model configurations?

RDT and public administration theories reconceptualise the understanding of business models

Four characteristics of social ventures: social mission, private ownership logic, private funding, public control.

Three typologies of effective social venture forms and business model: Type III/Efficiency-centred; Type II/Novelty-centred; Type I/Lock-in-centred; and a Type IV/Non-effective type

Typology theory generation Demonstrated the logical adequacy by using resource dependence theory as a guideline to develop theoretical propositions

Paper 2: “Organizational Characteristics and Forms: Empirical Insights from Business Models of Social Ventures”

RQ4: What are the characteristics of social ventures as they emerge from the empirical data? RQ5: What are the emerging social venture forms resulting from these characteristics RQ6: How do different social venture forms correspond to outcomes?

Developed construct validity of four characteristics of social venture forms. Found another new, emerging characteristic of social venture from the data: financial wealth motivation.

Improved typology of social ventures: more private, more public, mixed, and social businesses

Corresponding relationships between social venture forms, business model configurations and effectiveness configurations.

Typology theory elaboration Demonstrated the construct validity by improving the definition and scope of constructs

•


Table 6.1 – continued Summary of the Papers

Paper Research question Result Theory advancement roles and theory

evaluation criteria Paper 3: “A Taxonomy of Social Venture Business Models for Transforming Non-Profit Organizations”

RQ7: Are there different business model of social ventures that are empirically identifiable; if so, how do they differ?

Three latent profiles of hybrid forms: the “enterprise-focused” (close to Type III), the “mixed-focused” (close to Type II) and the “social-focused” (closer to Type I).

The “enterprise-focused” was associated with the highest levels of lock-in, efficiency, and novelty business model configurations. The “social-focused” and the “mixed-focused” only differed on lock-in business model configurations.

These profiles differed on financial performance, but not on social performance with the “enterprise-focused” as the most profitable, followed by the “social-focused” and the “mixed-focused” as the least profitable.

Typology theory testing Demonstrated further the construct validity – discriminant and convergent validity Demonstrated the preliminary indication of predictive validity and adequacy by testing the typology with distal outcomes



Many non-profits in developing countries embrace business models and

become social ventures because they are faced with declining funding support from

external aid agencies. Despite extensive research on transforming non-profits in the

literature, knowledge of the forms and business models that these non-profits can

adopt was scant. This may be because extant business model frameworks are

designed to provide solutions to commercial ventures and, therefore, are insufficient

to analyse social ventures. Social ventures, despite their market activities, aim to

achieve sustainable social solutions and prioritize social mission over business

objectives.

Paper 1 identified the characteristics and developed a typology of social

venture business model configurations by reconceptualising the extant business

model frameworks so that they can analyse social ventures. The paper argued that

resource dependence theory and public administration theories (i.e., publicness

theory) provide the appropriate frameworks to re-conceptualise business model

configurations, so that they can analyse conflicting public and private tensions that

transforming non-profits encounter in developing countries

The paper asked the following research questions: (a) how do resource

dependence theory and public administration theories (i.e., publicness theory) make

sense of business model configurations, especially in social ventures? (b) following

this, what are the key characteristics of social ventures and how do they configure

extant business model dimensions? (c) what are the types of social ventures for

transforming non-profits in developing countries and how are these types associated

with effective business model configurations?


Using public administration literature, the paper identified four characteristics

of social ventures that configure business model dimensions in the social

entrepreneurship context. These characteristics were social mission, private

ownership logic, (private) funding, and (public) control. The first characteristic –

social mission – distinguished social ventures from their commercial counterpart.

The second characteristic – private ownership logic – distinguished social ventures

from non-profit organizations. The paper argued that these two characteristics

served as the foundational building block of social ventures. The other two

characteristics – (private) funding and (public) control – were responsible for

different forms of social ventures (three effective forms and one not-effective form):

Type I (low private funding, high public control), Type II (high private funding, high

public control), Type III (high private funding, low public control), and a non-

effective/non-existent type (low private funding, low public control).

Following the logic of resource dependence theory, the paper further argued

that these characteristics configured business model dimensions (value creation,

value capture, and value propositions) and thus, the types employed particular

business model configurations to achieve effectiveness. In the paper, business model

configurations were seen as inter-organizational arrangements and, therefore, from a

resource dependence theory perspective, business models could be seen as tactics

that focal firms embrace to achieve effectiveness. Building on these theoretical

arguments, Paper 1 theorized that Type I social ventures corresponded to lock-in

business model configurations because of high public control and low private

funding (high public funding) that required the social ventures to ensure that partners

were loyal to the value creation network, thus providing continuous support to the

social ventures. Type II corresponded to novelty business model configurations


because the tension between high private control and high public funding required

the focal social ventures to be innovative in value creation. Type III corresponded to

efficiency business model configurations because high private funding and low

public control provided freedom to the focal social ventures to arrange the

transaction costs across the network in efficient manner, thus increasingthe

possibility of generating surpluses and profits. Type IV was identified as a non-

effective model due to its conflicting nature.

These emerging types are novel because they differ from existing social

venture types in the literature (see Table 1.1 in Chapter 1). Unlike the existing types,

the typology in Paper 1 specifically focused on explanatory types that explain

effective types of social venture business model configurations.

Although the typology is substantially different from the existing types of

social ventures in the literature, it also shares some properties of the “socially

responsible business” category in Ridley-Duff and Bull’s (2016) classification of

social ventures because the typology in this thesis implied the use of innovative

business models to reduce poverty that were broadly similar to the characteristics of

the “socially responsible business” category (Ridley-Duff & Bull, 2016).

Paper 1 exhibited logical adequacy by developing propositions from existing

well-established management theories. Logical adequacy refers to the logic, implicit

or explicit, that is reflected in developed propositions. The paper used publicness

theory and resource dependence theory propositions to theorize the relationship

between social venture characteristics and forms, business model configurations and

effectiveness. Using existing and widely used theoretical frameworks to develop

propositions allowed the thesis to further empirically test the propositions.



Paper 2 established construct validity of the characteristics in the typology-

driven theory developed in Paper 1. Paper 2 used a theory elaboration tactic to

establish construct validity of the characteristics generated in Paper 1 (social mission,

private ownership logic, private funding, and public control). Paper 2 also aimed to

seek further insights from gathered empirical data. It asked: (a) what are the

characteristics of social ventures as they emerge from the empirical data? (b) what

are the emerging social venture forms resulting from these characteristics? (c) how

do different social venture forms correspond to outcomes?

Using a qualitative approach and the case research method, Paper 2

comparatively analysed 12 cases of successful social ventures in Indonesia. The

paper used the “most different system design” (MDSD) approach in case study

research where researchers can focus on within-group variance (in this case a group

of successful social ventures) from a specifically selected sample. In MDSD

research, the independent and dependent variables that covary in cases are held

constant to allow maximum heterogeneity in other (independent) variables.

Using this particular case method and by embracing the abductive approach,

Paper 2 developed construct validity of four characteristics of social ventures and

provided the scope/qualitative anchor for each characteristic. Paper 2 followed the

technique suggested in Eisenhardt (1989) by refining the definition of the construct

and by building evidence from the cases. For example, from the construct validation

process in Paper 2, the social mission variable was defined as “the prioritization of

the creation of public and social value over value capture” and it had a “yes/no”

qualitative anchor/scope; “yes” when “the social venture explicitly prioritizes

social/public benefit over profit” and “no” when “the social venture does not


explicitly prioritize social/public benefit over profit”. Furthermore, from the analysis,

Paper 2 found a fifth characteristic that makes social venture forms: financial wealth

motivation. From the data, the construct was defined as “the motivation of owners

(including equity investors) to receive financial return from the social venture”, and

the construct had “high/low” scope.

Paper 2 further used these five social venture characteristics and identified

different forms of social ventures: the “more private” form tended to have

moderate/high private funding, moderate/low public control, and high financial

wealth motivation. This model corresponded to the Type III form in the theoretical

typology in Paper 1. The “more public” forms had low/moderate private funding,

high public control, low financial wealth motivation. This model corresponded to

the Type I form in the theoretical typology in Paper 1. The “mixed 1” form had

moderate/high private funding, moderate public control, and low financial wealth

motivation. The paper labelled “mixed 1” as “social businesses” because of the

resemblance with the social business model introduced by Yunus (2007). The

“mixed 1” types reinvested their profit in the social venture activities. The “mixed

2” form was the one where they had high private funding, high public control, low

financial wealth motivation. This model was similar to the Type II form in the

theoretical typology in Paper 1.

Paper 2 further found that these types corresponded to different business

model configurations. For example, the “more public” form, which was similar to

the Type I form, corresponded to lock-in business model configurations due to higher

public control; the public control drove legitimacy and the focal social ventures

needed to ensure that the costs of participants in leaving the network were expensive

so they could continue supporting the focal social ventures. The “more private”


form, which was similar to the Type III form, corresponded to efficiency business

model configurations due to higher financial wealth motivation and the relatively

high private funding; fulfilling the financial wealth demands required the focal social

ventures to reduce transaction costs across the network and become efficient

operators. The “social businesses” form corresponded to novelty business model

configurations due to the relatively higher tensions between private funding and

public control; conflicting forces between these characteristics required the “social

businesses” to develop innovative business models to navigate the tensions. “Mixed

2”, which was a Type II social venture, corresponded to hybrid business model

configurations – a configuration that combined both efficiency and lock-in business

models.

Paper 2 also found different configurations of effectiveness that corresponded

to different business models and venture forms. “More autonomous” effectiveness

configurations corresponded to the efficiency business model and the “more private”

venture forms. “More socially legitimate” configurations corresponded to the lock-in

business model and the “more public” venture form. “Balanced” configurations

corresponded to both the novelty and hybrid business models and to the “social

businesses” and “mixed 2” forms.

Paper 2: Insights into the typology-driven theory

These findings in Paper 2 offered several important insights to advance the

typology-driven theory developed in Paper 1. First, Paper 2 advanced four

characteristics (social mission, private ownership logic, private funding, and public

control) outlined in Paper 1 by establishing the validity of these constructs. Paper 2

further advanced the theorized characteristics by identifying the fifth characteristic of


social ventures, financial wealth motivation, that affects the ways in which business

models are configured. The fifth characteristic fitted with the logic of resource

dependence theory that served as the theoretical foundation of the typology

developed in Paper 1 and, therefore, ‘financial wealth motivation’ was

complementary to other four characteristics, as some entrepreneurship research has

shown that the founders’ choices matter to resource acquisition mechanisms in

emerging ventures (Wasserman, 2012, 2017). Using these characteristics, Paper 2

improved the typology outlined in Paper 1.

Second, Paper 2 showed empirical evidence of the re-conceptualization of

business model frameworks presented in Paper 1. Data in Paper 2 suggested evidence

of the theorized relationship between social venture characteristics, business model

configurations, and outcomes in Paper 1. Paper 2 showed four patterns of empirical

connection between venture forms, business models, and effectiveness. This

resonates with resource dependence theory arguments that build the re-

conceptualization of business model configurations in the social entrepreneurship

context presented in Paper 1 – that transforming non-profits engage in particular

social venture business models because they seek effectiveness.

Third, Paper 2 also showed a preliminary indication of predictive adequacy,

that is, that the theory approximated the reality of the theory-driven typology

developed in Paper 1. The analysis revealed social venture business model forms that

were similar to the “ideal types” (Types III, II, and I) as outlined in Paper 1 along

with two emerging hybrid configurations.


Paper 3: “A Taxonomy of Social Venture Forms and Business Models for Transforming Non-Profit Organizations”

Paper 3 tested the typology by testing its association with business models and

performance. It asked the following research questions: are there different business

models of social ventures that are empirically identifiable? If so, how do they differ?

Paper 3 used the characteristics of social ventures identified in Paper 1 (social

mission, private ownership logic, private funding, and public control) and the

emerging characteristic found in Paper 2 (financial wealth motivation) to generate

the empirical taxonomy.

Paper 3 used data collected from telephone interviews of 307 social

enterprises that transformed from non-profits. The sampling frame was 834

transformed non-profits from the British Council NGOs transformation to social

enterprises program in Indonesia. This was to ensure that the test of the typology and

its association to distal outcomes were conducted within the boundary conditions

outlined in the theoretical typology in Paper 1. Paper 3 used newly developed self-

report measures and, to do so, it conducted data preparation and scale development

processes prior to conducting the analyses. The process of scale development is

reported in Appendix B.

The latent profile analysis (LPA) in Paper 3 resulted in three profile solutions.

Further inspections of the means revealed that these profiles consisted of hybrid

social ventures, yet with some salient characteristics close to the typology theory

identified in Papers 1 and 2. Paper 3 revealed that these profiles were: the

“enterprise-focused” forms which were hybrid social ventures with high financial

wealth motivation, high private funding, and high public control. Social ventures in

this cluster were similar to Type III or the “more private” forms, yet with high public

control similar to Type I. The “mixed-focused” forms which were hybrid social


ventures with low financial wealth motivation, high private funding, and low public

control similar to Type II or the “mixed” forms with low public control similar to

Type III or the “more private” forms. The “social-focused” forms which are hybrid

social ventures with low financial wealth motivation, low private funding, and low

public control. Social ventures in this profile were similar to Type I or the “more

public” forms yet with low public control similar to Type III or “more private”.

Further testing showed that these hybrid social ventures significantly differed on

different types of business model configurations, financial performance, but not on

social performance.

Paper 3: Insights to the typology-driven theory

The findings in Paper 3 offered several insights into the developed theoretical

typology in Papers 1 and 2. First, the LPA exhibited hybrid social venture forms, yet

with close similarity to the theoretical types developed in Paper 1. This was

expected since the typology reflects “ideal types” and, therefore, in reality social

ventures tended to be hybrids. This finding shows an indication of predictive

validity of the social venture characteristics developed in Papers 1 and 2 and the

measure development that are described in Appendix B.

Second, the results of the tests of association with business model

configurations and performance indicated the validity of the theoretical relationship

developed in Paper 1, which was further indicated in Paper 2. This demonstrates a

further support of the predictive adequacy of the typology-driven theory, meaning

that the typology may approximate the reality. The taxonomic analysis in Paper 3

exhibited significant and substantial associations between the typology and certain

theoretical outcomes. However, Paper 3 found that the patterns of


relationship/association were not linear and clear-cut as indicated in Papers 1 and 2.

One of the explanations for this finding may, theoretically, be sought in the emerging

discussions around the identity of entrepreneurs in the entrepreneurship and social

entrepreneurship literature. The identities of entrepreneurs may play an important

role in influencing the forms of established ventures (Fauchart & Gruber, 2011). In

the social entrepreneurship context, Wry and York (2017) further highlighted that the

‘dual’ identities of the social entrepreneurs that are associated with welfare and

commercial logics may affect the type of organizations that are being developed. For

example, the combined social activist and business manager role identities within

social entrepreneurs may lead to social ventures with strong tensions in social and

business processes. Thus, in light of this, the findings seem to imply that there may

be an important role for social entrepreneur identities in better explaining the

relationship between the typology and the business model and performance

outcomes. A social entrepreneur with a dominant social activist role identity may be

less inclined to develop a social venture with a higher profit potential (i.e., high

efficiency business models) even though the venture receives substantial amounts of

private funding. Further investigations to understand the relationship between hybrid

social venture types and business model configurations and performance are

necessary in future studies.

Theoretical contributions and implications

The overall thesis, including the papers, documents a theorizing process, and in

doing so, the thesis makes theoretical contributions to and implications for the social

entrepreneurship and business model literature.


Theoretical contributions to and implications for the social entrepreneurship literature

The social entrepreneurship literature is diverse and marked with discussions

from different perspectives. The papers and the thesis addressed the identified

research gaps and contributed especially to the discussions on social ventures that

transformed from non-profit organizations. In the social entrepreneurship literature,

this discussion has been hosted under the “earned-income” school of thought

(Defourny & Nyssens, 2010). The papers and the thesis make several contributions

to this body of literature.

First, Paper 1 contributes to the discussion in the literature by identifying

social venture characteristics and a typology of business models of social ventures

that face the continuing tensions from public and private forces in developing

countries. The paper offers novel theoretical insights by combining knowledge in the

public administration and resource dependence theory literatures. By using the

dimensions of publicness theory, the paper extends the social entrepreneurship

literature and identifies important characteristics of social ventures for transformed

non-profits – acknowledging the public and the private tensions that these social

ventures face in the developing country context. These characteristics, following

resource dependence theory logic, configure business models that social ventures

embrace to achieve effectiveness. Second, Paper 2 further contributes to the literature

by providing construct validity of the characteristics, including a new characteristic

developed from the data. Paper 2 contributes to the social entrepreneurship literature

further by offering empirical insights into the relationship between the typology and

outcomes. Third, Paper 3 further enriches the social entrepreneurship literature by

providing a test of the typology and its association with distal outcomes.


Overall, this thesis extends the social entrepreneurship literature, especially

the “earned-income” school of thought (Defourny & Nyssens, 2010) by presenting

an initial indication of the validity of the typology of social venture business models

for transforming non-profits in developing countries, especially from an Indonesian

context and, therefore, there is potential utility of the proposed explanatory

framework for researching different types of social venture business models in other

contexts similar to the one examined in this thesis.

By doing so, this thesis advances the existing classifications and types of

social ventures in the extant literature (e.g., Defourny & Nyssens, 2017; Ridley-Duff

& Bull, 2016, etc) where most are descriptive/classificatory and are used for general

and global classification purposes. This thesis broadly builds the typology on the

“social responsibility business” type outlined in Ridley-Duff and Bull’s (2016)

classification, especially because of its poverty-reduction and innovation foci.

However, the typology may also overlap with the “public-sector social enterprises”

classification model (Defourny & Nyssens, 2017) due to the typology’s focus on

organizational tensions arising from public and private stakeholder demands.

Although the typology is developed for developing countries, especially Indonesia,

because of its attention to public and private tensions, the typology may also be

useful in selected developed country contexts where public and private tensions

exist, especially in relation to the increasing popularity of social procurement in

developed countries (Furneaux & Barraket, 2014).


