The financial and green effects of cultural values on mission drifts in European social enterprises

Abstract

The sustainable social enterprises (SEs) literature shows that SEs have to simultaneously pursue economic, social, and environmental aims. However, tensions between these objectives can make this a challenging task and lead towards mission drift. This work investigates if the cultural dimension can forecast the mission drift. We empirically analyze this relationship in three stages. In the first stage, we identify a homogeneous dataset of 287 sustainable SEs from seven EU countries from 2011 to 2020. Then, in the second stage, we apply the data envelopment analysis (DEA) methodology to calculate the efficiency of the SEs. An efficient SE has to simultaneously achieve social, environmental, and economic aims. We calculate a proxy of the mission drift and generate a dichotomous category variable that assigns value 1 to the SE not affected by mission drift, 0 otherwise. In the last stage, we implement the 2SLS logistic regression between the variable that identifies the SEs affected by mission drift and three cultural dimensions: avoidance of uncertainty, masculinity, and short‐term orientation.

How do stakeholder groups make sense of sustainability: Analysing differences in the complexity of their cognitive frames

“…In particular, their main constituents, i.e. members and donors, may accuse the non‐profit of mission drift or even claim that it has become ill‐suited to achieving its stated objectives (Esposito et al, 2023). As our findings indicate, the underlying reason for such criticism may lie in the greater cognitive complexity of members and donors vis‐à‐vis cognitive adjustment by the non‐profit to suit its business partners.…”

Leveraging business failure to drive eco‐innovation adoption: An integrated conceptual framework

“…First, by integrating the highly dispersed scholarly works on learning from failure (Edmondson, 2011;Shepherd, 2003) and green innovation (Demirel & Kesidou, 2011;Kesidou & Demirel, 2012;Zheng et al, 2023), this study offers an integrated conceptual framework of the mechanisms through which the collapse of peer organizations can motivate firms' green innovation efforts. The study further contributes to the ongoing scholarly dialogue on environmental sustainability (Campra et al, 2023;Esposito et al, 2023;G oes et al, 2023;Gu & Xie, 2022) and business failure (Kücher & Feldbauer-Durstmüller, 2019;Mellahi & Wilkinson, 2004) by deepening researchers' insights into the mechanisms through which business failure insights can be harnessed and mobilized toward organizational innovation efforts. In addition, despite the growing interest in elucidating the consequences of business failure, such as employee layoffs and financial losses (Mellahi & Wilkinson, 2004;Semadeni et al, 2008;Simmons et al, 2014;Wiesenfeld et al, 2008), there is still a lack of clarity regarding the mechanisms through which failure experiences can be harnessed to deliver positive outcomes.…”

“…in exploring failure as potential sources of learning (Boso et al, 2019), relatively little attention has been directed at elucidating the processes through which peer business failure can incentivize and motivate firms to engage in (eco-) innovation activities. Building on the dialogue on environmental sustainability (see Boulhaga et al, 2023;Campra et al, 2023;Esposito et al, 2023;Gallén & Peraita, 2017;G oes et al, 2023), the study highlights how reframing business failure can foster learning toward innovation. This study also contributes to the green innovation process literature (Foster & Green, 2000) by demonstrating how business failure can inspire innovation efforts and sets of activities to enrich the competitiveness of firms.…”

Sustainability orientation and firm growth as ventures mature

“…Sustainable entrepreneurs often face the challenge of double externality (Horbach et al, 2012; Mothe et al, 2018; Rennings, 2000) and struggle to capture and appropriate the value from the goods and services they provide. They also carry the burden of the liability of smallness , the liability of newness in the marketplace (Adomako et al, 2019; Stinchcombe, 2000), and confront multiple institutional obstacles (Amorós et al, 2019; Bernal et al, 2022; Danso et al, 2019; Esposito et al, 2022). As a result, adopting a sustainability orientation in entrepreneurial ventures is considered costly, risky, and taxing on the ability of the firm to survive in the market, reach profitability, and grow (Fernández‐López et al, 2022).…”