Abstract
Purpose – Social enterprises (SEs) face tensions when combining financial and social missions, and this is
particularly evident in the scaling process. Although extant research mainly focuses on SEs that integrate their
social and financial missions, this study aims to unpack social impact scaling strategies in differentiated hybrid
organizations (DHOs) through the case of African SEs.
Design/methodology/approach – The study entails an inductive multiple case study approach based on
four case SEs: work integration social enterprises (WISEs) and fair trade producer social enterprises (FTPSEs)
in Uganda and Kenya. A total of 24 semi-structured interviews were collected together with multiple secondary
data sources and then coded and analyzed through the rigorous Gioia et al. (2013) methodology to build a
theoretical model.
Findings – The results indicate that SEs, as differentiated hybrids, implement four types of social impact
scaling strategies toward beneficiaries and benefits (penetration, bundling, spreading and diversification) and
unveil different dual mission tensions generated by each scaling strategy. The study also shows mutually
reinforcing mechanisms named cross-bracing actions, which are paradoxical actions connected to one another
for navigating tensions and ensuring dual mission during scaling.
Research limitations/implications – This study provides evidence of four strategies for scaling social
impact, with associated challenges and response mechanisms based on the cross-bracing effect between social
and financial missions. Thus, the research provides a clear framework (social impact scaling matrix) for
investigating differentiation in hybridity at scaling and provides new directions on how SEs scale their impact,
with implications for social entrepreneurship and dual mission management literature.
Practical implications – The model offers a practical tool for decision-makers in SEs, such as managers and
social entrepreneurs, providing insights into what scaling pathways to implement (one or multiples) and, more
Social impact
scaling
strategies importantly, the implications and possible solutions. Response mechanisms are also useful for tackling specific
tensions, thereby contributing to addressing the challenges of vulnerable, marginalized and low-income
individuals. The study also offers implications for policymakers, governments and other ecosystem actors such
as nongovernmental organizations (NGOs) and social investors.
Originality/value – Despite the growing body of literature on scaling social impact, only a few studies have
focused on differentiated hybrids, and no evidence has been provided on how they scale only the social impact
(without considering commercial scaling). This study brings a new perspective to paradox theory and hybridity,
showing paradoxes come into view at scaling, and documenting how from a differentiation approach to hybridity,
DHOs also implemented cross-bracing actions, which are reinforcement mechanisms, thus suggesting
connections and synergies among the actions in social and financial mission, where such knowledge is
required to better comprehend how SEs can achieve a virtuous cycle of profits and reinvestments in social impact.
particularly evident in the scaling process. Although extant research mainly focuses on SEs that integrate their
social and financial missions, this study aims to unpack social impact scaling strategies in differentiated hybrid
organizations (DHOs) through the case of African SEs.
Design/methodology/approach – The study entails an inductive multiple case study approach based on
four case SEs: work integration social enterprises (WISEs) and fair trade producer social enterprises (FTPSEs)
in Uganda and Kenya. A total of 24 semi-structured interviews were collected together with multiple secondary
data sources and then coded and analyzed through the rigorous Gioia et al. (2013) methodology to build a
theoretical model.
Findings – The results indicate that SEs, as differentiated hybrids, implement four types of social impact
scaling strategies toward beneficiaries and benefits (penetration, bundling, spreading and diversification) and
unveil different dual mission tensions generated by each scaling strategy. The study also shows mutually
reinforcing mechanisms named cross-bracing actions, which are paradoxical actions connected to one another
for navigating tensions and ensuring dual mission during scaling.
Research limitations/implications – This study provides evidence of four strategies for scaling social
impact, with associated challenges and response mechanisms based on the cross-bracing effect between social
and financial missions. Thus, the research provides a clear framework (social impact scaling matrix) for
investigating differentiation in hybridity at scaling and provides new directions on how SEs scale their impact,
with implications for social entrepreneurship and dual mission management literature.
Practical implications – The model offers a practical tool for decision-makers in SEs, such as managers and
social entrepreneurs, providing insights into what scaling pathways to implement (one or multiples) and, more
Social impact
scaling
strategies importantly, the implications and possible solutions. Response mechanisms are also useful for tackling specific
tensions, thereby contributing to addressing the challenges of vulnerable, marginalized and low-income
individuals. The study also offers implications for policymakers, governments and other ecosystem actors such
as nongovernmental organizations (NGOs) and social investors.
Originality/value – Despite the growing body of literature on scaling social impact, only a few studies have
focused on differentiated hybrids, and no evidence has been provided on how they scale only the social impact
(without considering commercial scaling). This study brings a new perspective to paradox theory and hybridity,
showing paradoxes come into view at scaling, and documenting how from a differentiation approach to hybridity,
DHOs also implemented cross-bracing actions, which are reinforcement mechanisms, thus suggesting
connections and synergies among the actions in social and financial mission, where such knowledge is
required to better comprehend how SEs can achieve a virtuous cycle of profits and reinvestments in social impact.
| Original language | English |
|---|---|
| Pages (from-to) | 25-57 |
| Number of pages | 32 |
| Journal | International Journal of Entrepreneurial Behaviour & Research |
| Volume | 29 |
| Issue number | 11 |
| DOIs | |
| Publication status | Published - 14 Feb 2023 |