Table 6.2 This Thesis’s Typology among Extant Approaches to Classify Social Ventures in the Literature

Approach 1 Approach 2 Approach 3 Approach 4 This thesis Factors/Dimension Market-social spectrum

History/origins, development path

Principles of interest, resource mix

Governance, ethics, social impact

Public/private organizational tensions

Scope Global National (developed country)

Global Global

National (developing countries)

Purpose General classification, distinction with commercial ventures

General classification, distinction with commercial ventures

General classification, identification of different models from around the world

General classification For transforming non-profits in developing countries

Example types Commercial non-profits Mutual, trading charities, public sector spin-off

Entrepreneurial non-profit, social cooperative, social business, public-service social enterprise

Cooperative and mutual enterprises, socially responsible businesses, Charitable trading activities

Type I (more public), Type III (more private), mixed/hybrid types (Type II, social business, enterprise-focused, mixed-focused, social-focused)

Analytical framework

Descriptive/Classificatory Descriptive/Classificatory Deductive/Theoretical framework

Descriptive/Classificatory Explanatory Typology/Business Model Framework

Examples in the literature

Alter (2010); Kerlin (2009); Dees (1998)

Spear (2009); Gordon (2015); Teasdale (2012); Young & Levy (2014)

Defourny & Nyssens (2017)

Ridley-Duff & Bull (2016)


As a consequence, this thesis opens up avenues for social entrepreneurship

researchers to develop business model research agenda in the social entrepreneurship

organization sub-domain (Choi & Majumdar, 2014). As an example, this thesis’s

typology allows further investigation of the factors and mechanisms related to the

‘fit’ between new venture ideas (Davidsson, 2015) that social entrepreneurs develop

in non-profits that have transformed to social ventures and the materialized business

model types. Focusing on Zahra et al.’s (2009) typology of social entrepreneurs may

be a starting point to gain insights into how different types of social entrepreneurs in

non-profit organizations may find ways to materialize their new venture ideas into

effective business models.

By developing the explanatory typology using existing management theories

(resource dependence theory) this thesis also connects social entrepreneurship

research to the broader entrepreneurship and management literature as suggested by

Short and colleagues (Short et al., 2009). Social entrepreneurship research has often

been seen disconnected from the entrepreneurship and management studies because

the research often focuses on the tales of the heroic entrepreneur as well as the

advocacy of the world-views of the researchers (Nicholls, 2010), and thus, many

build and contribute less to the existing knowledge in the entrepreneurship and

management literatures.

This thesis makes two further linkages to the extant entrepreneurship

research. First, by identifying the roles of external factors, such as the public and

private forces in business model configurations, this thesis links social


entrepreneurship research to a recent discussion of external enablers of new venture

creation in the entrepreneurship literature (Davidsson, 2015). External enabler refers

to distinct, external circumstances such as political changes, demographic, and

technologies that enable a venture creation (Davidsson, 2015). By identifying the

public and private factors that contribute to the configuration of business models in

social ventures, this thesis indicates a parallel process of the roles of external

enablers in the social entrepreneurship context.

Second, this thesis provides an example of how typology-driven theorizing

can benefit entrepreneurship research. A number of studies in the social

entrepreneurship literature have utilized typologies and classification to understand

different types of social enterprises (see Table 6.2.). This thesis provides further

evidence that typology-driven theorizing is useful to understand entrepreneurship

phenomenon as highlighted by Harms et. al. (2009). This thesis demonstrates that

the configuration approach reveals more interesting and meaningful insights by

focusing on the analysis of ‘organizational wholes’ instead of the individual focus of

their parts.

Theoretical contributions to and implications for the business model literature

The papers and the thesis address the identified research gap and make several

contributions to the business model literature (see Table 6.3). This thesis answers a

call to investigate business models of social ventures (Demil et al., 2015) and extends

the existing business model literature by re-conceptualizing extant business model

frameworks so that they can analyse conflicting public and private tensions in

transforming non-profits in developing countries (Paper 1) and providing empirical

evidence of this re-conceptualization (Papers 2 and 3). In doing so, this thesis


extends existing popular business model frameworks and typologies (Amit & Zott,

2001, 2015) so that they can be used not only in the commercial and strategic

management domain but also in the social entrepreneurship context. Three extant

business model types (lock-in-centred, efficiency-centred, and novelty-centred) were

re-conceptualized using public and private dimensions (private funding, public

control, and financial wealth motivation) to make sense of the value creation and

value capture dynamics in transforming non-profits. By doing this, this thesis

parallels with the recently emerging works in the business model literature that

aimed to include non-commercial aspects in the extant business model frameworks

(e.g., Bocken et al 2014; Boons & Ludeke-Freund 2013; Randless & Laasch 2016;

Stubbs & Cockin 2008; Wilson & Post 2013;).

Furthermore, this re-conceptualization also overlaps with a recent

interpretation in the business model literature that takes the meaning of business

model frameworks as “semi-permeable membranes” that link different concepts and

theoretical perspectives (Ritter & Lettl, 2017). Scholars have demonstrated that

business models can play an important role in linking different concepts in strategic

management research, such as organizational design (Fjeldstat & Snow, 2017),

complexity (Snihur & Tarzijan, 2017), industry dynamics (Hacklin, Bjorkdahl &

Wallin, 2017), as well as different theories, such as the resource-based view (Barney,

2001), and transaction cost economics (Williamson, 1975). By re-conceptualizing

extant business model frameworks using management theories, this thesis provides

initial evidence that may strengthen this interpretation. Business model frameworks

in this thesis connect value creation and value capture analyses among different

organizational types.


Practical implications

The thesis has several practical implications for non-profits that are

transforming into social ventures, aid organizations, and developing country

governments. This thesis provides a typology of business models for transforming

non-profits that they can be used to manage public and private tensions that they face

during the transformation processes. The typology shows that there are different

ways for transforming non-profit organizations to manage public and private tensions

(e.g., from different public and private missions, ownership, funding, control, as well

as from the wealth motivation of owners). The empirical insights further show that

successful social ventures are those that are radically transformed from non-profits

and have distance themselves from their original forms or are those that retained

their non-profit forms and focused on their non-profit core competences. The insights

indicate that muddling-in-the-middle should be avoided if possible.


Table 6.3 Summary of Contributions to the Literature

Main contributions to address research gaps

Contributions to social entrepreneurship literature

Contributions to business model literature


Contributes to the discussions on the “earned-income” school of thought (Defourny & Nyssens, 2010) by providing social venture characteristics (using publicness theory) and the typology of business models of social ventures for transforming non-profits in developing countries

Answers the call to investigate business model configurations in social ventures (Demil et al., 2015). Contributes to discussion on the literature by re-conceptualising extant business model frameworks so they can analyse social ventures


Contributes to the “earned-income” school of thought by providing construct validity of the characteristics and the typology

Provides indicative empirical evidence of the re-conceptualization of the business model frameworks

Paper 3: “A Taxonomy of Social Venture Forms and Business Models for Transforming Non-Profits”

Contributes to the “earned-income” school of thought by providing an empirical taxonomy of different social venture forms, business models and performance

Provides indicative empirical evidence of the re-conceptualization of the business model frameworks

Overall contributions of the thesis Extends the literature by providing an indication of a valid and useful typology of social venture business models for transforming from non-profit organizations using existing management and entrepreneurship theories

Extends the literature by re-conceptualising the existing business model frameworks and providing an indication of the validity of the re-conceptualised framework.


For aid organizations, this thesis suggests that phasing-out policies should be

developed and implemented to assist non-profits that need to transform to social

ventures. For example, aid organizations may incorporate the typology, as one

among many available tools, to complement the existing phasing-out program and

training schemes so non-profits that they assist can be guided to achieve financial

sustainability once aid organizations no longer provide financial support to them.

For developing country governments, this thesis implies the need for

government support in providing appropriate legal structures and providing an

enabling environment for transforming non-profit organizations. An appropriate legal

structure that reflects the business models of the social ventures is essential for social

ventures to operate in an efficient manner. Tax incentives and other financial

schemes may also be provided to help social ventures achieve financial sustainability

and continue to create social/public value in neglected societies. Furthermore,

governments may also use the typology to inform policy development in relation to

cross-sectoral social partnerships (CSSP) (Selsky & Parker, 2005, 2010). Successful

partnerships require effective organizations and the typology may help government

agencies to ensure that non-profit or social venture participants in the partnership

adopt financially sustainable business models.

Limitations and directions for future research

This thesis, through the papers, aimed to develop and establish construct

validity of social venture forms and business model configurations, and to test the

typology-driven theory. In doing so, the thesis used a theory advancement framework

(Fisher & Aguinis 2017) and theory evaluation criteria developed by Bacharach

(1989). As a theorizing process (Weick, 1995), this thesis documents the first attempt


to develop a falsifiable typology-driven theory of social venture business model

configurations in developing countries for transforming non-profit organizations

(Bacharach, 1989; Doty & Glick, 1994). Despite this, the thesis has several

limitations. Table 6.4 outlines the limitations of this thesis and direction for future

research using Bacharach’s (1989) criteria as a framework.

First, in terms of relationships among constructs, the logical adequacy of this

thesis was developed by building the propositions and the arguments in Paper 1 using

the publicness theory and resource dependence theory tenets. Logical adequacy

refers to the extent to which theoretical arguments can be disconfirmed. However,

due to the purposes of and the selected methods in Paper 2 (MDSD) and Paper 3

(LPA), causal logic theorized in Paper 1 was not empirically validated in this thesis.

Paper 1 theorized the causal connection between venture characteristics and forms,

business model dimensions and configurations, and outcomes. Both MDSD and

LPA are less powerful in analysing complex causal relationship. Further research

may employ methods that are able to capture complex causal relationships in

configuration analysis. The use of these methods may also generate more insights to

further uncover and understand the mechanisms of complex causal relationships in

hybrid social venture business model configurations found in Papers 2 and 3.

An example is by using the set-theoretic approach (Fiss, 2011; Fiss et al.,

2015). Important to set-theory approaches are the ideas of necessity and

sufficiency in making sense of the causal connections between concepts (Ragin,

2008). The analyses of necessity and sufficiency are the fundamental building

blocks in understanding causation (Goertz & Levy, 2007) and an important

requirement in establishing the logical adequacy of a theory (Bacharach, 1989). By

identifying the necessary and sufficient conditions of cases, and then comparing


them across different cases, the set-theory approach can make sense of complex

causal configurations. There are two techniques in set-theory methods that future

research could use: crisp-set and fuzzy-set qualitative comparative analysis

(QCA). Crisp set sees the variables (high/low) and the membership of sets as binary

values (membership/non-membership). Using binary values, crisp-set qualitative

comparison analysis (csQCA) has several advantages (Marx, Rihoux & Ragin,

2014). csQCA can reduce complexity and find a general pattern by using a truth

table. A truth table highlights the value of variables (1/0) and defines the

relationship (or membership/non-membership) of these configurations of variables

with an outcome. However, csQCA is often criticized for only accommodating

dichotomous variables (Fiss et al., 2015) and does not reflect the complexity of social

life. Social realities are more complex and things are often in shades of grey. Set-

theory has responsed to this issue is by developing a “fuzzy” sets approach (Ragin,

2008). In fuzzy set QCA, set membership is no longer defined in binary values, but

instead according to ordinal and continuous values. Fuzzy set allows a more fine-

grain analysis of each set membership and allows researchers to specify their

constructs appropriately. Thus, future researchers of social venture typologies, for

example, can use the fuzzy set approach to identify the extent to which inter-

organizational arrangement intensity may causes autonomy and legitimacy in a focal

social venture and to further comprehend the causal relationships in hybrid

configurations.

Second, an appropriate theory needs to establish empirical adequacy.

Empirical adequacy refers to where “the propositions and hypotheses [of the theory]

may be operationalized in such a manner as to render the theory subject to

disconfirmation” (Bacharach, 1989, p. 506). For a theory to be appropriately


operationalized and disconfirmed, variations of empirical analyses are important

according to Bacharach (1989); in other words, to establish empirical adequacy the

theory needs to be subjected to empirical analyses from different contexts

This thesis does not establish empirical adequacy because the analysis is

limited to one developing country and the thesis also only uses a cross-sectional

analysis collected at a single point of time. As transformation processes unfold in

stages (Chang et al., 2003), analysis of the business model typologies from different

stages is also important for a robust, typology-driven theory for business models for

transforming non-profits.

Table 6.4 Limitations and Directions for Future Research

Bacharach (1989) criteria of theory

evaluation

This thesis Limitations

Future research

Variables

Measurement issues Face and content validity, measurement reliability (Appendix B)

Developed in one developing country, not thoroughly validated; using proxy (Paper 3)

Further studies to validate scales using appropriate development sample and conducted in multi-context environment

Variable scope Established domain (Paper 1)

Only conceptually developed

Further studies may explore variable scope using qualitative research

Construct

Construct validity Definitions (Paper 2), discriminant validity, convergent validity (Paper 2), predictive validity (Paper 3)

Developed in one developing country, not thoroughly validated; using proxy (Paper 3)

Further studies to ensure discriminant validity, convergent validity, predictive validity in different developing country contexts

Construct scope Qualitative anchors (Paper 2)

Scopes for the construct were developed from one developing country

Further studies to investigate construct scope in other developing countries


Table 6.4 – continued Limitations and Directions for Future Research

Bacharach (1989) criteria of theory evaluation

This thesis Limitations Future research

Relationship Logical adequacy Propositions derived

using existing theory (Paper 1)

No empirical validation on the logical adequacy, especially on the theorized causal relationship

Further studies using MSSD method or fs/csQCA to examine hybrids and the causal relationship from empirical data

Empirical adequacy Not provided Only using cross-sectional sample in one country

Longitudinal studies in one developing country or cross-sectional studies in different developing countries

Predictive adequacy Preliminary indication (Paper 3)

Relationship testing only in one study

Further testing studies to minimize the probability of disconfirmation

Thus, future research design may include longitudinal analyses that capture

different stages of the non-profit transformation process. Using an extension of

LPA, latent transition analysis (LTA) (Collins & Lanza, 2013), researchers could be

able to capture the changes and transformation paths that non-profits may embrace

when they are in the transformation process to become social ventures. LTA operates

by modelling the change of the LPA over time. The analysis is conducted by

regressing the latent class variable at one point against the previous ones (Nylund,

Grimm, Quirk & Furlong, 2014). Additionally, other research may also conduct

cross-sectional analyses of the typology in different developing countries to further

investigate different contextual factors and to establish empirical adequacy.

Third, in testing the relationship in Paper 3, this thesis exhibited an indication

of a predictive adequacy, that is, whether theoretical propositions reflect “reality”.


By developing an empirical taxonomy and testing it on a set of distal outcomes, this

thesis tested the relationship between social ventures, business models, and

performance. However, establishing appropriate predictive adequacy needs further

research. Predictive adequacy requires that “two alternative theories [are]

comparatively assessed on the basis of the degree of confidence researchers have in

the theory (i.e., statistical significance)” (Bacharach, 1989, p. 510), indicating that

alternative theories need to be identified and tested along with the proposed typology

in this thesis. This is important because the “key to predictive adequacy is

minimizing the probability of disconfirmation” (Bacharach, 1989, p. 510).

Thus, in this light, future research could establish predictive adequacy of the

proposed typology in this thesis by conducting further tests using alternative theories.

For example, further research could use other typologies in the literature to test the

relationship between social venture forms and outcomes in transforming non-profit

samples; this may be necessary to see whether the predictive validity of the proposed

typology in this thesis is superior to other, alternative theories (existing social

venture typologies in the literature) in predicting outcomes.

Fifth, an appropriate theory needs to have reliable and valid constructs and

measurement. In terms of construct validity, this thesis conducted two construct

validity efforts. The first was via a qualitative study (Paper 2) and the second was via

a quantitative study (Paper 3 and Appendix B). However, there were several

limitations. First, construct validity and measurement development were conducted

in a rather small sample size (12 qualitative and 307 quantitative cases). They were

also conducted using data from one developing country and therefore the results of

the reliability tests are not generalizable to other contexts. Second, in Paper 3

(Appendix B), construct validity and measurement development were conducted


using proxy and self-report items due to the lack of availability of “hard data” in the

social entrepreneurship context. Self-reports are prone to bias and therefore there

may also be a content validity issue in the measures. Third, there were also issues

related to the convergent validity in some constructs because of limited data. Few

constructs (social mission and public control) had low CR (construct reliability) and

AVE (average variance extracted) scores in the CFA analysis, which indicated that

there were issues in the items that represent the latent constructs.

Thus, further studies need to conduct measurement development and

construct validity in larger samples. A recent entrepreneurship study, for example,

conducted construct validation of founders’ identity constructs (Fauchart & Gruber,

2011) using almost 10,000 respondents in different country contexts to ensure

sample heterogeneity (Sieger, Gruber, Fauchart & Zellweger, 2016). The study

established appropriate convergent, discriminant, and predictive validity by testing

measures in a set of antecedent and consequent variables. The study also continued

to conduct validation testing in different countries around the world. Further studies

may also follow this similar design and combine the measurement development tests

with other theorizing efforts, for example, to further achieve predictive and logical

adequacy as well as improve construct and variable scope. Further research may also

need to collect “hard data” from social enterprises; while this may be difficult, using

“hard data” may further ensure content validity of the measures.

Concluding remarks

Social entrepreneurship and social ventures are important for transforming

non-profit organizations in developing countries but there is still limited

understanding on the business models that these transforming non-profits can adopt.


Unfortunately, despite the extensive research on transforming non-profits, only few

studies have investigated the social venture business model configurations that these

non-profits can adopt. Building on public administration theory and resource

dependence theory, this thesis addressed the problems and filled the gaps in the

literature by developing a typology of social venture forms and business model

configurations, elaborating and testing it.

This is a thesis by published papers that utilized a theory advancement

framework to develop three interlinked papers. The first is a conceptual paper

aiming to develop a theoretical typology of social venture business model

configurations. The second paper is a qualitative elaboration theory study aiming to

establish construct validity and to generate further insights; the second paper

improved the typology and generated insights on the connection between social

venture forms, business model configurations, and outcomes. The third paper is a

quantitative theory testing research aiming to test the typology and its association

towards a set of distal outcomes.

This thesis made two main contributions addressing the identified research

gaps. First, it extends the social entrepreneurship literature by presenting an

indication of a valid and useful typology of social venture business model

configurations. The thesis also extends the business model literature by re-

conceptualizing the extant business model frameworks so they can analyse social

ventures. The thesis made sense of business model configurations for focal firms to

configure inter-organizational arrangement to achieve effectiveness. However, due

to the boundary condition of this thesis focusing on one developing country,

Indonesia, the results in this thesis need to be cautiously interpreted if generalized to


other contexts. Thus, the thesis acknowledged several limitations and provided some

suggestions for further research.

Bibliography 275

Bibliography

Abenavoli, R. M., Greenberg, M. T., & Bierman, K. L. (2017). Identification and validation of school readiness profiles among high-risk kindergartners. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 38, 33-43.

AbouAssi, K. (2013). Hands in the pockets of mercurial donors: NGO response to

shifting funding priorities. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 42(3), 584-602.

Afuah, A. (2003). Redefining firm boundaries in the face of the Internet: Are firms

really shrinking?, Academy of Management Review, 28(1), 34-53. Agafonow, A. (2014). Toward a positive theory of social entrepreneurship: On


Agafonow, A. 2015. Value creation, value capture, and value devolution.

