Editorial and research agenda: JBR special issue on business model innovation in social purpose organizations

Abstract

In this introduction to the special issue on business model innovation (BMI) among social purpose organizations (SPOs), we define business models, BMI, and SPOs, and introduce the insights that papers in this special issue contribute to scholarly knowledge at the intersection of SPOs and BMI. We aggregate insights from articles in the special issue to provide insights into the major antecedents of BMI (environmental turbulence, and internal drivers), the substance of BMI (collaboration, managing tensions, and developing dynamic and learning capabilities), and the outcomes of BMI (expansion of dual social-economic goals, and organizational survival). Reflecting on this collection of papers, and the broader social sector literature, we then suggest several avenues for future research.

The dark side of business model innovation

“…(2012) presented cases of firms that incurred high fixed‐cost investment and expensive workforce development in order to enact the BMI. Low‐income market : Sánchez and Ricart (2010) observed how a number of firms that initiated BMI in a low‐income market had to deal with the lack of complementary resources in the public space, therefore incurring a large percentage of high fixed‐cost investment to develop the entire ecosystem. Organizations pursuing a quasi‐social mission : the contribution by Weerawardena et al. (2021) drew attention to possible tensions arising between social and commercial objectives; whilst commercial objectives may not be fully met, the organization may fall short of delivering its social mission.…”

“…sharing economy, low-income market, high-tech firms, quasi-social organizational purposes, etc.) Dreyer et al (2017), Grieco (2021), Holtström (2021), Landau et al (2016), Mihalache and Volberda (2021), Sánchez and Ricart (2010), Weerawardena et al (2021) Accordingly, the dark side of BMI in the present paper is defined as the negative consequences that may result from BMI, which, depending on the unit of analysis, run counter to or deviate from the expected benefits of undertaking BMI. The review aims at exploring the following aspects: (i) identifying the negative consequences that may result from BMI; (ii) unveiling the driving factors and circumstances leading to the negative consequences; and (iii) explaining how the dark side of BMI may occur.…”

No Simple Way to Say Goodbye! Untangling the Heterogeneity of Social Venture Founder Exit Intention

“…Accordingly, founders devising business models that ensure reliable cashflows and sustained revenues also reduce their firms’ dependencies on grants and donations (Shepherd et al, 2019). To this end, they pursue multiple earned-income sources such as sales, services, and licensing as part of the venture’s revenue mix (Daniel & Galasso, 2019; Weerawardena et al, 2021). Studies have also shown that earned-income generation contributes to social enterprises’ ability to scale their social impact (Bacq & Eddleston, 2018) and may reduce their risk of mission drift (Di Domenico et al, 2010; Ebrahim et al, 2014; c.f., Gras & Mendoza-Abarca, 2014).…”

An ecosystem view of social entrepreneurship through the perspective of systems thinking

“…It is well established that SEs significantly contribute to the socio‐economic empowerment of the disadvantaged societal segments or communities (Weerawardena, Salunke, et al, 2021). However, in large part, because of the highly idiosyncratic nature of the different contexts in which SEs execute their social entrepreneurial actions, the variations among the support mechanism and essential components of SE exist (Bacq & Janssen, 2011; Weerawardena, Mort, et al, 2021). Attempting to answer this, our proposed SE ecosystem framework (Figure 1) presents a system‐theoretic holistic viewpoint of all the essential input factors, influencing factors and feedback mechanisms involved in the SE phenomenon.…”