Motivations and effects of ethical purchasing from social enterprise in a regional city

Abstract

Purpose In recent years, the socio-economic power of local purchasing by both individuals and organisations has become of increasing interest. Despite growing recognition of social enterprises as local development actors, relatively little attention has been given to the motivations and effects of purchasing from social enterprises, particularly in regional settings. Informed by the literature on diverse economies, this paper aims to examine the patterns and motivations for purchasing from social enterprises by local citizens and organisations. Design/methodology/approach The analysis draws on an in-depth mixed-methods case study of purchasing from two social enterprises in a regional city in Victoria, Australia. Data sources included semi-structured and standing interviews, as well as sales data. Data analysis includes thematic analysis and geo-spatial mapping. Findings The findings suggest purchasing from social enterprises in regional settings is shaped by both typical consumption needs and ethical concerns that emphasise the place-based orientation of social enterprises’ operations and missions. Originality/value This paper extends understanding of how community economies are negotiated and configured in regional contexts. It also contributes to consumer understandings within the social enterprise literature, which to date has been surprisingly scant in unpacking how and to what end their customers’ consumption choices affect the kinds of value social enterprises are able to create.

Conceptualising a chameleon: social enterprise as a public provider

“…For instance, Bărbulescu et al (2021) observe the vulnerability of (innovative) start-ups and advise the development of strong relationships with employees and others, and Schin et al (2023) illustrate the role of public administration in strengthening relationships and supporting social entrepreneurship initiatives ( RQ1 ). Further drawing on the public sector support and expenditure factor, Barraket et al (2022) examine patterns and motivations of purchasing from regional social enterprises finding it is shaped by consumption needs and ethical concerns linking economic development with social inclusion. This comes in light of the increasing interest into the socio-economic power of local purchasing and the growing recognition of social enterprises in local development (Barraket et al , 2022; Schin et al , 2023).…”

“…Further drawing on the public sector support and expenditure factor, Barraket et al (2022) examine patterns and motivations of purchasing from regional social enterprises finding it is shaped by consumption needs and ethical concerns linking economic development with social inclusion. This comes in light of the increasing interest into the socio-economic power of local purchasing and the growing recognition of social enterprises in local development (Barraket et al , 2022; Schin et al , 2023).…”

“…neoliberal trends, state rollbacks, funding cuts and crises have created welfare vacuums and reallocated responsibility to individuals, therein, triggering social entrepreneurial and innovative activity (Bărbulescu et al , 2021; Desmarchelier et al , 2021; Harvey, 2005; Hoogendoorn, 2016; Schin et al , 2023) (RQ1). Importantly, the supporting role of government and structures are emphasised for fostering social entrepreneurship (Barraket et al , 2022; Hoogendoorn, 2016; Molina et al , 2018; Schin et al , 2023). Content also converges on interest in generating social innovation, which is understood as a relational, participatory and collaborative concept, as is frequently intimated (Daglio et al , 2015; Desmarchelier et al , 2021; Hansen et al , 2022; von Schnurbein et al , 2023; Windrum et al , 2016).…”

“…Content also converges on interest in generating social innovation, which is understood as a relational, participatory and collaborative concept, as is frequently intimated (Daglio et al , 2015; Desmarchelier et al , 2021; Hansen et al , 2022; von Schnurbein et al , 2023; Windrum et al , 2016). The focus of this cluster is significant because it has largely grown aside from Public Management (including procurement) and Administration scholarship (Barraket et al , 2022 withstanding), and in large part, because of its absence in practice ( RQ1 ). The implications of this, firstly, illuminate a silo of study that policymakers have already shown considerable political interest, wherefore, it would be fruitful to Public Management and Administration scholarship to better understand the individual, the organisation and the conditions for social entrepreneurship and innovation ( RQ2 ).…”

“…How to identify and seize opportunities for involving social enterprise by securing deep and specific alignment with local social issues? It is likely that this will warrant a stronger collaboration between those working primarily with procurement (possessing processual “know how” knowledge) and those that represent the various services provided by the government organization in question (possessing substantial “know-what” knowledge) (Barraket et al , 2022). This also relates to the earlier discussion on how to conduct supplier development and ecosystem orchestration. When considering the procurement function in the organisation, how to build and develop the new procurement capabilities (Valovirta, 2015) to match the external complexity resulting from working with suppliers operating with hybrid logics and solving complex social issues?…”