Administration & Society, 47(8), 1038-1060. Albers, S., Wohlgezogen, F., & Zajac, E. J. (2016). Strategic alliance structures: An

organization design perspective. Journal of Management, 42(3), 582-614. Alchian, A. A., & Demsetz, H. (1972). Production, information costs, and economic

organization. The American Economic Review, 62(5), 777-795. Aldaba, F., Antezana, P., Valderrama, M., & Fowler, A. (2000). NGO strategies

beyond aid: Perspectives from Central and South America and the Philippines. Third World Quarterly, 21(4), 669-683.

Allison, T. H., Blakley C. D., Short, J. C., & Webb, J.W. (2015). Crowdfunding in a

prosocial microlending environment: Examining the role of intrinsic versus extrinsic cues. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice 39(1): 53-73.

Alter, K. (2010). Social enterprise typology. Retrieved June 30, 2017 from

http://www.4lenses.org/setypology Amit, R., & Zott, C. (2015). Crafting business architecture: The antecedents of

business model design. Strategic Entrepreneurship Journal, 9(4), 331-350. Amit, R., & Zott, C. (2001). Value creation in e-business. Strategic Management

Journal, 22(6/7), 493-520. Anckar, C. (2008). On the applicability of the most similar systems design and the

most different systems design in comparative research. International Journal of Social Research Methodology, 11(5), 389-401.

276 Bibliography

Andrews R., Boyne G.A., & Walker R.M. (2011). Dimensions of publicness and organizational performance: A review of the evidence. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 21(suppl 3), i301-i319.

Anheier, H. K., & Ben-ner, A. (2003). The study of nonprofit enterprise: theories

and approaches. New York: Kluwer Academic/Plenum Publishers. Anheier, H. K., & Salamon, L. M. (1998). The nonprofit sector in the developing

world: a comparative analysis (Vol. 5). Manchester: Manchester University Press.

Applegate, L. M., & Meredith, C. (2000). Emerging e-business models: lessons from

the field. Harvard: Harvard Business School Press. Arnold, K. A., Connelly, C. E., Gellatly, I. R., Walsh, M. M., & Withey, M. J.

(2017). Using a pattern-oriented approach to study leaders: Implications for burnout and perceived role demand. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 38(7), 1038-1056

Arthur, L., Keenoy, T., Scott-Cato, M., & Smith, R. (2016), Where is the ‘social’ in

social enterprise? In D. Fuller, A. E. G. Jonas, & R. Lee (Eds.), Interrogating alterity: Alternative economic and political spaces (pp. 207-222). New York: Routledge.

Ashden. (2017a), Case study summary: Barefoot Power Ltd, Africa and global.

Retrieved February 17, 2017 from https://www.ashden.org/winners/Barefoot12 Ashden. (2017b), Nazava water filters. Keeping households healthy with clean

water. Retrieved February 17, 2017 from https://www.ashden.org/winners/nazava16

Ashden. (2017c), IBEKA, Indonesia community-owned micro hydro. Retrieved

February 17, 2017 from http://www.ashden.org/winners/ibeka12 Ashden. (2017a). Nazava Water Filter. Retrieved September 26, 2017 from

https://www.ashden.org/winners/nazava-water-filter Ashden. (2017b). IBEKA. Community-owned microhydro. Retrieved September 26,

2017 from https://www.ashden.org/winners/ibeka Asparouhov, T., & Muthén, B. (2014). Auxiliary variables in mixture modeling:

Three-step approaches using M plus. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 21(3), 329-341.

Aspinall, E. (2010). Assessing Democracy Assitance: Indonesia. Project Report

Assisting Democracy Assistance. Retrieved September 26, 2017 from http://fride.org/download/IP_WMD_Indonesia_ENG_jul10.pdf

Bibliography 277

Austin, J., Stevenson, H., & Wei-Skillern, J. (2006). Social and commercial entrepreneurship: Same, different or both? Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 30(1), 1-12

Aversa, P., Furnari, S., & Haefliger, S. (2015). Business model configurations and performance: A qualitative comparative analysis in Formula One racing, 2005–2013. Industrial and Corporate Change, 24(3), 655-676. Bacharach, S. B. (1989). Organizational theories: Some criteria for evaluation.

Academy of Management Review, 14(4), 496-515. Bacq, S., & F. Janssen. (2011). The multiple faces of social entrepreneurship: A

review of definitional issues based on geographical and thematic criteria. Entrepreneurship & Regional Development, 23(5-6): 373-403.

Barney, J. (1991). Firm resources and sustained competitive advantage. Journal of

Management, 17(1), 99-120. Battilana, J., & Lee, M. (2014). Advancing research on hybrid organizing – insights

from the study of social enterprises. Academy of Management Annals, 8(1), 397-441.

Baum, J. A., & Oliver, C. (1991). Institutional linkages and organizational mortality.

Administrative Science Quarterly, 36(2), 187-218. Becchetti, L., & Borzaga, C. (2010). The economics of social responsibility: The

world of social enterprises. Routledge: London Ben-ner, A., & van Hoomissen, T. (1991), Nonprofit organization in the mixed

economy. Annals of Public and Cooperative Economics, 62(4), 519-550. Bennett, A. A., Gabriel, A. S., Calderwood, C., Dahling, J. J., & Trougakos, J. P.

(2016). Better together? Examining profiles of employee recovery experiences. Journal of Applied Psychology, 101(12), 1635-1654

Björkdahl, J. (2009). Technology cross-fertilization and the business model: The case

of integrating ICTs in mechanical engineering products. Research Policy, 38(9), 1468-1477.

Bocken, N., Short, S. W., Rana, P., & Evans, S. (2014). A literature and practice

review to develop sustainable business model archetypes. Journal of Cleaner Production, 65, 42-56.

Boons, F., & Lüdeke-Freund, F. (2013). Business models for sustainable innovation:

State-of-the-art and steps towards a research agenda. Journal of Cleaner Production, 45, 9-19.

Bornstein, D. (2004). How to change the world: Social entrepreneurs and the power

of new ideas. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press, Oxford, UK.

278 Bibliography

Borzaga, C., & Defourny, J. (2001). The emergence of social enterprise. London: Routledge.

Bovens, M. A. P. (1998). The quest for responsibility: Accountability and citizenship

in complex organisations. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Bowman, C., & Ambrosini, V. (2000). Value creation versus value capture: Towards

a coherent definition of value in strategy. British Journal of Management, 11, 1-15.

Boyd, B. K., Bergh, D. D., Ireland, R. D., & Ketchen Jr, D. J. (2013). Constructs in

strategic management. Organizational Research Methods, 16(1), 3-14. Boyne, G. A. (2002). Public and private management: What’s the difference?,

Journal of Management Studies, 39(1), 97-122. Bozeman, B. (1987). All organizations are public: Bridging public and private

organizational theories. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Bozeman, B., & Moulton, S. (2011). Integrative publicness: A framework for public

management strategy and performance. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 21(suppl 3), i363-i380.

Bozeman, B. (2013). What organization theorists and public policy researchers can

learn from one another: Publicness theory as a case-in-point. Organization Studies, 34(2), 169-188.

British Broadcasting Corporation (BBC) (2017). About the BBC. Retrieved February

17, 2017 from http://www.bbc.co.uk/aboutthebbc/ British Council (2017). NGO transformation to social enterprise workshop. Retrieved

September 26, 2017 from https://www.britishcouncil.id/ngo-to-social-enterprise

British Council. (2017). Skills for social entrepreneurs. Retrieved January 1, 2017

from https://www.britishcouncil.org/partner/international-collaboration/track-record/skills-social-entrepreneurs

Brown, S. L., & Eisenhardt, K. M. (1997). The art of continuous change: Linking

complexity theory and time-paced evolution in relentlessly shifting organizations. Administrative Science Quarterly, 42(1), 1-34.

Brown, T., & Wyatt, J. (2010). Design thinking for social innovation. Development

Outreach, 12(1), 29-43. Bull, M. (2008). Challenging tensions: Critical, theoretical and empirical


Bibliography 279

Bull, M., & Ridley-Duff, R. (2018). Towards an appreciation of ethics in social enterprise business models. Journal of Business Ethics, 1-16. Burger, R., & Owens, T. (2013). Receive grants or perish? The survival prospects of

Ugandan non-governmental organisations. The Journal of Development Studies, 49(9), 1284-1298.

Burns, T.E., & Stalker, G. M. (1961). The management of innovation. London:

Tavistock. Büscher, K., Komujuni, S., & Ashaba, I. (2018). Humanitarian urbanism in a post conflict aid town: aid agencies and urbanization in Gulu, Northern Uganda. Journal of Eastern African Studies, 12(2), 348-366. Cahnman, W. J. (1965). Ideal type theory: Max Weber's concept and some of its

derivations. The Sociological Quarterly, 6(3), 268-280. Calia, R.C., Guerrini, F.M., & Moura, G.L (2007). Innovation networks: From

technological development to business model reconfiguration. Technovation, 27(8), 426-432.

Carapico, S. (2002). Foreign aid for promoting democracy in the Arab world. The

Middle East Journal, 56(3), 379-395. Carney, M., Van Essen, M., Gedajlovic, E. R., & Heugens, P. P. (2015). What do we

know about private family firms? A meta-analytical review. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 39(3), 513-544.

Casadesus-Masanell, R., & Ricart, J. E. (2010). From strategy to business models

and onto tactics. Long Range Planning, 43(2), 195-215. Casciaro, T., & Piskorski, M. J. (2005). Power imbalance, mutual dependence, and

constraint absorption: A closer look at resource dependence theory. Administrative Science Quarterly, 50(2), 167-199.

Chang, A., Bordia, P., & Duck, J. (2003). Punctuated equilibrium and linear

progression: Toward a new understanding of group development. Academy of Management Journal, 46(1), 106-117.

Chell, E. (2007). Social enterprise and entrepreneurship towards a convergent theory

of the entrepreneurial process. International Small Business Journal, 25(1), 5-26.

Chesbrough, H., & Rosenbloom, R. S. (2002). The role of the business model in

capturing value from innovation: Evidence from Xerox Corporation's technology spin-off companies, Industrial and Corporate Change, 11(3), 529-555.

Chesbrough, H. (2007). Business model innovation: It's not just about technology

anymore. Strategy & Leadership, 35(6), 12-17.

280 Bibliography

Child, J. (1972). Organizational structure, environment and performance: The role of

strategic choice. Sociology, 6(1), 1-22. Choi, N., & Majumdar, S. (2014). Social entrepreneurship as an essentially contested

concept: Opening a new avenue for systematic future research. Journal of Business Venturing, 29(3), 363-376.

Chrisman, J., Hofer, C.W., & Boulton, W.R (1988). Towards a system for classifying

business strategies. Academy of Management Review, 13(3), 413-428. Christensen, C. M. (2001). The past and future of competitive advantage. MIT Sloan

Management Review, 42(2), 105. Christensen, C. M., Baumann, H., Ruggles, R., & Sadtler, T. M. (2006). Disruptive

innovation for social change. Harvard Business Review, 84(12), 94. Christopoulos, D., & Vogl, S. (2014). The motivation of social entrepreneurs: The

roles, agendas and relations of altruistic economic actors. Journal of Social Entrepreneurship 6(1): 1-30.

Clemons, E.K. (2009). Business models for monetizing internet applications and web

sites: experience, theory, and predictions. Journal of Management Information Systems 26 (2), 15-41.

Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analyses for the social sciences. Hillsdale, NJ,

Lawrence Erlbauni Associates. Collins, L. M., & Lanza, S. T. (2013). Latent class and latent transition analysis:

with applications in the social, behavioral, and health sciences (Vol. 718). New York: John Wiley & Sons.

Colombo, M. G., & Grilli, L. (2013). The creation of a middle-management level by

entrepreneurial ventures: Testing economic theories of organizational design. Journal of Economics & Management Strategy, 22(2), 390-422.

Comrey, L. (1973). A first course in factor analysis. New York: Academic Press. Connel, C. (2010). Social entrepreneur powers - and empowers - Indonesian villages.

Retrieved on September 30, 2016 from http://iipdigital.usembassy.gov/st/english/mobile/2010/08/20100810152731sjro0.3364069.html#axzz4YuUESCxM

Considine, M. (2003). Governance and competition: The role of non-profit

organisations in the delivery of public services. Australian Journal of Political Science, 38(1), 63-77.

Cordes, J. J. (2017). Using cost-benefit analysis and social return on investment to

evaluate the impact of social enterprise: Promises, implementation, and limitations. Evaluation and program planning, 64, 98-104.

Bibliography 281

Corner, P.D., & Ho, M. (2010). How opportunities develop in social

entrepreneurship. Entrepreneurship Theory & Practice, 34(4), 635-659. Cortina, J. M. (1993). What is coefficient alpha? An examination of theory and

applications. Journal of Applied Psychology, 78(1), 98. Cowen, S. S., Ferreri, L. B., & Parker, L. D. (1987). The impact of corporate

characteristics on social responsibility disclosure: A typology and frequency-based analysis accounting. Organizations and Society, 12(2), 111-122.

Csaszar, F.A. (2012). Organizational structure as a determinant of performance:

Evidence from mutual funds. Strategic Management Journal, 33(6), 611-632. Dacin, M. T., Dacin, P.A., & Tracey, P. (2011). Social entrepreneurship: A critique

and future directions. Organization Science 22(5), 1203-1213. 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.

Dahl, R. A., & Lindblom, C. E. (1953). Politics, economics and welfare. New York:

Harper & Bros. Dart, R. (2004). Being “business-like” in a nonprofit organization: A grounded and

inductive typology. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 33(2), 290-310. Dasilva, C. M., & Trkman, P. (2014). Business model: What it is and what it is not.

Long Range Planning, 47(6), 379-389. David, R. J., & Han, S. K. (2004). A systematic assessment of the empirical support

for transaction cost economics. Strategic Management Journal, 25(1), 39-58. Davidsson, P. (2015). Entrepreneurial opportunities and the entrepreneurship nexus:

a re-conceptualization. Journal of Business Venturing, 30(5), 674-695. Davis, G. F., & Cobb, J.A. (2010). Chapter 2 Resource dependence theory: Past and

future. In C. B. Schoonhoven, & F. Dobbin, F. (Eds), Stanford's organization theory renaissance, 1970–2000 (pp. 21-42). Bingley, UK: Emerald Group Publishing Limited.

Davis, J. A., Marino, L. D., Aaron, J. R., & Tolbert, C. L. (2011). An examination of

entrepreneurial orientation, environmental scanning, and market strategies of nonprofit and for-profit nursing home administrators. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 40(1), 197-211.

DeCuir-Gunby, J. T., Marshall, P. L., & McCulloch, A. W. (2011). Developing and

using a codebook for the analysis of interview data: An example from a professional development research project. Field Methods, 23(2), 136-155.

282 Bibliography

Dees, J. G. (1998). Enterprising Nonprofits. Harvard Business Review, 76(1), 54-67. Defourny, J., & Nyssens, M. (2008). Social enterprise in Europe: Recent trends and

developments. Social Enterprise Journal, 4(3), 202-228. 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.

Defourny, J. (2001). From third sector to social enterprise. In C. Borzaga & J.

Defourny (Eds.), The emergence of social enterprise (pp. 1-28). New York: Routledge.

Defourny, J., Hulgard, L., Pestoff, V. (2014). Introduction to the "SE field". In J.

Defourny, L. Hulgard, & V. Pestoff (Eds.), Social enterprise and the third sector (pp. 1-14). Abingdon, Oxon: Routledge.

Defourny, J., & Nyssens, M. (2008). Social enterprise in Europe: Recent trends and

developments. Social Enterprise Journal, 4(3), 202-228. Defourny, J., & Nyssens, M. (2017). Fundamentals for an international typology of

social enterprise models. Voluntas: International Journal of Voluntary and Nonprofit Organizations, 1-29. doi: 10.1007/s11266-017-9884-7

Demil, B., & Lecocq, X. (2010). Business model evolution: In search of dynamic

consistency. Long Range Planning, 43(2), 227-246. Delbridge, R., & Fiss, P. (2013). Styles of theorizing and the social organization of

knowledge. Academy of Management Review, 38(3), 325-331 Demil, B., Lecocq, X., Ricart, J. E., & Zott, C. (2015). Introduction to the SEJ

Special Issue on business models: Business models within the domain of strategic entrepreneurship. Strategic Entrepreneurship Journal, 9(1), 1-11.

Demsetz, H. (1967). Toward a theory of property rights. The American Economic

Review, 57(2), 347-359. Denzin, N. K. (1978). The research act: A theoretical orientation to sociological

methods. New York: McGraw-Hill. Desa G., & Basu S. (2013). Optimization or bricolage? Overcoming resource

constraints in global social entrepreneurship. Strategic Entrepreneurship Journal, 7, 26-49

Dess, G. G., & Robinson, R. B. (1984). Measuring organizational performance in the

absence of objective measures: The case of the privately-held firm and conglomerate business unit. Strategic Management Journal, 5(3), 265-273.

Bibliography 283

DeVellis, R. F. (2012). Scale development : Theory and applications (3rd ed). Thousand Oaks, Calif.: SAGE.

Domenico, D., Haugh, M. H., & Tracey, P. (2010). Social bricolage: Theorizing

social value creation in social enterprises. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 34(4): 681-703.

Di Zhang, D., & Swanson, L. A. (2013). Social entrepreneurship in nonprofit

organizations: An empirical investigation of the synergy between social and business objectives. Journal of Nonprofit & Public Sector Marketing, 25(1), 105-125.

DiMaggio, P., & Powell, W. W. (1983). The iron cage revisited: Collective

rationality and institutional isomorphism in organizational fields. American Sociological Review. 48(2), 147-160.

Diochon M., & Anderson A. R. (2009). Social enterprise and effectiveness: A

process typology. Social Enterprise Journal, 5(1), 7-29. Doherty, B., Haugh, H., & Lyon, F. (2014). Social enterprises as hybrid


Dorado, S. (2006). Social entrepreneurial ventures: Different values so different

process of creation, no? Journal of Developmental Entrepreneurship, 11(4): 319-343.

Doty, D. H., Glick, W. H., & Huber, G. P. (1993). Fit, equifinality, and

organizational effectiveness: A test of two configurational theories. Academy of Management Journal, 36(6), 1196-1250.

Doty, D. H., & Glick, W. H. (1994). Typologies as a unique form of theory building:

Toward improved understanding and modeling. Academy of Management Review, 19(2), 230-251.

