Social enterprises that operate in business-to-business contexts, often out of emerging economies, typically face high expectations from business clients, mainstream competition, and the challenge of operating across distances. In these contexts, social enterprises need to carefully choose which market segments to serve and how to organize their social mission accordingly. Based on the case of impact sourcing—hiring and training of disadvantaged staff for global business services—we seek to better understand this interplay. In general, we find that social enterprises in this context focus on serving either domestic clients with an implicit social mission and an integrated social enterprise model or international clients with a more explicit social mission and a decoupled model. We discuss why both main configurations represent viable social enterprise models in the outsourcing industry, and why, in particular, the professional background of founders plays a key role in these strategic choices. Our findings contribute to a more nuanced and context-sensitive understanding of social enterprise model adoption in emerging economies.
AisenbergL.HeikkiläS.NoyaA.SantosF. (2019). Boosting social entrepreneurship and social enterprise development in the Netherlands: In-depth policy review, OECD Local Economic and Employment Development (LEED) Papers, No. 2019/01. OECD Publishing.
3.
AlinaghianL.RazmdoostK. (2021). How do social enterprises manage business relationships? A review of the literature and directions for future research. Journal of Business Research, 136, 488–498.
4.
AlonI.MerslandR.MusteenM.RandøyT. (2020). The research frontier on internationalization of social enterprises. Journal of World Business, 55(5), 101091.
5.
AthreyeS. S. (2005). The Indian software industry and its evolving service capability. Industrial and Corporate Change, 14(3), 393–418.
6.
AultJ. K. (2016). An institutional perspective on the social outcome of entrepreneurship: Commercial microfinance and inclusive markets. Journal of International Business Studies, 47(8), 951–967.
7.
BacqS.JanssenF. (2011). The multiple faces of social entrepreneurship: A review of definitional issues based on geographical and thematic criteria. Entrepreneurship & Regional Development, 23(5–6), 373–403.
8.
BattilanaJ.BesharovM.MitzinneckB. (2017). On hybrids and hybrid organizing: A review and roadmap for future research. The SAGE Handbook of Organizational Institutionalism, 2, 133–169.
9.
BattilanaJ.DoradoS. (2010). Building sustainable hybrid organizations: The case of commercial microfinance organizations. Academy of Management Journal, 53(6), 1419–1440.
10.
BattilanaJ.LeeM. (2014). Advancing research on hybrid organizing insights from the study of social enterprises. Academy of Management Annals, 8(1), 397–441.
11.
BattilanaJ.SengulM.PacheA. C.ModelJ. (2015). Harnessing productive tensions in hybrid organizations: The case of work integration social enterprises. Academy of Management Journal, 58(6), 1658–1685.
12.
BhattaraiC. R.KwongC. C.TasavoriM. (2019). Market orientation, market disruptiveness capability and social enterprise performance: An empirical study from the United Kingdom. Journal of Business Research, 96, 47–60.
13.
BresnahanT.GambardellaA.SaxenianA. (2001). “Old economy” inputs for “new economy” outcomes: Cluster formation in the new Silicon Valleys. Industrial and Corporate Change, 10(4), 835–860.
14.
BrutonG. D.AhlstromD.OblojK. (2008). Entrepreneurship in emerging economies: Where are we today and where should the research go in the future. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 32(1), 1–14.
15.
CarmelE.LacityM. C.DotyA. (2016). The impact of impact sourcing: Framing a research agenda. In NicholsonB.BabinR.LacityM. C. (Eds.), Socially responsible outsourcing (pp. 16–47). Palgrave Macmillan.
16.
ChanW. L.MustafaM. J. (2021). Journal of entrepreneurship in emerging economies (JEEE): Reflecting on the past five years while thinking about the future. Journal of Entrepreneurship in Emerging Economies, 13(5), 791–818.
17.
CortezR. M.ClarkeA. H.FreytagP. V. (2021). B2B market segmentation: A systematic review and research agenda. Journal of Business Research, 126, 415–428.
18.
DavenportT. H. (2005). The coming commoditization of processes. Harvard Business Review, 83(6), 100–108.
19.
DaviesI. A.ChambersL. (2018). Integrating hybridity and business model theory in sustainable entrepreneurship. Journal of Cleaner Production, 177, 378–386.
20.
DaviesI. A.DohertyB. (2019). Balancing a hybrid business model: The search for equilibrium at Cafédirect. Journal of Business Ethics, 157(4), 1043–1066.
21.
DefournyJ.NyssensM. (2008). Social enterprise in Europe: Recent trends and developments. Social Enterprise Journal, 4(3), 202–228.
22.
DesaG.BasuS. (2013). Optimization or bricolage? Overcoming resource constraints in global social entrepreneurship. Strategic Entrepreneurship Journal, 7(1), 26–49.
23.
