Understanding and combating mission drift in social enterprises

Abstract

Abstract:Purpose -The aim of this paper is to develop a better understanding of the pressures that can cause mission drift among social enterprises and some of the steps that social enterprises can take combat these pressures.Design/methodology/approach -The paper is conceptual in nature. It draws on resource dependency theory, institutional theory and various extant empirical studies to develop an understanding of the causes of mission drift. This analysis is then used to examine the practical steps that social enterprises can take to combat mission drift.Findings -The paper highlights how high dependence on a resource provider and the demands of 'competing' institutional environments can lead to mission drift. Based on this analysis the paper sets out various governance mechanisms and management strategies that can be used to combat mission drift.Practical implications -The paper sets out practical steps that can be taken to try to prevent mission drift, including governance mechanisms such as constitutional and legal safeguards, separating commercial and social activities, external accreditation, and management strategies to maintain commitment to organisational values and mission, and manage key resources dependencies.Originality/value -The paper will be of value to other researchers attempting to understand the dynamics social enterprises and in particular processes that can lead mission drift, and to managers of social enterprises keen to combat these processes.

Conceptualising the public health role of actors operating outside of formal health systems: The case of social enterprise

“…Or, through growth, leave the communities they were set up to support behind? (so called ‘mission drift’ – see Cornforth, 2014). We may be able to predict some of the issues that may arise by drawing upon literature from other fields that have studied the ‘creep’ of corporate practices and values (including professionalisation, marketisation and managerialism) from the for-profit sector, through the public sector and into the non-profit sector (Eikenberry and Kluver, 2004, Irvine, 2007).…”

Integrating normative values and/in value creation: A strategic management decision aid tool for social enterprises' values practices

“…Social and economic “value creation” displaces our focus onto the outcomes of SEs' activities (also related to “outcome values”; Nevile, ). Following this conception of value, questions that arise about “what value” SEs want to create and who is to benefit from this value creation (Ebrahim et al, ), about the challenges of balancing social and economic value (Alegre, ; Smith et al, ; Smith & Besharov, ), and of resisting mission drift (Cornforth, ; Ramus & Vaccaro, ). For Mair and Marti (, p. 39), an SE's main focus “is on social value, while economic value creation is seen as a necessary condition to ensure financial viability.” Bellostas, López‐Arceiz and Mateos (, pp.…”

“…In the midst of increased financial and market pressures (Ebrahim, Battilana, & Mair, ; Ramus & Vaccaro, ), the reaffirmation and integration of values into strategic actions could potentially help SEs combat mission drift (Cornforth, ) and, more generally speaking, manage their social‐economic tensions (Doherty, Haugh, & Lyon, ; Smith, Gonin, & Besharov, ). According to Mair, Battilana and Cardenas (, p. 364), “we need to understand the factors that enable social entrepreneurial organizations to remain committed to their social mission while sustaining effective operations.” However, to address these challenges, the SE literature has focused more on the balance between social and economic value creation (Bellostas, López‐Arceiz, & Mateos, ) than on how normative values affect social enterprises per se.…”

Rising to the Challenge of Sustainability: Community Events by the Community, for the Community

“…While SE's are more financial stable, PitP had developed a resource dependent relationship with the local community that saw the local population providing the bulk of financial resource needed to operate the event (Pfeffer & Salancik, 1978). Cornforth (2014) acknowledges that this kind of pressure on SE's can lead to 'mission drift', whereby the sole purpose of the organising committee was financially motivated with little or no consideration for the social impacts of these activities. The fundraising activities lost legitimacy within the eyes of the stakeholders they sought to engage putting the event in financial risk (Cornforth, 2014).…”

“…Cornforth (2014) acknowledges that this kind of pressure on SE's can lead to 'mission drift', whereby the sole purpose of the organising committee was financially motivated with little or no consideration for the social impacts of these activities. The fundraising activities lost legitimacy within the eyes of the stakeholders they sought to engage putting the event in financial risk (Cornforth, 2014). While the lack of applications for grant funding is admirable (can lead to lack of independence and is seen as unsustainable), a more diversified approach that was inherently and explicitly linked to the social purpose of the event may have seen some funds generated, alleviating the financial pressures on the organisations and its reliance on the local community (Dart, 2004;McBrearty, 2007).…”