Drees, J. M., & Heugens, P. P. (2013). Synthesizing and extending resource


Dupuy, K., & Prakash, A. (2017). Do Donors Reduce Bilateral Aid to Countries With Restrictive NGO Laws? A Panel Study, 1993-2012. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly. Doi: 10.1177/0899764017737384 Magali, D-T., Osterwalder, A., & Pigneur, Y. (2002). E-business model design,

classification, and measurements. Thunderbird International Business Review, 44(1), 5-23.

Dziak, J. J., Lanza, S. T., & Tan, X. (2014). Effect size, statistical power, and sample

size requirements for the bootstrap likelihood ratio test in latent class analysis. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 21(4), 534-552.

284 Bibliography

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.

Eikenberry, A. M., & Kluver, J. D. (2004), The marketization of the nonprofit sector:

Civil society at risk? Public Administration Review, 64(2), 132-140 Eikenberry, A. M. (2009). Refusing the market: A democratic discourse for

voluntary and nonprofit organizations. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 38(4), 582-596.

Eisenhardt, K. M. (1989). Building theories from case study research. Academy of

Management Review, 14(4), 532-550. Elman, C. (2009). Explanatory typologies in qualitative analysis. In D. Byrne, & C.

C. Ragin (Eds.), The SAGE Handbook of case-based methods. London: Sage. Emerson, R. M. (1962). Power-dependence relations. American Sociological Review,

27(1), 31-41. Emery, F. E., & Trist, E. L. (1965). The causal texture of organizational

environments. Human Relations, 18(1), 21-32. Fauchart E., & Gruber, M. (2011). Darwinians, communitarians, and missionaries:

The role of founder identity in entrepreneurship. Academy of Management Journal, 54(5), 939-957.

Feldman, M. S. (2000). Organizational routines as a source of continuous change.

Organization Science, 11(6), 611-629. Ferris, J. M. (1993). The Double-edged sword of social service contracting: Public

accountability versus nonprofit autonomy. Nonprofit Management and Leadership, 3(4), 363-376

Fisher, G., & Aguinis, H. (2017). Using theory elaboration to make theoretical

advancements. Organizational Research Methods, 20(3), 438-464. Fiss, P.C. (2011). Building better causal theories: A fuzzy set approach to typologies

in organization research. Academy of Management Journal, 54(2), 393-420. Fiss, P. C., Marx, A., & Cambré, B. (2015). Chapter 1 Configurational theory and

methods in organizational research: introduction. In P. C. Fiss, B. Cambre, & A. Marx (Eds.), Configurational theory and methods in organizational research. Bingley, UK: Emerald Group Publishing Limited.

Fjeldstad, Ø. D., & Snow, C. C. (2017). Business models and organization

design. Long Range Planning. DOI: 10.1016/j.lrp.2017.07.008

Bibliography 285

Forbes, D. P. (1998). Measuring the unmeasurable: Empirical studies of nonprofit organization effectiveness from 1977-1997. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly 27(2), 183-202

Foti, R. J., Bray, B. C., Thompson, N. J., & Allgood, S. F. (2012). Know thy self,

know thy leader: Contributions of a pattern-oriented approach to examining leader perceptions. The Leadership Quarterly, 23(4), 702-717.

Froelich, K. A. (1999). Diversification of revenue strategies: Evolving resource

dependence in nonprofit organizations. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 28(3), 246-268.

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

typology of social procurement. Public Money & Management, 34(3), 265-272. Gabriel, A. S., Daniels, M. A., Diefendorff, J. M., & Greguras, G. J. (2015).

Emotional labor actors: A latent profile analysis of emotional labor strategies. Journal of Applied Psychology, 100(3), 863.

George, G., & Bock, A. J. (2011). The business model in practice and its

implications for entrepreneurship research. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 35(1), 83-111.

Gerring, J. (2007). Case study research: principles and practices. Cambridge, UK:

Cambridge University Press. Gersick, C. J. (1991). Revolutionary change theories: A multilevel exploration of the

punctuated equilibrium paradigm. Academy of Management Review, 16(1), 10-36.

Goertz, G., & Levy, J. S. (2007). Explaining war and peace: Case studies and

necessary conditions counterfactuals. Oxford: Routledge. Gordon, M. (2015). A typology of social enterprise traditions. ICSEM Working

Papers, No. 18, Liege: The International Comparative Social Enterprise Models (ICSEM) Project.

Gras, D. & Mendoza-Abarca, K. I. (2014), Risky business? The survival implications

of exploiting commercial opportunities by nonprofits, Journal of Business Venturing, 29(3), 392-404.

Grassl, W. (2012). Business models of social enterprise: A design approach to

hybridity. ACRN Journal of Entrepreneurship Perspectives, 1(1), 37-60. Greenwood, R., Oliver, C., Sahlin, K., & Sudabby, R. (2008). The Sage handbook of

organizational institutionalism, London, UK: Sage. Gu, F. F., Hung, K., & Tse, D. K. (2008). When does guanxi matter? Issues of

capitalization and its dark sides. Journal of Marketing, 72(4), 12-28.

286 Bibliography

Guo, B. (2006). Charity for profit? Exploring factors associated with the commercialization of human service nonprofits. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 35(1), 123-138.

Hacklin, F., Björkdahl, J., & Wallin, M. W. (2017). Strategies for business model

innovation: How firms reel in migrating value. Long Range Planning. DOI: 10.1016/j.lrp.2017.06.009

Hair, J. F., Black, W. C., Babin, B. J., & Anderson, R. E. (2010). Multivariate data

analysis (7th ed.). Pearson Education Limited Hair, J. F. (2011). Essentials of business research methods (2nd ed.) Armonk, N.Y.:

M.E. Sharpe. Hannan, M. T., & Freeman J. (1977). The population ecology of organizations.

American Journal of Sociology, 82(5), 929-964. Hannan, M. T., Freeman, J. (1989). Organizational ecology. Cambridge, Mass.:

Harvard University Press: Cambridge, Mass. Hansmann, H. B. (1980). The role of nonprofit enterprise. The Yale Law Journal,

89(5), 835-901. Harms, R., Kraus, S., & Schwarz, E. (2009). The suitability of the configuration

approach in entrepreneurship research. Entrepreneurship and Regional Development, 21(1), 25-49.

Harney, S., & Olivia, R. (2003). Civil society and civil society organizations in

Indonesia. International Labour Office Geneva. Retrieved September 23, 2017 from http://www.ilo.int/public/english/protection/ses/download/docs/civil.pdf

Hillman, A. J., Withers, M. C., & Collins, B. J. (2009). Resource dependence theory:

A review. Journal of Management, 35(6),1404-1427 Howard, M. M. (2003). The weakness of civil society in post-communist Europe.

Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Hruschka, D. J., Schwartz D., St. John, D. C., Picone-Decaro, E., Jenkins, R.A., &

Carey, J. W. (2004). Reliability in coding open-ended data: Lessons learned from HIV behavioral research. Field Methods, 16(3), 307-331.

Huybrechts, B., & Haugh, H. (2017). The roles of networks in institutionalizing new

hybrid organizational forms: Insights from the European Renewable Energy Cooperative Network. Organization Studies, DOI: 10.1177/0170840617717097

Hughes, O. E. (2012). Public management and administration, New York: Palgrave.

Bibliography 287

Hwang, H., & Powell, W. W. (2009). The rationalization of charity: The influences of professionalism in the nonprofit sector. Administrative Science Quarterly, 54(2), 268-298.

ICSEM (2017). Overall presentation of the 'International Comparative Social

Enterprise Models' (ICSEM) project. Retrieved February 17, 2017 from http://www.iap-socent.be/sites/default/files/20151005%20ICSEM%20overall%20presentation.pdf

Idris, A., & Hati, R. H. (2013). Social entrepreneurship in Indonesia: Lessons from

the past. Journal of Social Entrepreneurship, 4(3), 277-301. Irvine, J. A. (2018). US Aid and gender equality: social movement vs civil society models of funding. Democratization, 1-19. Jung, T., & Wickrama, K. A. S. (2008). An introduction to latent class growth

analysis and growth mixture modeling. Social and Personality Psychology Compass, 2(1), 302-317.

Kamstra, J. & Schulpen, L. (2015). Worlds apart but much alike: Donor funding and

the homogenization of NGOs in Ghana and Indonesia. Studies in Comparative International Development, 50(3), 331-357.

Katz, D., & Kahn, R. L. (1978). Organizations and the system concept. Classics of

organization theory, 161-172. Keevers, L., Treleaven, L., Sykes, C., & Darcy, M. (2012). Made to measure:

Taming practices with results-based accountability. Organization Studies, 33(1), 97-120.

Kerlin, J. A. (2013). Defining social enterprise across different contexts: A

conceptual framework based on institutional factors. Nonprofit & Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 42(1), 84-108.

Kerlin, J. A., & Pollak, T. H. (2011). Nonprofit commercial revenue: A replacement

for declining government grants and private contributions? The American Review of Public Administration, 41(6), 686-704.

Ketchen, D. J., & Shook, C. L. (1996). The application of cluster analysis in strategic

management research: An analysis and critique. Strategic Management Journal, 17(6), 441-458.

Khelil, N. (2016). The many faces of entrepreneurial failure: Insights from an

empirical taxonomy. Journal of Business Venturing, 31(1), 72-94. Khieng, S. (2013). Funding mobilization strategies of nongovernmental


288 Bibliography

Kramer, M. (2005). Measuring innovation: evaluation in the field of social entrepreneurship. Boston, MA: Foundation Strategy Group.

Kopernik. (2017). Lessons from a multi-tasking wonder women. Retrieved February

17, 2017 from https://kopernik.info/update/lessons-from-a-multi-tasking-wonder-woman

Lanza, S. T., Tan, X., & Bray, B. C. (2013). Latent class analysis with distal

outcomes: A flexible model-based approach. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 20(1), 1-26.

Lavie, D., Haunschild, P.R., & Khanna, P. (2012). Organizational differences,

relational mechanisms, and alliance performance. Strategic Management Journal, 33(13), 1453-1479.

Lawrence, B. S., & Zyphur, M. J. (2011). Identifying organizational faultlines with

latent class cluster analysis. Organizational Research Methods, 14(1), 32-57. Leask, G., & Parker, D. (2007). Strategic groups, competitive groups and

performance within the UK pharmaceutical industry: Improving our understanding of the competitive process. Strategic Management Journal, 28(7), 723-745.

Lee, T. W., Mitchell, T. R., & Sablynski, C. J. (1999). Qualitative research in

organizational and vocational psychology, 1979-1999. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 55, 161-187.

Lee, P., & Bierman, K. L. (2016). Profiles of kindergarten classroom and elementary

school contexts: Associations with the first-grade outcomes of children transitioning from head start. The Elementary School Journal, 117(1), 119-142.

Lehner, O.M., & Kansikas, J. (2013). Pre-paradigmatic status of social

entrepreneurship research: A systematic literature review. Journal of Social Entrepreneurship, 4(2), 198-219.

Lepak, D. P., Smith, K. G., & Taylor, M. S. (2007). Value creation and value

capture: A multilevel perspective. Academy of Management Review, 32(1), 180-194.

Lewis, I. A., & Zolin, R. (2004). The public to private continuum measure and the

role of stakeholder boards as a proxy for markets in the governance of air navigation services: A comparative analysis. International Public Management Review, 5(2), 52-77.

Liebschutz, S. F. (1992). Coping by nonprofit organizations during the Reagan

years. Nonprofit Management and Leadership, 2(4), 363-380. Linder, J., & Cantrell, S. (2000). Carved in water: Changing business models

fluidly. Accenture Institute for Strategic Change Research Report, 8-10.

Bibliography 289

Liu, G., Eng, T. Y., Takeda, S. (2015). An investigation of marketing capabilities and social enterprise performance in the UK and Japan. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 39(2), 267-298

Lubke, G. H., & Muthén, B. (2005). Investigating population heterogeneity with

factor mixture models. Psychological methods, 10(1), 21-39. Magretta, J. (2002). Why business models matter. Harvard Business Review, 80(5),

86-92. Mahoney, J. T. (1992). The choice of organizational form: Vertical financial

ownership versus other methods of vertical integration. Strategic Management Journal, 13(8), 559-584.

Maier, F., Meyer, M., & Steinbereithner, M. (2016). Nonprofit organizations

becoming business-like: A systematic review. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 45(1), 64-86.

Mair J., & Martí, I. (2006). Social entrepreneurship research: A source of

explanation, prediction, and delight. Journal of World Business, 41(1), 36-44. Mair, J., Mayer, J., & Lutz, E. (2015). Navigating institutional plurality:

Organizational governance in hybrid organizations. Organization Studies, 36(6), 713-739.

March, J. G. (1991). Exploration and exploitation in organizational learning.

Organization Science, 2(1), 71-87. Margiono, A., Zolin, R., & Chang, A. (2017). A typology of social venture business

model configurations. International Journal of Entrepreneurial Behavior & Research. doi: 10.1108/IJEBR-09-2016-0316

Marx, A., Rihoux, B., & Ragin, C. (2014). The origins, development, and application

of Qualitative Comparative Analysis: The first 25 years. European Political Science Review, 6(1), 115-142.

Markides, C. (2008), Game-changing strategies: How to create new market space in

established industries by breaking the rules. New York: Jossey-Bass, New York.

Mathieu, J. E. (2016). The problem with [in] management theory. Journal of

Organizational Behavior, 37(8), 1132-1141. McPhillips, S., & Merlo, O. (2008). Media convergence and the evolving media

business model: An overview and strategic opportunities. The Marketing Review, 8(3), 237-253.

290 Bibliography

Meckstroth, T. W. (1975). I.“Most Different Systems” and “Most Similar Systems” a study in the logic of comparative inquiry. Comparative Political Studies, 8(2), 132-157.

Meinhard, A. G., & Foster, M. K. (2003). Differences in the response of women's

voluntary organizations to shifts in Canadian public policy. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 32(3), 366-396.

Meyer, M., Buber, R., & Aghamanoukjan, A. (2013). In search of legitimacy:

Managerialism and legitimation in civil society organizations. VOLUNTAS: International Journal of Voluntary and Nonprofit Organizations, 24(1), 167-193.

Meyer, J. P., Stanley, L. J., & Parfyonova, N. M. (2012). Employee commitment in

context: The nature and implication of commitment profiles. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 80(1), 1-16.

Miles, M. B., & Huberman, A. M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis: a sourcebook.

Beverly-Hills: Sage Publications. Miles, R. E., Snow, C. S., Meyer, A. D., & Coleman Jr, H. J. (1978). Organizational

strategy, structure, and process. Academy of Management Review, 3(3), 546-562.

Miller, T. L., & Wesley II, C. L. (2010). Assessing mission and resources for social


Miller, D. (1996). Configurations revisited. Strategic Management Journal, 17(7),

505-512. Mizik, N., & Jacobson, R. (2003). Trading off between value creation and value

appropriation: The financial implications of shifts in strategic emphasis. Journal of Marketing, 67, 63-76.

Morgan, G. B., Hodge, K. J., & Baggett, A. R. (2016). Latent profile analysis with

nonnormal mixtures: A Monte Carlo examination of model selection using fit indices. Computational Statistics & Data Analysis, 93, 146-161.

Morin, A. J., Morizot, J., Boudrias, J. S., & Madore, I. (2011). A multifoci person-

centered perspective on workplace affective commitment: A latent profile/factor mixture analysis. Organizational Research Methods, 14(1), 58-90.

Muthen, B. (2001). Latent variable mixture modeling. In G. A. Marcoulides, R. E.

Schumacker (Eds.), New developments and techniques in structural equation modelling. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates

Bibliography 291

Muthén, B. (2004). Latent variable analysis. In D. Kaplan (Ed.), The Sage handbook of quantitative methodology for the social sciences. London, UK: Sage Publications.

Nicholls, A. (2006). Social entrepreneurship: New paradigms of sustainable social

change. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press. Nicholls, A. (2010). The legitimacy of social entrepreneurship: Reflexive

isomorphism in a pre-paradigmatic field. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 34(4), 611-633

Nylund, K. L., Asparouhov, T., & Muthén, B. O. (2007). Deciding on the number of

classes in latent class analysis and growth mixture modeling: A Monte Carlo simulation study. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 14(4), 535-569.

Nylund-Gibson, K., Grimm, R., Quirk, M., & Furlong, M. (2014). A latent transition

mixture model using the three-step specification. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 21(3), 439-454.

Obschonka, M., & Stuetzer, M. (2017). Integrating psychological approaches to

entrepreneurship: The entrepreneurial personality system (EPS). Small Business Economics, 49(1), 203-231

O'Boyle, E. H., Pollack, J. M., & Rutherford, M. W. (2012). Exploring the relation

between family involvement and firms' financial performance: A meta-analysis of main and moderator effects. Journal of Business Venturing, 27(1), 1-18.

Okten, C., & Weisbrod, B. A. (2000). Determinants of donations in private nonprofit

markets. Journal of Public Economics, 75(2), 255-272. Oliver, C. (1991), Network relations and loss of organizational autonomy. Human

Relations, 44(9), 943-961. Orlitzky, M., Louche, C., Gond, J. P., & Chapple, W. (2015). Unpacking the drivers

of corporate social performance: A multilevel, multi-stakeholder, and multimethod analysis. Journal of Business Ethics, 144(1), 1-20.

Osborne, S. P., & Strokosch, K. (2013). It takes two to tango? Understanding the co-

production of public services by integrating the services management and public administration perspectives. British Journal of Management, 24(1), 31-47.

Osborne, S. P., Radnor, Z., & Strokosch, K. (2016). Co-production and the co-

creation of value in public services: A suitable case for treatment?, Public Management Review, 18(5), 639-653.

Osborne, S. P., Radnor, Z., Vidal, I., & Kinder, T. (2014). A sustainable business

model for public service organizations?, Public Management Review, 16(2), 165-172.

292 Bibliography

Osterwalder, A., Pigneur, Y. & Tucci, C. L. (2005), Clarifying business models:

Origins, present, and future of the concept. Communications of the Association for Information System, 16(1), 1-25

Otner, S. M. G. (2010). Most different systems design. In A. J. Mills, G. Durepos, &

E. Wiebe (Eds.), Encyclopedia of case study research. Thousand Oaks: Sage. Pache, A. C., & Santos, F. (2012). Inside the hybrid organization: Selective coupling

as a response to competing institutional logics. Academy of Management Journal, 56(4), 972-1001.


Understanding the impact. Development in Practice, 18(2), 213-222. Payne, A. A. (1998). Does the government crowd-out private donations? New

evidence from a sample of non-profit firms. Journal of Public Economics, 69(3), 323-345.

Pauwels, K., & Weiss, A. (2008). Moving from free to fee: How online firms market

to change their business model successfully. Journal of Marketing, 72(3), 14-31.

Pearce, J. (2003). Social enterprise in anytown, London, UK: Calouste Gulbenkian

Foundation. Peredo, A. M., & McLean, M. (2006). Social entrepreneurship: A critical review of

the concept. Journal of World Business, 41(1), 56-65. Perry, J. L., & Porter, L. W. (1982). Factors affecting the context for motivation in

public organizations. Academy of Management Review, 7(1), 89-98. Perry, J. L., & Rainey, H. G. (1988). The public-private distinction in organization

theory: A critique and research strategy. Academy of Management Review, 13(2), 182-201.

Pfeffer, J., & Salancik, G. R. (1978). The external control of organizations: A


resource dependence perspective. Stanford, Calif: Stanford Business Books. Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., Lee, J.Y., & Podsakoff, N. P. (2003). Common

method biases in behavioral research: A critical review of the literature and recommended remedies. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88(5), 879.

Porter, M. E., & Mark, R. K. (2011). Creating shared value. Harvard Business

Review 89(1/2), 62-77.

Bibliography 293

Pratono, A, & Sutanti, A. (2016). The ecosystem of social enterprise: Social culture, legal framework, and policy review in Indonesia. Pacific Science Review B: Humanities and Social Sciences, 2(3), 106-112.

Przeworski, A., & Teune, H. (1970). The logic of comparative social inquiry. New

York: Wiley-Interscience. Ragin, C. C. (2008). Redesigning social inquiry: Fuzzy sets and beyond. Chicago:

Chicago University Press. Rainey, H. G., & Steinbauer, P. (1999). Galloping elephants: Developing elements of

a theory of effective government organizations. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 9(1), 1-32.


Organization & Environment, 29(1), 53-73. Rao H., & Singh J. (1999). Types of variation in organizational populations: The

speciation of new organizational forms. In J. A. C. Baum, & B. McKelvey (Eds.), Variations in organization science. Thousand Oaks: California: Sage.

Rich, P. (1992). The organizational taxonomy: Definition and design. Academy of

Management Review, 17(4), 758-781. Richardson, J. (2008). The business model: An integrative framework for strategy

execution. Strategic Change, 17(5-6), 133-144. Ridley-Duff R., & Bull, M. (2016). Understanding social enterprise: Theory and

practice. London, UK: Sage Publications. Ridley-Duff, R. (2008). Social enterprise as socially rational business. International

Journal of Entrepreneurial Behavior & Research, 14(5), 291-312. Ritter, T., & Lettl, C. (2017). The wider implications of business-model

research. Long Range Planning. DOI: 10.1016/j.lrp.2017.07.005 Romanelli, E., & Tushman, M. L. (1994). Organizational transformation as

punctuated equilibrium: An empirical test. Academy of Management Journal, 37(5), 1141-1166.

Saldana, J. (2013). The coding manual for qualitative researchers. London, Sage. Santos F. M. (2012). A positive theory of social entrepreneurship. Journal of

Business Ethics, 111(3), 335-351. Santos, F. M., Pache, A. C., & Birkholz, C. (2015). Making hybrids work: Aligning

business models and organizational design for social enterprises. California Management Review, 57(3), 36-58.

294 Bibliography

Scott, S., & Venkataraman, S. (2000). The promise of entrepreneurship as a field of research. Academy of Management Review, 25(1), 217-226.

Seanor, P., Bull, M., Baines, S., & Purcell, M. (2014). Where social enterprise

practitioners draw the line: Towards an understanding of movement from social entrepreneurship as boundary work. International Journal of Public Sector Management, 27(4), 353- 368

Seanor, P., Bull, M., Baines, S., & Ridley-Duff, R. (2013). Narratives of transition

from social to enterprise: You can't get there from here! International Journal of Entrepreneurial Behavior & Research, 19(3), 324-343.

Seawright J., & Gerring J. (2008). Case selection techniques in case study research:

A menu of qualitative and quantitative options. Political Research Quarterly, 61(2), 294-308.

Selsky, J. W., & Parker, B. (2005). Cross-sector partnerships to address social issues:

Challenges to theory and practice. Journal of management, 31(6), 849-873. Selsky, J. W., & Parker, B. (2010). Platforms for cross-sector social partnerships:

Prospective sensemaking devices for social benefit. Journal of Business Ethics, 94(1), 21-37.

Shafer, S. M., Smith, J. H., & Linder, J. C. (2005). The power of business models.

Business Horizons, 48(3), 199-207. Shoham, A., Ruvio, A., Vigoda-Gadot, E., & Schwabsky, N. (2006). Market

orientations in the nonprofit and voluntary sector: A meta-analysis of their relationships with organizational performance. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 35(3), 453-476.

Short, J. C., Moss, T. W., & Lumpkin, G. T. (2009). Research in social

entrepreneurship: Past contributions and future opportunities. Strategic Entrepreneurship Journal, 3(2), 161-194

Short, J. C., Payne, G. T., & Ketchen, D. J. (2008). Research on organizational

configurations: Past accomplishments and future challenges. Journal of Management, 34(6), 1053-1079.

Sieger, P., Gruber, M., Fauchart, E., & Zellweger, T. (2016). Measuring the social

identity of entrepreneurs: Scale development and international validation. Journal of Business Venturing, 31(5), 542-572.

Sine, W. D., Mitsuhashi, H., & Kirsch, D. A. (2006). Revisiting Burns and Stalker:

Formal structure and new venture performance in emerging economic sectors. Academy of Management Journal, 49(1), 121-132.

Skocpol, T. (1979). States and social revolutions: A comparative analysis of France,

Russia and China. Cambrdige, UK: Cambridge University Press.

Bibliography 295

Smith, B. (1993). NGOs in international development: Trends and future research priorities. Voluntas, 4(3), 301-325.

Smillie, I. (1995). The alms bazaar: altruism under fire: Non-profit organizations

and international development. London, UK: Intermediate Technology Publications.

Snow, C. C., & Ketchen, D. J. (2014), Typology-driven theorizing: A response to

Delbridge and Fiss. Academy of Management Review, 39(2), 231-233. Snihur, Y., & Tarzijan, J. (2017). Managing complexity in a multi-business-model

organization. Long Range Planning. DOI: 10.1016/j.lrp.2017.06.010 Sommerrock, K. (2010). Social entrepreneurship business models. Basingstoke:

Palgrave Macmillan. Spear, R., Cornforth, C., & Aiken, M. (2009). The governance challenges of social

enterprises: Evidence from a UK empirical study. Annals of Public & Cooperative Economics, 80(2), 247-273.

Spieth, P., Schneider, S., Clauß, T., & Eichenberg, D. (2018). Value drivers of social businesses: A business model perspective. Long Range Planning. Doi: 10.1016/j.lrp.2018.04.004 Stanley, L., Kellermanns, F. W., & Zellweger, T. M. (2017). Latent profile analysis:

Understanding family firm profiles. Family Business Review, 30(1), 84-102. Stone, M. M. (1991). The propensity of governing boards to plan. Nonprofit

Management and Leadership, 1(3), 203-215. Stubbs, W., & Cocklin, C. (2008). Conceptualizing a ‘sustainability business model’.

Organization & Environment, 21(2), 103-127. Suchman, M. C. (1995). Managing legitimacy: Strategic and institutional

approaches. Academy of Management Review, 20(3), 571-610. Suddaby, R. (2010). Editor's comments: Construct clarity in theories of management

and organization. Academy of Management Review, 35(3), 346-357. Tankhiwale, S. (2009). Exploring the interrelationship between Telco business model

innovation and the change in business process architecture. Journal of Telecommunications Management 2(2), 126-137.

Tapscott, D., Lowy, A. & Ticoll, D. (2000). Digital capital: Harnessing the power of

business webs. Harvard: Harvard Business Press. Teece, D. J. (2010). Business models, business strategy and innovation. Long Range

Planning, 43(2-3), 172-194.

296 Bibliography

Tein, J. Y., Coxe, S., & Cham, H. (2013). Statistical power to detect the correct number of classes in latent profile analysis. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 20(4), 640-657.

Thank You (2016). The Thank You model. Retrieved September 30, 2016 from

https://thankyou.com/structure Timmers, P. (1998). Business models for electronic markets. Electronic Markets

8(2), 3-8. Tushman, M., & Romanelli, E. (1985). Organizational evolution: Interactions

between external and emergent processes and strategic choice. Research in Organizational Behavior, 8, 171-222.

UNESCO (2014). Aid reductions threaten education goals. Education for All Global

Monitoring Report. Retrieved September 23, 2017 from http://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0022/002280/228057E.pdf

Vandenberg, R. J. & Stanley, L. J. (2009). Statistical and methodological challenges

for commitment researchers: Issues of invariance, change across time, and profile differences. In H. J. Klein, T. E. Becker, & J. P. Meyer (Eds.), Commitment in organizations: Accumulated wisdom and new direction. Oxford, UK: Routledge.

Vickers, I. & Lyon, F. (2014). Beyond green niches? Growth strategies of

environmentally-motivated social enterprises. International Small Business Journal, 32(4), 449-470.

Voelpel, S. C., Leibold, M., & Tekie, E. B. (2004). The wheel of business model

reinvention: How to reshape your business model to leapfrog competitors. Journal of Change Management, 4(3), 259-276.

Wang, M., & Hanges, P. J. (2011). Latent class procedures: Applications to

organizational research. Organizational Research Methods, 14(1), 24-31. Wasserman, N. (2012). The founder's dilemmas: anticipating and avoiding the

pitfalls that can sink a startup. New Jersey: Princeton University Press. Wasserman, N. (2017). The throne vs. the kingdom: Founder control and value

creation in startups. Strategic Management Journal, 38(2), 255-277. Weber, M. (1978). Economy and society: An outline of interpretive sociology (Vol.

1). Calif: Univ of California Press Weick, K. E. (1995). What theory is not, theorizing is. Administrative Science

Quarterly, 40(3), 385-390. Williamson, O. E. (1973). Markets and hierarchies: Some elementary considerations.

American Economic Review, 63(2), 316-325.

Bibliography 297

Williamson, O. E. (1979). Transaction-cost economics: The governance of contractual relations. The Journal of Law and Economics, 22(2), 233-261.

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(3), 715-737.

Wirtz, B. W., Pistoia, A., Ullrich, S., & Göttel, V. (2016). Business models: Origin,

development and future research perspectives. Long Range Planning, 49(1), 36-54.

Wollin, A. (1999). Punctuated equilibrium: Reconciling theory of revolutionary and

incremental change. Systems Research and Behavioral Science, 16(4), 359. World Bank (2017). Indonesia. Retrieved September 23, 2017 from

http://www.worldbank.org/en/country/indonesia/overview) Wright, B. E., & Pandey, S. K. (2011). Public organizations and mission valence:

When does mission matter? Administration & Society, 43(1), 22-44. Wright, B. E. (2007). Public service and motivation: Does mission matter? Public

Administration Review, 67(1), 54-64. Wry, T., Cobb, J. A., & Aldrich, H. E. (2013). More than a metaphor: Assessing the


Yin, R. K. (2009) Case study research: Design and methods. Thousand Oaks: Sage. Yuchtman, E., & Seashore, S. E. (1967). A system resource approach to

organizational effectiveness. American Sociological Review, 32(6), 891-903. Yunus, M. (2010). Building social business: The new kind of capitalism that serves

humanity's most pressing needs. New York: Public Affairs. Yunus, M. (2007). Creating a world without poverty: Social business and the future

of capitalism. New York: Public Affairs. Yunus, M., Moingeon, B., & Lehmann-Ortega, L. (2010). Building social business

models: Lessons from the Grameen experience. Long Range Planning, 43(2–3), 308-325.

Young, D., & Lecy, J. (2014). Defining the universe of social enterprise. Competing

metaphors. VOLUNTAS: International Journal of Voluntary and Nonprofit Organizations, 25(5), 1307–1332.

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.

298 Bibliography

Zott, C., & Amit, R. (2007). Business model design and the performance of

entrepreneurial firms. Organization Science, 18(2), 181-199. Zott, C., & Amit, R. (2008). The fit between product market strategy and business

model: Implications for firm performance. Strategic Management Journal, 29(1), 1-26.

Zott, C., Amit, R., & Massa, L. (2011). The business model: Recent developments

and future research. Journal of Management, 37(4), 1019-1042.

Appendix A 299

Appendix A An Example of Case Narratives and the Code Book (Paper 2)

This appendix presents an example of the 12 case narratives developed as part of Paper 2’s qualitative analysis procedures. In this appendix, a code-book that was used to define the constructs and to conduct data coding is also presented. This appendix is divided into two parts. The first part consists of an example of a case narrative with efficiency model (Alpha Three). In the second part, a code book is presented. Part One: Case Alpha Three Background of the Organization: the Social Mission and Private Ownership Logic Alpha Three is a social enterprise aiming to provide safe water in peri-urban and rural areas via cheaper and a reliable alternative to boiling or buying water: the water purification system. “With [Alpha Three] filter, you don’t need to boil water. That’s good because people don’t do it correctly. They turn the stove off as soon as the water comes to the boil, then wonder why their children fall sick so often”, according to Indra, [Alpha Three] customer and agent, Duwet village.

Alpha Three sells low-cost water filters; this filter is developed using locally-available transparent plastic containers. Unfiltered/untreated water is poured on a stacked water container; ceramic “filter-candle” filters out pathogen and dirts, as well as chemical contamination (see figure 1). User should pour the water in the evening and it will slowly trickle via the ceramic filter. In the morning, fresh and clean water will be available at the bottom of the plastic containers. Figure 1. Alpha Three Water Filter

Alpha three was established by former development workers in Indonesia who saw problems in the provision of safe water for poor people: “I think this goes back to the founders who were me and my husband. And, we came to Aceh in 2007 to do relief work after the tsunami and then while living there, we found it’s complicated to get drinking water cause we’re from Holland. So, in Holland you’re really spoiled you can get and open the tap everywhere and drink as much as you want. Then you were looking for this device to filter our own water because we have this well water in our garden that has iron content that looks like this tea so you can’t boil it right? You can boil that as long as you want the concentration of dirt will only get higher and it will never get clean, because boiling is only effective to kill the bacteria if you know how to boil the water, sound simple but we found out that actually most people don’t know how long the water should be boiled. So we made this device of existing ceramic filter and then we made the housing and then we use it to ourselves, and 20 neighbours were like,

300 Appendix A

Appendix A - continued An Example of Case Narratives and the Code Book (Paper 2)

‘Hey, that was really interesting. I need it as well.’ And then we were thinking like, ‘Okay, we need this, our friends and neighbours need it.’ 250 million Indonesians, they have no drinking water from the tap. They’re wasting their money, they’re wasting their resources, they’re risking the health of their children”, the co-founder reflecting on the starting up of Alpha Three. “So I opened up a shop, and hired our first staff and then we started selling”, she continued.

Alpha Three’s first sales was to NGOs where they bought the products to freely distribute them to poor beneficiaries. “Like one of the big sales was then two NGOs that were providing our water filters for the earthquake victims in Padang because of 2009. And, we started realize, okay we’re really going to target the really poor people so we used the housing that was really like the cheapest container we could find on the market”, said the co-founder. Alpha Three worked with financial investors and, as a result, they need to distribute profit of the sales back to these investors.

Alpha Three filters have been exported to Pakistan, Mozambique, and Ghana. They have sold 75,000 filters. 140 million litre of safe water supplied each year, and because people shift from kerosene’s stove water boiling, Alpha Three filters save 10,000 tonnes/year of carbon-dioxide.

Autonomy Alpha Three is a “for-profit businesses”, with US$180,000 income from sales in 2015. Alpha Three hired 20 employees and 15% of them is female. Alpha Three has high freedom to acquire and allocate the staff they need. For example, when they needed to increase sales, they hired appropriate staff who were proficient in doing these activities. “As concern sale mandatory, then to make sure [we] hire more staff in sales department or marketing department, that will lead to more sales.”, according to the co-founder. They have the autonomy on the decision to not include their beneficiaries as employees. “We are not like, you see for instance in the Netherland also in Singapore where there are many social enterprises, they hire marginalized people, for instance. Then these marginalized people they do something or make something”, added the co-founder. Social Legitimacy

Alpha Three won several international awards, among other the prestigious 2013 Silicon Valley’s Tech Award (https://www.thetech.org/tech-awards-honors-top-international-innovators) that honors innovators who have improved the lifes of people. Alpha Three won $75,000 prize. This award was received as an acknowledgement of Alpha Three’s effort to help Indonesians to access clean water.

Alpha Three also faced some resistances from the public regarding the idea of social enterprise that sells equipment to poor people and to those in needs. Talking about selling the water filter during earthquake, “we will go bankrupt if we give for free”, according to the co-founder, “that’s something challenging for Indonesia to understand”. Many of them think, “[if you] don’t give them for free, you’re not social”, said the co-founder. In a presentation in Dutch Embassy, “There were many people in the room that were asking like, “why don’t you give them for free” ..”, added the co-founder.

Market Legitimacy In the early days, Alpha Three worked with angel investors, a venture capital from Netherland. This indicates that Alpha Three received market legitimacy. “When we started when we’re engaging with [the investor], ‘okay show me the cash flow, show me the cash flow, show me the cash flow’ … And I think these questions are crucial actually when you’re at the early stage in designing your business because it really helps you to stay in line and at the same time makes sure your businesses they will be sustainable”, according to the co-founder. Private Funding Alpha Three receives mixed private and public funding from sales of the products and government grants. In 2015, “we were breakeven, we started making profit. I think that was important so far”, informed the co-founder. Although Alpha Three offered their products to NGOs and government agencies for disaster relief, for example, they sold the products. These NGOs and government agencies were considered as Alpha Three’s distributors. “We try to reach NGO like if they are like disasters victim earthquake or volcanoes, then we partner with NGOs and NGOs mostly hand it out for free.”, according to the co-founder. When asked whether they are paying for the price of the water filters, the co-founder responded: “they pay”.

Appendix A 301

Appendix A - continued

An Example of Case Narratives and the Code Book (Paper 2) Recently, Alpha Three also received US$100,000 public grant from Global Alliance for Improved Nutrition (GAIN) for safe drinking water program. Alpha Three piloted a micro-entrepreneurship model for the distribution of community water filters. GAIN funds allowed the distributors (women) to receive stock of filters and sell them in instalments. “GAIN did not want program funds to be used to provide free equipment because we know from experience that anything given for free has little or no value to recipients who eventually stop using that item.”, according to GAIN’s country manager. Public Control Alpha Three has moderate public control because in addition to shareholder control they received supervision from GAIN on the grant that they receive. GAIN requires due diligence and subject to close monitoring. In their website, the obligation of grantees is clearly outlined: “Grantees are also contractually bound by control mechanisms such as providing regular program activity and financial reports”.

Yet, on the other hand, Alpha Three also shows evidence of private control. For example, investors always asked how Alpha Three manage their financial arrangement: “the hardest discussion about unit costs and the margin [with investors] … [investor asked:] ‘so how are you going to reduce your operation costs? How are you going to reduce your margin? How are you going to increase your sales?’”, according to the co-founder

Financial Wealth Motivation Alpha Three’s investors expected and was motivated to receive financial return, “No, no, they talked about [financial] return”, according to the co-founder, “ … they’re like if you’re selling that cheap [they can’t get profit], because our first time the product was sold 65,000 rupiah, and we are now selling that similar product to 250,000 so we have to increase it by 100,000 rupiah”, added the co-founder. Value Proposition Alpha Three offers integrated social and business value proposition by selling cheap equipment to produce safe water for poor people in rural and peri-urban area. “We’re really going to target [our products to]… poor people [who need clean water] so we used the housing [of the filter] that was really like the cheapest container we could find on the market [so they can buy it].”, according to the co-founder. These poor people could buy water filter at the price of Rp. 205,000. In contrast, the “competitor” commercial water filter costed around Rp. 700,000 – Rp. 800,000. Not only that, to ensure that poor families could access safe water, the filter could be paid in ten instalments, each costed Rp. 20,500. Most of the customers, especially in the rural areas, were women who were concerned with healt . “It’s almost 75% of the meetings is actually about health and water. Because to build up awareness is very difficult than to some people is really easy but like people who are low educated and don’t understand about health issues, safe drinking was very helpful to educate them about the important of boiling water long enough, hand-washing with soap, using the well that is not close to the toilet, and standards of sanitation issues”, added the co-founder.

The people who buy Alpha Three products are the beneficiaries because they benefit from the product. These poor people will be able to access safe water, without boiling – mostly with kerosene or wood stove – that may have damaging effect to their family’s health. Safe water is important for poor people, especially for their family. Poor children often can’t get access to safe water and are therefore suffering from diarrhoea.

Value Creation and Delivery Alpha Three employed efficient value creation and delivery arrangement by integrating partners, activities, and beneficiaries in efficient configuration to increase sales and magnify impact. First, they developed effective rural sales network, by training local and rural people, i.e. their beneficiaries, as sales persons. Alpha Three included their beneficiaries in their business network. “They’re like mothers who might have another job in a health centre or something and they just want to generate extra fund [for their livelihood]”, according to the co-founder. To help these women beneficiaries to perform, Alpha Three provides sufficient training to these beneficiaries. “Sales training, yeah, how to deal with complicated customers also knowledge training on water and diseases”, continue the co-founder. Those who had the capacity and were willing to invest in product stocks will become “direct

302 Appendix A


resellers” – buy products from Alpha Three, sell them at a profitable price and make about Rp. 500,000 per month.

Second, direct reseller could buy the product from Alpha Three with lower prices and with loan from Alpha Three to increase the stock: “Our resellers they can get loans up to US$ 2,000 to increase their stocks and reduce the shipping costs”, according to the co-founder.

Third, Alpha Three also worked with crowdfunding platform Kiva to get seed funds for these “direct reseller”. Kiva helped Alpha Three direct reseller to get more funding and created more demands for Alpha Three water filters. Funding from Kiva was channeled to direct resellers – after a trial period to assess the eligibility of the direct reseller.

Fourth, Alpha Three worked with NGOs to widen their coverage. NGOs usually distributed the water filter products for free to beneficiaries. For example, in disaster events or in areas where beneficiaries are not able to pay for the products.

Fifth, those who were not interested to become direct reseller can still become “partner reseller”. They earned commissions from each product that they sell.

Figure 2. Kiva profile page

Appendix A 303

Appendix A - continued

An Example of Case Narratives and the Code Book (Paper 2) Figure 3. Value creation and delivery flow. Value Capture

Alpha Three made breakeven in 2015 and started to make profit since then. Alpha Three made this profit from managing efficient revenue and cost arrangement. By integrating value creation and delivery aspects, especially by involving beneficiaries in the process, they increase revenue and reduce distribution costs, as well as achieve their social objectives. For example, having Kiva to support sales help Alpha Three to efficiently generate significant surpluses (due to the scale of the sales via direct reseller). “The good thing is Kiva is interest free, and that’s … this is I’m really happy with Kiva financeship. We really appreciate [it]. Because it’s quite difficult to … yeah it’s not simple to get access to finance here in Indonesia”, according to the co-founder. Alpha Three empowers a network of 122 resellers (with 69 females) and this network covers 70% of Alpha Three’s filter sales. 20% are sold via NGOs and the other 10% is sold directly by Alpha Three.

Alpha Three

Direct Reseller

Customers and/or Beneficiaries

Kiva Crowdfunding Platform

Investors

Distributors (NGOs, etc)

Partner Reseller

Grant Organizations (GAIN)

304 Appendix A


Data Sources

Primary Data • In-depth interview (60 minutes) transcript with co-founder of the Case Alpha Three Social

Enterprise (August 2015)

Secondary Data Company Video Profile

• https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bmItlxbxtM8

Donor’s Document • http://www.gainhealth.org/about/our-policies/#fraud-

Media Coverage • The Tech Awards 2013 Laurate - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4GB9Gdv1Dh0 • http://www.theecologist.org/blogs_and_comments/Blogs/2987757/solving_the_problem_of_s

afer_drinking_water_with_simple_technologies.html • http://www.theepochtimes.com/n3/363789-silicon-valley-tech-award-winner-talks-water-filter-

that-could-help-millions/ • https://www.ashden.org/files/case_studies/Nazava%20-

%20Ashden%202016%20case%20study.pdf • http://www.thejakartapost.com/adv/2016/04/21/helping-villagers-have-access-to-safe-

drinking-water.html • http://www.thejakartapost.com/adv/2016/04/20/good-nutrition-entails-safe-drinking-water.html • https://kopernik.info/sites/default/files/instructions/Nazava%20more%20info_0_0.pdf

Appendix A 305


Part Two: the Code Book for Qualitative Research (Paper 2)

Constructs/Themes Definitions from theory/literature

Qualitative anchors Example quotes

Autonomy “freedom to make own decision about the use and allocation of internal resources (within the boundary of the social venture) without references or regard to the demands or expectation of potential linkage partners”

High: “social venture is enabled to make own decision about the use and allocation of internal resources”

“ … we could manage [the money]…to print [the magazines] out this many…and this [money is also] for staff’s salaries”, N

Moderate: “social venture is rather constrained, e.g., structurally via regulations, but finds way to make own decision about the use and allocation of internal resources”

Evidence of constraint: “[as] yayasan (foundation) [we] cannot take profit …”, A Evidence of allocation of internal resources: “So, if we get project A, we’ve got surplus 100. Out of 100, we take 40 and use it [as salaries] of people who work in this project. The [other] 40, we use it to buy equipment, materials … and [the other] 20 we use it for community development”, A

Low: “social venture is constrained, e.g., structurally via regulations, to make own decision about the use and allocation of internal resources”

“Yeah, it’s … donation … depends on the request [of the donors] … for example, the charity [donation] is for buying books in 4 locations”, N

Social legitimacy “support of stakeholders and partners, including grant organizations, for the activities of focal social ventures”

High: “social venture receives support and no evidence of critique from stakeholders”

“The network [support] is from local to international. This is the MoU made with UC Berkeley for youth participation … then UN Habitat …”, L

Moderate: “social venture receives mixed support and critiques

Evidence of support: “We have more connection with [poor] farmers … they need an

306 Appendix A

and/or resistance from stakeholders”

organization which can promote [campaign] their product … healthy rice … organic rice”, T Evidence of critiques: “Until now, the sources [of the rice] are diverse … because basically we are not [seen as] businessmen or entrepreneurs [by the farmers] … farmers and their mentors often look us down … meanwhile we must be serious because we’re dealing with consumers”, T

Low: “social venture receives critiques and/or resistance and less support from the stakeholders”

“we got mocked .. [they said] ‘Inviting [poor] farmers to the market? Capitalist!’ …”, P2

Market legitimacy

“acceptance of actions of the focal social ventures within the market norms, such as seeking potential profits, etc”

High: “customers, investors, and other market stakeholders show interest (to buy, to invest) in the social ventures because of the profit potentials”

“When we started when we’re engaging with [the investors], “okay show me the cash flow, show me the cash flow, show me the cash flow”, L

Moderate: “less interests from the market stakeholders because social venture shows less or limited capacity to profit ”

“[the business is] not yet [large] … we want to, but we are still [perceived as] an NGO”, T

Low: “there is no interest from market stakeholders due to lack of capacity to profit”

“The market [capacity] is still low … we are about to enter the market … upgrading is not that simple”, L

Social mission “the prioritization of the creation of public and social value over value capture”

Strong Focus on Value Creation: “social venture explicitly prioritizes social/public benefit over profit”

“This is not only care to the environment; but it is a pity if we throw this manure to the river and make the river becomes green-coloured because of this. In 2000, I tried to build biogas [reactor] and trialled with different design”, B

Appendix A 307


“owners have the exclusive right to exclude other people inside and outside the organizations in profit appropriation”

Evidence of profit logic: “social venture shows intention to seek profit”

“We offered a pro-bono to some previous cases requiring supporting counselling. However, we also consider that this can be monetized in the future.”, W

Private funding “private sources of funding, such as sales, etc”

High: “social venture receives a significant amount of revenue from private sources, such as sales, investors, etc”

“[the investor] will provide money for two years … one year for preparing [the social enterprise] … in a second year we will be working on the … programs”, N

Moderate: “social venture received mixed funding from government and from trading sales, or from private sources”

Example 1: Example of private funding from Alpha Three: “we partner with NGOs [that buy our products] and NGOs mostly hand it out for free [to the beneficiaries]”, L Example of government funding from Alpha Three: Alpha Three receives US$ 100,000 from Global Alliance for Improved Nutrition (GAIN) to develop women micro-entrepreneurship program (Ashden, 2017) Example 2: “60% restricted (public) and 40% unrestricted (private)… 40% to buy books … send the books …”, N

Low: “social venture receives a significant amount of revenue from government sources”

“until now [the largest] is … the one with [government]”, L

Public control “political and public as well as stakeholder control, such as terms that are attached within certain government funding, such as oversight”

High: “social venture receives significant control from external organizations”

“we’ve also got a donor who specifically say that he wants to support us to open a library and he will contribute the operational costs … so

308 Appendix A

we have to make a report”, N

Moderate: “social venture shows mixed external monitoring and presence of shareholder control”

Example of external monitoring from Charlie Four: “[The fund] wasn’t supposed to [be used] to buy [rice] since it was [allocated] for planting … later, [Oxfam] had argument with [our staff] … [Oxfam] argued, if we did that, then who’s going to buy this [fertilizer]?”, T Example of presence of shareholder control from Charlie Four: “Of course … we aren’t established yet … what we want is [to gain profit] … from what I said [catering and business]”, I

Low: “social venture receives significant owner/shareholder control”

“ … for decision making, we’re planning to do this [involving stakeholders] … [but] we haven’t done that yet”, P1

Value proposition “what the focal social venture delivers to its customers and beneficiaries, why are they proposing this value”

Integrated: “social venture focuses on offering value proposition that is often integrated with the one that is offered to beneficiaries”

“we’re really going to target … poor people [who need clean water] so we used the housing [of the filter] that was really like the cheapest container we could find on the market [so they can buy it].”, L

Separated: “social venture offers different value propositions to commercial customers and public/social beneficiaries”

Beneficiaries of Beta One: “… started from anti-drugs campaigns [for children in schools] … [to] microfinance programs … for poor housewifes”, V Clients of Beta One: “So, our business model is similar to Timezone … we open [our business units] at … malls … the revenue is [from] doing business as usual”, V

Appendix A 309

Single, Public: “social venture focuses and prioritizes on offering only social/public value proposition”

“Why books and education … why children … because I believe that if we want to change something in the future … then it should start with children … and one of the key factors is education”, N


“how the focal social venture creates and delivers that value to its customers and to its beneficiaries)”

Efficient: “social venture shows evidence of efficient transaction and operational costs in value creation and delivery activity arrangement, for example beneficiaries are involved in the business process”

“We choose journalist [as our beneficiaries]…young journalist … who can cycle at far distance and want to report [as campaigns and marketing materials for promotion]”, N

Novel: “social venture shows new, unprecedented value creation and delivery activity arrangement, for example linking different markets, activities, or products”

“Our micro-finance program is … education-linked microfinance, where children of the mothers who borrows our money have to go to [Beta One] free schools”, V.

Lock-in: “social venture shows value creation and activity arrangements that depend or rely on stakeholders”

“We’ve also got a prominent partner that is change.org. Change.org has been very helpful to us particularly when we wanted to ensure that our survey went viral to support the ratification of the Draft Law on Sexual Violence.”, W

Value capture “how the firm generates revenue and profit”

Efficient: “social venture shows evidence of efficient revenue and cost arrangement that leads to surplus appropriation, e.g., via external subsidy, financing, cost sharing, etc”

“The good thing is Kiva (financing) is interest free, and that’s … this is I’m really happy with Kiva financeship. We really appreciate. Because it’s quite difficult to … yeah it’s not simple to get access to finance here (to increase sales) in Indonesia”, L

Novel: “social venture shows evidence of high cost management due to the need to manage different value propositions”

“Because like I told you before, if I take [profit] from here, I will have less [sewing] machines then. So I think let it just be here now [and don’t

310 Appendix A

have to appropriate profit]”, A

Lock-in: “social venture shows evidence of strong external dependence in revenue and cost arrangement”

“We are not brave enough to flip over the 90% [donor funding] and 10% [private funding] revenue sources … and we wish we could do that”, T

Emerging constructs/themes

Definitions from the Data Qualitative anchors Example quotes


“the motivation of owners (including equity investors) to receive financial return from the social venture”

High: “social venture shows intention of the owners to appropriate profit from the social venture as dividends”

“[we will share dividends] if we have remaining balance”, P3

Low: “intention of the owners (including shareholders or investors) to use the profit for social venture missions”

“That’s okay if it (the business profit) is small but as long as it can support our monthly operational costs”, W

Appendix B 311

Appendix B Data Preparation, Scale Development and Testing (Paper 3)

This appendix describes the data preparation, scale development and testing processes in Paper 3. This appendix consists of three parts. It starts by elaborating the data preparation procedures (part one) and it continues with the scale development processes of the social venture characteristics (content domain and item generation, expert panel test, initial test with social entrepreneurs, EFA, and CFA processes) (part two). This appendix continues with the factor analysis results of the distal outcomes: business model configurations and performance and CFA of all variables involved in the analysis in Paper 3 (part three). The following diagram displays the flow of this appendix.

Part 1 Data Preparation -Missing values -Outliers -Normality Batch 1 and Batch 2 Data

Part 2 Scale Preparation -Item Development -Expert Panel -Test with Social Entrepreneurs

EFA of social mission, private ownership logic, private funding, financial wealth motivation

Batch 1 Data

EFA of social mission, private ownership logic, private funding, financial wealth motivation, public control

Batch 2 Data

CFA of social mission, private ownership logic, private funding, financial wealth motivation, public control

Batch 2 Data

EFA lock-in, novelty, efficiency, social performance, financial performance, and alpha scores and CFA of all variables

Part 3

Batch 2 Data

312 Appendix B

Appendix B - continued Data Preparation, Scale Development and Testing (Paper 3)

Part One: Data Preparation (Batch 1 and Batch 2 Data)

Treatment of Missing Values

Using Little’s MCAR test in SPSS, missing data was identified as both MCAR (random) in some variables and MAR (non-random) in a few variables, with the missing data percentages in the cases or observations being below 5% (ranging from 1% - 4%). Although according to Hair et al. (2010) missing data below 10% can be generally ignored, due to a few non-random missing data, this thesis imputed the missing data. Following Hair et al.’s (2010) suggestion, the thesis used the estimation–maximization (EM) approach for missing data imputation due to its ability in making “the most accurate and reasonable estimate possible” (p. 50).

Outliers

Outliers were identified using the univariate approach in SPSS and by visually inspecting the z score of each item (Hair et al., 2010). Several outliers were detected (above the threshold of 2.5 and in some cases reached 4.5); however, according to Hair et al. (2010) this range (between 2.5 and 4) is acceptable for a sample size above 80 respondents. After visually inspecting the outlier cases, and following advice from Hair et al. (2010), we retained these cases to ensure generalizability.

Normality Assessments

The results of the Komolgorov-Smirnov and Shapiro-Wilks tests were significant and, therefore, the data in our sample was non-normally distributed (Hair et al. 2010); this is common in social research. To assess the eligibility in conducting multivariate analyses, kurtosis and skewness were used to evaluate the severity of non-normality of the data. Following Kline (2016), the interpretation of kurtosis and skewness in this thesis used the absolute value (or statistics value in SPSS), instead of the z test suggestion in Hair et al. (2010).

“The ratio of either [skew index] or [kurtosis index] over its standard error is interpreted in large samples as a z test of the null hypothesis that there is no population skew or kurtosis. These tests may not be helpful in large samples because even slight departures from normality could be statistically significant, and low power in small samples means that appreciable skew or kurtosis can go undetected. Significance testing with [skew index] or [kurtosis index] is not generally helpful in data screening. An alternative is to interpret absolute values of [skew index] or [kurtosis index].” (Klein 2016, p. 76)

Kline (2016) further continued to offer the “rule of thumb” cut-off based on computation of simulation studies where skew index was below 3.0 and kurtosis index was below 10.0 is considered acceptable and data can be assumed to be normally distributed. Using Kline’s (2016) rule as a guideline, all data in this thesis was within the acceptable cut-off: all kurtosis indices were < 10 (ranging from .004 to 8.2) and all skewness indices were < 3 (ranging from .233 to 2). Thus, the non-normality of the data in the sample was not severe and it did not violate the normality requirement for conducting multivariate analysis

Part Two: Scale Development of Social Venture Characteristics (Batch 1 and Batch 2 Data) Content Domain and Item Generation To operationalize the characteristics of the social ventures, items were generated using the deductive approach (Burisch, 1984; Hinkin, 1995). The theoretical (Paper 1) and qualitative (Paper 2) studies were used as the guide to determine the content domain in developing the items for the scale. The specific content domain of interest helped to define the constructs and what should be included and excluded in the items to ensure content validity. Since the measures were to be used to collect data in Indonesia, the Paper 3 developed the initial items in Bahasa Indonesia. The social mission characteristic was defined as “the prioritization of the creation of public and social value over value capture” (Paper 1, Paper 2), and Paper 3 developed 12 initial items that measured whether social ventures prioritized the social mission over the business mission.

Appendix B 313

Appendix B - continued

Data Preparation, Scale Development and Testing (Paper 3) The private ownership logic characteristic was defined as the fact that “owners have the exclusive right to exclude other people inside and outside the organizations in profit appropriation” (Paper 1, Paper 2), and 12 initial items were developed to measure whether the social venture allowed profit distribution. In the literature, profit distribution is seen as a reflection of the logic of private organizations. While the private funding characteristic was defined as “private sources of funding, such as sales, etc.” (Paper 1, Paper 2), due to limited availability of “hard data” in most social ventures, Paper 3 used a social venture’s capability in managing surplus they generated as a proxy for this particular characteristic. Private organizations, according to publicness theory, receive a majority of their revenue in the form of private funding. This allows them to have a high surplus management capability because the nature of private funding is non-restrictive. This is different from public funding where the nature of the funding is restrictive to surplus management. In organizations with high public funding, such as public organizations, surpluses are prohibited due to the fact that public funding is usually tax-payers’ money and organizations are not allowed to trade or distribute surpluses generated from taxpayers funds (Ferris, 1993). Thus, the degree of surplus management capability corresponds to the degree of private funding in social ventures. The higher the surplus management capability indicates the higher the proportion of private funding of a social venture. Twelve initial items were developed to measure surplus management capability as a proxy for private funding in social ventures. Financial wealth motivation was defined as “the motivation of owners (including equity investors) to receive financial return from the social ventures” (Paper 2). Twelve initial items were developed to measure the social venture owners’ financial motivation. The public control characteristic was defined as “political control or terms that are attached within certain government funding, such as public oversight and accountability, etc.” (Paper 1, Paper 2). However, since Paper 3 aimed to develop a self-report measure of public control, a scale measuring the social entrepreneur’s perceived dependence on external parties, such as NGOs, Government, Suppliers, and Beneficiaries was developed as a proxy. This perceived dependence reflected the degree of external control. The more dependent, the more control an external organization had over the social venture. Four items to measure the dependence of social venture on NGOs, government, suppliers, and beneficiaries were the proxies to measure public control characteristics. Expert Panel Scale development literature suggests that items developed by researchers should undergo expert panel verification (DeVillis, 1995). Four characteristics (social mission, private ownership logic, private funding, and financial wealth motivation) were verified for content validity with business management experts in Indonesia. Ten business management experts in Indonesia were invited to rate the content validity of the items. The experts were asked to give a score of 1 if they did not think the items showed content validity, and to give a score of 3 if they thought the items displayed content validity. They were asked to score 2 if they felt that the items showed moderate content validity. Nine business management experts responded and returned the survey. Following Polit and Beck (2006), a composite score (CVI index) was created for each item; the index was then ranked. After face and content validity inspection, items with the six lowest CVI indices in each characteristic were excluded; and a semi-final survey that consisted of six items for each characteristic was established.

314 Appendix B


Data Preparation, Scale Development and Testing (Paper 3) Initial Test with Social Entrepreneurs To further ensure the content validity of the developed scale, much scale development research suggests testing the survey questions developed by the researchers using a small sample target audience (or practitioners). The semi-final survey questions were tested on 20 social entrepreneurs in Indonesia via a web-survey. The social entrepreneurs were also asked to provide feedback in a column at the end of the web-survey. They provided substantial feedback in relation to the clarity of the questions and to the confusing items. Based on their feedback, it was decided to eliminate the questions that were not clear. A scale of 6 items for each characteristic was generated, except for social mission (3 items). At the end, a 4-construct, 21-item scale was established (see Table A). Initial Exploratory Factor Analysis (EFA) of the 4 constructs, 21 items scale (Batch 1) Factor analysis was conducted using the first batch of the data. The sample size of batch 1 (N = 102) met the minimum requirement of a 1:5 ratio between items and observations (Hair et al., 2010). The Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin (KMO) sampling adequacy test resulted in a score of .841, which exceeded the cut-off of .5 (Kaiser, 1970). Furthermore, as required, Bartlett’s test of sphericity was significant in our factor analysis (chi-square 1425.024, df = 210; p < .001) (Bartlett, 1950). The principal axis factoring extraction method was used to conduct the EFA. Much literature indicates that principal axis factoring method is suitable for developing scales from scratch, especially because this method is useful in identifying latent dimensions in the new scales (Hair et al. 2010; Worthington & Whittaker, 2006), although a number of studies argue that both the principal axis factoring method and principal component analysis techniques yield similar results (Sieger et al., 2016; Velicer & Jackson, 1990). As a robustness check, both extraction methods were conducted and are reported in Table B. They yielded similar results from the data. Furthermore, the oblique rotation method was used as the items were assumed to be correlated (Gorsuch, 1983; Hair et al., 2010). The analysis resulted in four strong components with eigenvalues of 7.66 (36.48%), 3.049 (14.52%), 1.95 (9.32%), and 1.62 (7.75%). The total explained variance was 68.07%, which was above the cut-off of 60% (Hinkin, 2005). The pattern matrix showed four items that cross-loaded, and after inspection of ethface and content validity of the items, three items were excluded (WEALTH_2, 3 and PRIVATE_4) and one item was retained (WEALTH_1) for the final survey questions in the second batch. Face and content validity were important to ensure construct validity in this case (Hair et al., 2010). This resulted in a survey of the four characteristics that consisted of 18 items.

Appendix B 315


Data Preparation, Scale Development and Testing (Paper 3) Table A The Initial Survey Questions of 4 Constructs and 21 Items Scale

Constructs/Items Survey questions

Social mission

SOCMIS_1 To solve social and community problems are most important aspect of your social enterprise

SOCMIS_2 You prioritise aspects that benefit the society when doing organizational planning SOCMIS_3 You prioritise social mission when developing organizational strategy Private ownership Logic

PROF_1 Your social enterprise is not prohibited to distribute profit to owners PROF_2 You believe that profit distribution from your social enterprise to owners is all right PROF_3 Owners can profit from your social enterprise PROF_4 Owners can receive financial benefit from your social enterprise PROF_5 Your social enterprise can distribute financial profit to owners PROF_6 Social enterprise is not restricted to distribute financial return to owners Financial wealth Motivation

WEALTH_1 Your social enterprise has high social value, but owners also need to gain financial return

WEALTH_4 Offering financial profit to owners are moral responsibility of your social enterprise WEALTH_5 Owners establish social enterprise because they want to gain financial return WEALTH_6 A good social venture is the one that provides financial return to owners Private funding

PRIVATE_1 Your social enterprise has high freedom in surplus management PRIVATE_2 Your social enterprise has high flexibility in managing generated surplus PRIVATE_3 The use of surplus is not restricted in your social enterprise PRIVATE_5 Your social enterprise are free to use financial surplus PRIVATE_6 Your social enterprise are very free to utilize generated financial surplus

316 Appendix B

Table B Batch 1 - Comparing the Result of Initial Factor Analysis of Social Venture Scales (PCA and PAF with Oblique Rotation) (Item Scores < .3 are Suppressed)

Pattern matrix Pattern matrix

Component

Factor

1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 SOCMIS_1 .781 SOCMIS_1 .661 SOCMIS_2 .774 SOCMIS_2 .668 SOCMIS_3 .814 SOCMIS_3 .700 PROF_1 .827 PROF_1 .783 PROF_2 .887 PROF_2 .855 PROF_3 .735 PROF_3 .677 PROF_4 .871 PROF_4 .850 PROF_5 .868 PROF_5 .847 PROF_6 .886 PROF_6 .861 WEALTH_1 .405 .571 WEALTH_1 .332 .580 WEALTH_2 .610 .399 WEALTH_2 .532 .439 WEALTH_3 .511 .493 WEALTH_3 .431 .526 WEALTH_4 .656 WEALTH_4 .589 WEALTH_6 .770 WEALTH_6 .749 WEALTH_5 .760 WEALTH_5 .698 PRIVATE_1 .639 .356 PRIVATE_1 .577 PRIVATE_2 .781 PRIVATE_2 .750 PRIVATE_3 .805 PRIVATE_3 .776 PRIVATE_4 .541 .608 PRIVATE_4 .491 .560 PRIVATE_5 .343 .699 -.344 PRIVATE_5 .604 PRIVATE_6 .658 PRIVATE_6 .550 Note. Extraction method: principal component analysis; Rotation method: Oblimin with Kaiser normalization..

Extraction method: principal axis factoring; Rotation method: Oblimin with Kaiser normalization.

Appendix B 317


Exploratory Factor Analysis (EFA) of the 5 constructs, 25 items scale (Batch 2) Based on the results of the initial EFA using data from the first batch, an improved survey was developed. In the second batch, the measure of public control as a characteristic of social venture was also included. In this batch 6 items of public control were added to the 18 items that resulted from the initial factor analysis. In total, there were 25 items in the second batch survey. After the second batch data was collected, a factor analysis of all five characteristics of social ventures (social mission, private ownership logic, private funding, financial wealth motivation, and public control) was conducted. The factor analysis resulted in a good KMO test (.841), and also showed significance in Bartlett’s Test (Chi-Square = 3034.299, df = 300; p < .001). Seven components with eigenvalues of 6.74 (26.94%), 3.58 (14.33%), 1.97 (7.86%), 1.74 (6.96%), 1.47 (5.89%), 1.22 (4.86%), and 1.2 (4.69%), with the total variance of 71.54% (see Table C). Inspection of the pattern matrix showed cross-loading items and, therefore, after inspection of face and content validity of the cross-loading items, WEALTH_1, BUSCON_3, PUBCON_2 were decided to be dropped. Another factor analysis without these items was then conducted. Another cross-loading item was found, BUSCON_2, and this item was dropped. Following this decision, a scale of 6 constructs and 21 items was established. Table C Rotated Pattern Matrix of the Initial 5-Construct Social Venture Scale (Batch 2) (Item Scores < .3 are Suppressed)

Pattern Matrix

Factor

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 SOCMIS_1 -.580 SOCMIS_2 -.700

SOCMIS_3 -.676

PROF_1 .845

PROF_2 .944

PROF_3 .867

PROF_4 .907

PROF_5 .920 PROF_6 .882

WEALTH_1 .320 -.525

WEALTH_4 -.536

WEALTH_6 -.790

WEALTH_5 -.801 PRIVATE_1 .860

PRIVATE_2 .810

PRIVATE_3 .915

PRIVATE_5 .678

PRIVATE_6 .742

BUSCON_1 .468 BUSCON_2 .436 BUSCON_3 -.305 .364 PUBCON_1 .598

PUBCON_2 .349 -.428

PUBCON_3 -.752

PUBCON_4 .562

Note. Extraction method: principal axis factoring; rotation method: Oblimin with Kaiser normalization.

318 Appendix B


Data Preparation, Scale Development and Testing (Paper 3) Final Exploratory Factor Analysis (EFA) of the 6 constructs, 21 items scale (Batch 2) A final exploratory factor analysis of the 6 constructs and 21 items using the principal component analysis (PCA) method was conducted since in this stage data, reduction was the concern of the analysis to achieve a stable factor structure (Hair et al., 2010). KMO test indicated a good sample (.841) and Bartlett’s test was significant (Chi-Square = 2749.781, df = 210; p < 0.001). Inspection of the communalities showed that all of the items scored above .5, thus showing common variance among the items. Analysis showed six factors/components with eigenvalues of 6.27 (29.83%), 3.52 (16.75%), 1.81 (8.63%), 1.39 (6.61%), 1.32 (6.27%), and 1.07 (5.08%). This added up to 73.16% of the variance explained, which was above the required cut-off of 60% (Hinkin, 2005). All factor loadings were above .550 and, therefore, in a sample of 205 (Batch 2), it was statistically significant as, according to Hair et a.l (2010), a minimum sample of 100 and a factor loading above .550 is required to ensure statistical significance of the factor loading. As indicated in Table D, all six constructs in the final EFA were Social Mission (SOCMIS_1 to SOCMIS_3), Private Ownership Logic (PROF_1 to PROF_6), Financial Wealth Motivation (WEALTH_4 to WEALTH_6), Private Funding (PRIVATE_1 to PRIVATE 3 and PRIVATE_5 to PRIVATE_6), Public Organization Control (Government and NGOs) (PUBCON_1 and PUBCON_4), and Business Supplier Control (Beneficiaries and Business Suppliers) (BUSCON_1 and PUBCON_3). Table D Final Pattern Matrix of the 6-Construct And 21 Items of Social Venture Scale (Batch 2 Result) (Item Scores < .3 are Suppressed)

Pattern Matrix

Component

1 2 3 4 5 6 SOCMIS_1 .753

SOCMIS_2 .789

SOCMIS_3 .794

PROF_1 .875

PROF_2 .947

PROF_3 .881

PROF_4 .916

PROF_5 .937

PROF_6 .911

WEALTH_4 -.603

WEALTH_6 -.810

WEALTH_5 -.885

PRIVATE_1 .879

PRIVATE_2 .847

PRIVATE_3 .912

PRIVATE_5 .756

PRIVATE_6 .816

BUSCON_1 .803 PUBCON_1 .795 PUBCON_3 .649 PUBCON_4 .826

Note. Extraction method: principal component analysis; Rotation method: Oblimin with Kaiser normalization.

Appendix B 319


Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA) of Social Venture Characteristics A confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) using AMOS version 23 was conducted to further assess the factor structure of the 6-construct, 21-item scale. CFA is another way of assessing whether items represent a number of constructs (i.e., a measurement theory) (Hair et al., 2010). CFA also helps to produce a robust factor structure because it allows researchers to compare a model of measurement theory with alternative factor structures (Kline, 2016). CFA uses the normed fit index (NFI), the comparative fit index (CFI), the incremental fit index (IFI), the Tucker-Lewis fit index (TLI), the standardized root mean square residual (SRMR), and the root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA) as fit indicators in testing the models (Hu & Bentler, 1999). CFI and IFI indices are suitable for smaller samples (Fan et al., 1999). Two models were analysed: (a) the first was the model of 6-construct, 21-items scale generated from the EFA; (b) the second was an alternative model where all 21 items loaded onto a single factor. The first model (M1) was significant and all model fit indicators showed good fit after modifying the indices between e4 and e5. Items loaded onto factors with above .4 score cut-off (Hinkin, 1995) with the exception of PUBCON_3 which had a very low loading score (. 22) on the Business Supplier Control latent construct. The Business Supplier Control was then dropped from the M1 model. Another model was then developed (M1a) without the Business Supplier Control construct. This model was significant, with all model fit indicators showing good fit and retaining the modification indices between e4 and e5. All items loaded onto factors with an above .4 score cut-off (between .57 to .94) and were significant (p < 0.001). Each construct had a minimum of three items, as suggested by Hair et al. (2010), with the exception of the Public Control construct that only had 2 items. Kline (2016), however, indicated that two items are still acceptable and can be used as a minimum number of items for latent analysis. This resulted in the final 5 factor scales with 19 items. The second model (M2) was an alternative model where all items loaded onto a single factor. Model fit indicators showed that the second model did not achieve a fit. The final factors were checked for consistency with Cronbach’s alpha for Social Mission (α = .682), Private Ownership Logic (α = .963), Private Funding (α = .905), Public Control (α = .517), and Financial Wealth Motivation (α = .788). Social mission and public control had low reliability as the cut-off for Cronbach’s alpha is .7; however, Nunnally (1967) described that an alpha of .05 - .06 is still acceptable for “first time” or preliminary studies. Table E displays the CFA fit indice results of the final 5 factor scales with 19 items (M1a) and the alternative model (M2) Table E CFA Model Specifications and Fit Indices of the Final Social Venture Characteristics Model

Fit Indices M1a (5 factor, 19 items) M2 (Single factor)

NFI

.909

.555

CFI .947 .583

IFI .957 .586

TLI .956 .531

SRMR .050 .179

RMSEA .063 .189

Chi-Square 257.64 1255.108

df 142 152

p value .000 .000

320 Appendix B


Convergent validity

Further inspection of the convergent validity was conducted to ensure construct validity (Hair et al., 2010). Inspection of the CFA analysis (Bagozzi et al., 1991) showed convergent validity was evident when the theorized items loaded on the factors (Chandler et al., 2011). This was strongly evident in the CFA analysis where factor loadings of all items were significant atby< 0.001. However, as suggested in Hair et al. (2010), the AVE (average variance extracted) score was further calculated to check convergent validity. Score ranges between .351 and .806 emerged from the AVE analysis. Two constructs, public control (AVE = .351) and social mission (AVE = .427), had AVE scores below the required cut off of .5 (Fornell & Larcker, 1981). This implied that more items were required to measure public control and social mission. However, since this was a first study testing social venture forms, business models, and performance, these constructs were kept. Two further reasons justified this decision. First, inspection of the fit indices of the CFA model that included these low AVE and CR variables (M1a) showed good fit, indicating that overall, the structure of the items and constructs was good. Second, further inspection of discriminant validity (next part) showed that all constructs differed from one another, suggesting that these constructs measured different things. Thus, despite the low AVE and CR, these constructs – social mission and public control – were retained (see Table F). Table F AVE and CR scores from CFA

Social venture characteristics Construct reliability

(CR)

Average variance

extracted (AVE) Social mission .689 .427 Private ownership logic .961 .806 Financial wealth motivation .790 .558 Private funding .908 .668 Public control .519 .351

Discriminant validity

The CFA result can be used to assess discriminant validity (Bagozzi et al., 1991; John & Benet-Martinez, 2000). The results of the CFA analysis showed that M1a (5-factor model) was superior to the one-factor model (M2); this suggested that the constructs were different from each other. A more conservative way to assess discriminant validity is by calculating the square root of AVE and comparing the score with the correlation of the focal variable with others (Fornell & Larcker, 1981; Hair et al., 2010). Table G shows that the square roots of AVE of the variables were larger than any correlation between the focal variables with other variables; therefore, the discriminant validity among the social venture characteristics was established. Table H shows the final 5 constructs and 19 items.

Appendix B 321


Table G Factor Correlation Matrix and Square Root of AVE on the Diagonal

Social mission



Private funding

Public control

Social mission .653 Private ownership logic -.133 .898

Financial wealth motivation .072 .537 .747 Private funding .137 .192 .423 .817

Public control .061 -.109 -.013 .128 .592 Table H Final 5 Constructs and 19 Items Scale for Social Venture Characteristics


Social mission

SOCMIS_1 To solve social and community problems are most important aspect of your social enterprise

SOCMIS_2 You prioritise aspects that benefit the society when doing organizational planning SOCMIS_3 You prioritise social mission when developing organizational strategy Private ownership Logic

PROF_1 Your social enterprise are not prohibited to distribute profit to owners PROF_2 You believe that profit distribution from your social enterprise to owners is all right PROF_3 Owners can profit from your social enterprise PROF_4 Owners can receive financial benefit from your social enterprise PROF_5 Your social enterprise can distribute financial profit to owners PROF_6 Social enterprise is not restricted to distribute financial return to owners Financial wealth Motivation

WEALTH_4 Offering financial profit to owners are moral responsibility of your social enterprise WEALTH_5 Owners establish social enterprise because they want to gain financial return WEALTH_6 A good social venture is the one that provides financial return to owners Private funding

PRIVATE_1 Your social enterprise has high freedom in surplus management PRIVATE_2 Your social enterprise has high flexibility in managing generated surplus PRIVATE_3 The use of surplus is not restricted in your social enterprise PRIVATE_5 Your social enterprise are free to use financial surplus PRIVATE_6 Your social enterprise are very free to utilize generated financial surplus Public control “Provide answers related to the degree of dependency of your social enterprises with

the following organizations/institutions”

PUBCON_1 Non-profit organizations PUBCON_4 Government institutions

322 Appendix B


Part Three: EFA of Business Model Configurations and Performance Variables and CFA of all variables (Batch 2 Data) EFA of Business Model Configurations (Efficiency, Novelty, and Lock-in) Following the factor analyses of the social venture characteristics, this appendix continues to report the factor analysis of business model configurations and performance variables (see Tables I and J). Business configuration items were adapted from Amit and Zott (2001) and Zott and Amit (2007). Five items for efficiency and novelty business models were developed. Six items for lock-in business models were also developed. An initial exploratory factor analysis (EFA) was conducted to analyse the factor structure of the business model configurations. Cross-loading was found and after inspecting the face value of the items, they were dropped from the item pool. The final factor analysis showed a relatively good factor structure of business model configurations. KMO test indicated a good sample (.812) and Bartlett’s test was significant (Chi-Square = 1001.520, df = 91; p < 0.001). Analysis showed three factors/components with eigenvalues of 4.07 (29.08%), 2.35 (16.81%), and 1.75 (12.50%). This added up to 58.39% of the variance explained, close to the required cut-off of 60% (Hinkin, 2005). All items loaded onto factors above .550, implying statistical significance for the data set with a sample of 205 respondents. EFA of Social and Financial Performance Factor analysis of the performance variables was also conducted (see Tables K and L). Social and financial performance items were adapted from Liu et al. (2015). Six items of social performance and six items of financial performance of social ventures were developed based on previous literature. An initial EFA was conducted to analyse the factor structure of social and financial performance. Cross-loading items were also found, and a three-factor solution was indicated instead of two factors. After inspecting the survey questions for face and content validity, the third emerging factor was named “business customer satisfaction” because the survey asked about customer satisfaction (FINPER_3; FINPER_5; FINPER_6). After dropping the cross -oading items, a final EFA was conducted. The KMO test indicated a good sample (.792); and it was above the .7 cut-off. Bartlett’s test was significant (Chi-Square = 841.422, df = 55; p < 0.001). Analysis showed three factors/components with eigenvalues of 4.29 (39.02%), 1.38 (12.57%), and 1.32 (12.03%). This added up to 63.62% of the variance explained, above the required cut-off of 60% (Hinkin, 2005). All items loaded above .400, and this was statistically significant, as Hair et al. (2010) indicated that for a sample above 200 respondents the items needed to load above .400.

Appendix B 323


Table I Rotated Pattern Matrix for the Final Business Model Configuration Items

Pattern matrix

Component

1 2 3 EFFICIENCY_1 .781 EFFICIENCY_4 .799 EFFICIENCY_5 .843 NOVELTY_1 .568 NOVELTY_2 .887 NOVELTY_3 .838 NOVELTY_4 .584 NOVELTY_5 .868 LOCKIN_1 .675 LOCKIN_2 .769 LOCKIN_3 .789 LOCKIN_4 .650 LOCKIN_5 .555 LOCKIN_6 .742

Note. Extraction method: principal component analysis; Rotation method: Oblimin with Kaiser normalization.

Table J Final 3 Constructs and 14 Items Scale of Business Model Configurations


Efficiency

EFFICIENCY_1 The operational aspect of your social enterprise is rather efficient EFFICIENCY_4 Activities of your social enterprise are efficient EFFICINECY_5 Overall, the business model of your social enterprise operates efficiently Novelty

NOVELTY_1 Your social enterprise applies innovation to achieve the objectives NOVELTY_2 There are unique ways in running your business NOVELTY_3 There are aspects of your social enterprise’s business model that can be considered

unique NOVELTY_4 The business model of your social enterprise involve unique partners NOVELTY_5 Overall, the business model of your social enterprise is novel Lock-in

LOCKIN_1 Accountability of your social enterprise is very important LOCKIN_2 Trust of the stakeholders is very important LOCKIN_3 The reputation of your social enterprise is very important LOCKIN_4 The loyalty of the stakeholders to your social enterprise needs to be properly

maintained LOCKIN_5 Your social enterprise does extensive consultation with stakeholders (for example,

donor organizations) LOCKIN_6 Overall, the business model of your social enterprise maintains the loyalty of the

stakeholders

324 Appendix B


Table K Rotated Pattern Matrix for the Social and Financial Performance Items

Pattern Matrix

Component 1 2 3

SOCPER_1 .695 SOCPER_2 .525 SOCPER_3 .799 SOCPER_4 .775 SOCPER_5 .884 SOCPER_6 .595 FINPER_2 -.889 FINPER_3 .842 FINPER_4 -.874 FINPER_5 .810 FINPER_6 .721 Note. Extraction method: principal component analysis; Rotation method: Oblimin with Kaiser normalization.

Table L Final 3 Constructs and 11 Items Scale of Social Performance, Financial Performance, and Business Customer Satisfaction Constructs/Items Survey questions

Social performance

“In the last 12 months …..”

SOCPER_1 Your social enterprise serves more beneficiaries SOCPER_2 Your social enterprise offers more services for the beneficiaries SOCPER_3 Your social enterprise offers services to more new locations SOCPER_4 The total number of beneficiaries that your social enterprise caters increases SOCPER_5 The location of your social enterprise beneficiaries increases SOCPER_6 Types of services that social enterprise offer increases Financial performance

“In the last 12 months …”

FINPER_2 Your social enterprise meets financial targets FINPER_4 Financial target is achieved Business customer satisfaction

“In the last 12 months …”

FINPER_3 Business customers are satisfied FINPER_5 Customer satisfaction is high FINPER_6 Business customers feel they buy valuable products and services

Appendix B 325


Data Preparation, Scale Development and Testing (Paper 3) Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA) of all Variables Confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) of all variables (social mission, private ownership logic, private funding, financial wealth motivation, public control, efficiency business model, lock-in business model, novelty business model, social performance, and financial performance) was conducted to ensure the factor structure of all variables involved in the latent class analysis (LCA). Business customer satisfaction was not included in the analysis because it was not used in the LCA. This model was significant, with all model fit indicators showing good fit and retaining the modification indices between e4 and e5 and between e37 and e39. All modifications were conducted within a construct and, therefore, were justified. All items loaded onto factors with an above .4 score cut-off (between .48 to .94) and were significant (p < 0.001). Table M highlights the fit indices of all variable model. Table M Fit Indices of All Variable Model

Fit Indices All variable model (social venture characteristics, business model configurations, social and financial performance)

NFI

.804

CFI .935

IFI .936

TLI .927

SRMR .055

RMSEA .044

Chi-Square 1018.180

df 733

p value .000

Convergent Validity of all Variables Inspection of the CFA analysis (Bagozzi et al., 1991) showed convergent validity was evident when the theorized items loaded to the factors (Chandler et al., 2011) and this was evident where factor loadings of all items were significant at p < 0.001. AVE scores were also calculated to check convergent validity. A few constructs had AVE scores below the cut-off of .5. However, the variables were kept and were not dropped. Two reasons justified this. First, fit indices showed good fit, indicating that overall, the structure of the items and constructs were good. Second, further inspection of discriminant validity (next part) showed that all constructs significantly differed from one another (see Table N).

326 Appendix B


Table N CR and AVE of All Variables

Variables Construct reliability (CR) Average variance extracted

(AVE)

Private ownership logic .961 .806

Social mission .690 .427 Financial wealth motivation .791 .559

Private funding .908 .668

Public control .518 .350 Efficiency business model .773 .534

Novelty business model .837 .519

Lock-in Business Model .801 .406 Financial performance .822 .699

Social performance .820 .443 Discriminant Validity of all Variables To assess discriminant validity, the square root of AVE scores were calculated and compared with the correlation of the focal variables (Fornell & Larcker, 1981; Hair et al., 2010). Table O shows that the square roots of AVE of all variables are larger than any correlation between the focal variables with the other variables and, therefore, the discriminant validity among the variable involved in the analysis was establishe

Appendix B 327

Table O Factor Correlation Matrix and The Square Root of the AVE Scores In Diagonal


Social mission


Private funding

Public control Efficiency Novelty

Lock-in

Financial performance

Social performance

Private ownership

logic .898

Social mission -.137 .653

Financial

wealth motivation .532 .065 .748

Private funding .192 .138 .423 .817

Public

control -.108 .064 -.011 .128 .592

Efficiency .059 .239 .008 .219 -.022 .731

Novelty .139 .249 .111 .083 -.037 .347 .720

Lock-in .007 .271 .248 .036 .035 .194 .274 .637

Financial performance -.024 .288 .145 .040 .028 .344 .057 .156 .836

Social

performance -.087 .414 .063 .001 .065 .285 .137 .326 .440 .665

328 Appendix B


References Amit, R., & Zott, C. (2001). Value creation in e-business. Strategic Management

Journal, 22(6-7), 493-520. Bagozzi, R. P., Yi, Y., & Phillips, L. W. (1991). Assessing construct validity in organizational

research. Administrative Science Quarterly, 421-458. Bartlett, M. S. (1950). Tests of significance in factor analysis. British Journal of Mathematical

and Statistical Psychology, 3(2), 77-85. Burisch, M. (1984). Approaches to personality inventory construction: A comparison of

merits. American Psychologist, 39(3), 214. Chandler, G. N., DeTienne, D. R., McKelvie, A., & Mumford, T. V. (2011). Causation and

effectuation processes: A validation study. Journal of Business Venturing, 26(3), 375-390.

DeVellis, R. F. (1995). Scale development: Theory and applications. Sage publications. Fan, X., Thompson, B., & Wang, L. (1999). Effects of sample size, estimation methods, and

model specification on structural equation modeling fit indexes. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 6(1), 56-83.

Ferris, J. M. (1993). The double-edged sword of social service contracting: Public accountability versus nonprofit autonomy. Nonprofit Management and Leadership, 3(4), 363-376.

Fornell, C., & Larcker, D. F. (1981). Structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error: Algebra and statistics. Journal of Marketing Research, 382-388.

Gorsuch, R. L. (1983). Factor analysis. (2nd ed.). Hillsdale, NJ:Erlbaum. Hair, J. F., Black, W. C., Babin, B. J., & Anderson, R. E. (2010). Multivariate data analysis

(7th ed.), Pearson. Hinkin, T. R. (1995). A review of scale development practices in the study of

organizations. Journal of Management, 21(5), 967-988. Hinkin, T. R. (2005). Scale development principles and practices. In R. A. Swanson, & E. F.

Holton, (Eds)., Research in organizations: Foundations and methods of inquiry (pp. 161-179). San Fransisco: Berret-Koehler Publishers, Inc.

Hu, L. T., & Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 6(1), 1-55.

John, O. P., & Benet-Martínez, V. (2000). Measurement: Reliability, construct validation, and scale construction. In H.T. Reis & C.M. Judd (Eds.), Handbook of research methods in social and personality psychology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Kline, R. B. (2015). Principles and practice of structural equation modeling. Guilford publications.

Liu, G., Eng, T. Y., & Takeda, S. (2015). An investigation of marketing capabilities and social enterprise performance in the UK and Japan. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 39(2), 267-298.

Nunnally, J. C. (1967). McGraw-Hill series in psychology. Psychometric theory. New York: McGraw-Hill.

Polit, D. F., & Beck, C. T. (2006). The content validity index: Are you sure you know what's being reported? Critique and recommendations. Research in Nursing & Health, 29(5), 489-497.

Sieger, P., Gruber, M., Fauchart, E., & Zellweger, T. (2016). Measuring the social identity of entrepreneurs: Scale development and international validation. Journal of Business Venturing, 31(5), 542-572.

Velicer, W. F., & Jackson, D. N. (1990). Component analysis versus common factor analysis: Some issues in selecting an appropriate procedure. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 25(1), 1-28.

Appendix B 329


Worthington, R. L., & Whittaker, T. A. (2006). Scale development research: A content

analysis and recommendations for best practices. The Counseling Psychologist, 34(6), 806-838.

Zott, C., & Amit, R. (2007). Business model design and the performance of entrepreneurial firms. Organization Science, 18(2), 181-199.

Survey Questions (Batch 1 and 2)

Telephone Survey Questions AND SPSS Codes

A. General Information

1. How many employees? (EMP) 2. a. What is your monthly revenue? (MONREV)

b. What is the proportion of your business/market-based revenue? *) (MONREV – BUSPROP)

3. a. What is the size of your beneficiaries in the last year? (BENEF) b. Are there any of these beneficiaries involved in social enterprise’s business process (as employees or as customers)? *) (BENEF – BUS)

4. What is the age of your social enterprise (in months)? (AGE) 5. What is the legal status of your social enterprise (LEGAL)

B. Characteristics of Social Enterprise – Likert Scale: 1 (Strongly Disagree) – 6

(Strongly Agree)

Social Mission

6. Provide answers based on the mission of your social enterprise a. To solve social and community problems are most important aspect of your

social enterprise (SOCMIS_1) b. You prioritise aspects that benefit the society when doing organizational

planning (SOCMIS_2) c. You prioritise social mission when developing organizational strategy

(SOCMIS_3)

Private Ownership Logic

7. Provide answers based on your social enterprise’s capacity to distribute profit to owners.

Owners, in this case, are founder, co-founder, or equity investors. a. Your social enterprise are not prohibited to distribute profit to owners (PROF_1) b. You believe that profit distribution from your social enterprise to owners is all

right (PROF_2) c. Owners can profit from your social enterprise (PROF_3) d. Owners can receive financial benefit from your social enterprise (PROF_4) e. Your social enterprise can distribute financial profit to owners (PROF_5) f. Social enterprise is not restricted to distribute financial return to owners

(PROF_6)

330 Appendix B


Financial Wealth Motivation

8. Provide answers based on owners’ motivation to gain financial return as of now. Owners include founder, co-founder, and equity investors

a. Your social enterprise has high social value, but owners also need to gain financial return (WEALTH_1)

b. You believe that it is common for owners get profit from your social enterprise (WEALTH_2)

c. Your social enterprise has to provide financial profit to owners (WEALTH_3) d. Offering financial profit to owners are moral responsibility of your social

enterprise (WEALTH_4) e. Owners establish social enterprise because they want to gain financial return

(WEALTH_5) f. A good social venture is the one that provides financial return to owners

(WEALTH_6)

Private Funding

9. Provide answers based on the ability of your social enterprise to manage financial surplus as of now

a. Your social enterprise has high freedom in surplus management (PRIVATE_1) b. Your social enterprise has high flexibility in managing generated surplus

(PRIVATE_2) c. The use of surplus is not restricted in your social enterprise (PRIVATE_3) d. Your social enterprise can use generated surplus (PRIVATE_4) e. Your social enterprise are free to use financial surplus (PRIVATE_5) f. Your social enterprise are very free to utilize generated financial surplus

(PRIVATE_6)

Public and Market Control

10. Provide answers related to the degree of dependency of your social enterprises with the following organizations/institutions *)

a. Supplier (BUSCON_1) b. Business Competitors (BUSCON_1) c. Buyers (BUSCON_2) d. NGOs (PUBCON_1) e. Community (PUBCON_2) f. Beneficiaries (PUBCON_3) g. Government (PUBCON_4)

Appendix B 331


C. Business Model Configurations – Likert Scale: 1 (Strongly Disagree) – 6 (Strongly Agree)

11. Provide answers based on your social enterprise’s efficiency characteristics *) a. The operational aspect of your social enterprise is rather efficient

(EFFICIENCY_1) b. Coordination activities with your partners (supplier, government, beneficiaries,

etc) are conducted in an efficient manner (EFFICIENCY_2) c. Coordination costs are relatively smaller than other operational costs

(EFFICIENCY_3) d. Activities of your social enterprise are efficient (EFFICIENCY_4) e. Overall, the business model of your social enterprise operates efficiently

(EFFICIENCY_5)

12. Provide answers based on your social enterprise’s novelty characteristics *) a. Your social enterprise applies innovation to achieve the objectives

(NOVELTY_1) b. There are unique ways in running your business (NOVELTY_2) c. There are aspects of your social enterprise’s business model that can be

considered unique (NOVELTY_3) d. The business model of your social enterprise involve unique partners

(NOVELTY_4) e. Overall, the business model of your social enterprise is novel (NOVELTY_5)

13. Provide answers based on your partners loyalty (lock-in characteristics) *)

a. Accountability of your social enterprise is very important (LOCKIN_1) b. Trust of the stakeholders is very important (LOCKIN_2) c. The reputation of your social enterprise is very important (LOCKIN_3) d. The loyalty of the stakeholders to your social enterprise needs to be properly

maintained (LOCKIN_4) e. Your social enterprise does extensive consultation with stakeholders (for

example, donor organizations) (LOCKIN_5) f. Overall, the business model of your social enterprise maintains the loyalty of the

stakeholders (LOCKIN_6)

D. Performance – Likert Scale: 1 (Strongly Disagree) – 6 (Strongly Agree) **)

14. Provide answers based on the social performance of your social enterprise in the last 12 months

a. Your social enterprise serves more beneficiaries (SOCPER_1) b. Your social enterprise offers more services for the beneficiaries (SOCPER_2) c. Your social enterprise offers services to more new locations (SOCPER_3) d. The total number of beneficiaries that your social enterprise caters increases

(SOCPER_4) e. The location of your social enterprise beneficiaries increases (SOCPER_5) f. Types of services that social enterprise offer increases (SOCPER_6)

332 Appendix B


15. Provide answers based on the financial performance of your social enterprise in the last

12 months a. Your social enterprise delivers better value to your business customers

(FINPER_1) b. Your social enterprise meets financial targets (FINPER_2) c. Business customers are satisfied (FINPER_3) d. Financial target is achieved (FINPER_4) e. Customer satisfaction is high (FINPER_5) f. Business customers feel they buy valuable products and services (FINPER_6)

social venture business models for ... ariono...social venture business models for transforming...

Documents