Di DomenicoM.HaughH.TraceyP. (2010). Social bricolage: Theorizing social value creation in social enterprises. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 34(4), 681–703.
24.
DohJ. P. (2005). Offshore outsourcing: Implications for international business and strategic management theory and practice. Journal of Management Studies, 42(3), 695–704.
25.
DurandR.KhaireM. (2017). Where do market categories come from and how? Distinguishing category creation from category emergence. Journal of Management, 43(1), 87–110.
26.
EbrahimA.BattilanaJ.MairJ. (2014). The governance of social enterprises: Mission drift and accountability challenges in hybrid organizations. Research in Organizational Behavior, 34, 81–100.
EisenhardtK. M. (2021). What is the Eisenhardt Method, really?Strategic Organization, 19(1), 147–160.
31.
FarjounM. (2002). Towards an organic perspective on strategy. Strategic Management Journal, 23(7), 561–594.
32.
FurnariS.CrillyD.MisangyiV. F.GreckhamerT.FissP. C.AguileraR. V. (2021). Capturing causal complexity: Heuristics for configurational theorizing. Academy of Management Review, 46(4), 778–799.
33.
GehmanJ.GlaserV. L.EisenhardtK. M.GioiaD.LangleyA.CorleyK. G. (2018). Finding theory–method fit: A comparison of three qualitative approaches to theory building. Journal of Management Inquiry, 27(3), 284–300.
34.
GeorgeG.CorbishleyC.KhayesiJ. N. O.HaasM. R.TihanyiL. (2016). Bringing Africa in: Promising directions for management research. Academy of Management Journal, 59(2), 277–303.
35.
GiamporcaroS.GondJ.-P. (2016). Calculability as politics in the construction of markets: The case of socially responsible investment in France. Organization Studies, 37(4), 465–495.
36.
GiudiciA.CombsJ. G.CannatelliB. L.SmithB. R. (2020). Successful scaling in social franchising: The case of Impact Hub. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 44(2), 288–314.
37.
GlaveliN.GeormasK. (2018). Doing well and doing good: Exploring how strategic and market orientation impacts social enterprise performance. International Journal of Entrepreneurial Behavior & Research, 24(1), 147–170.
38.
HayesN.IntronaL. D.KellyP. (2018). Institutionalizing inequality: Calculative practices and regimes of inequality in international development. Organization Studies, 39(9), 1203–1226.
39.
Howard-GrenvilleJ.DavisG. F.DyllickT.MillerC. C.ThauS.TsuiA. S. (2019). Sustainable development for a better world: Contributions of leadership, management, and organizations. Academy of Management Discoveries, 5(4), 355–366.
40.
HuybrechtsB.NichollsA.EdingerK. (2017). Sacred alliance or pact with the devil? How and why social enterprises collaborate with mainstream businesses in the fair trade sector. Entrepreneurship & Regional Development, 29(7–8), 586–608.
JacobidesM.WinterS. G. (2005). The co-evolution of capabilities and transaction costs: Explaining the institutional structure of production. Strategic Management Journal, 26, 395–413.
44.
JayJ. (2013). Navigating paradox as a mechanism of change and innovation in hybrid organizations. Academy of Management Journal, 56(1), 137–159.
45.
JohansonJ.VahlneJ. E. (1977). The internationalization process of the firm: A model of knowledge development and increasing foreign market commitments. Journal of International Business Studies, 8, 23–32.
46.
JohansonJ.VahlneJ. E. (2009). The Uppsala internationalization process model revisited: From liability of foreignness to liability of outsidership. Journal of International Business Studies, 40, 1411–1431.
47.
KannothraC. G.ManningS.HaighN. (2018). How hybrids manage growth and social–business tensions in global supply chains: The case of impact sourcing. Journal of Business Ethics, 148(2), 271–290.
Kenya Vision 2030. (2007). The National Economic and Social Council of Kenya (NESC), Government of the Republic of Kenya.
50.
KlarinA.SusenoY. (2023). An integrative literature review of social entrepreneurship research: Mapping the literature and future research directions. Business & Society, 62(3), 565–611.
51.
KolkA. (2016). The social responsibility of international business: From ethics and the environment to CSR and sustainable development. Journal of World Business, 51(1), 23–34.
52.
KostovaT. (1999). Transnational transfer of strategic organizational practices: A contextual perspective. Academy of Management Review, 24(2), 308–324.
53.
KullakF. S.BakerJ. J.WoratschekH. (2021). Enhancing value creation in social purpose organizations: Business models that leverage networks. Journal of Business Research, 125(C), 630–642.
54.
LacityM.RottmanJ.CarmelE. (2012). Emerging ITO and BPO markets: Rural sourcing and impact sourcing. IEEE ReadyNotes, IEEE Computer Society.
55.
LallS. A.ParkJ. (2022). How social ventures grow: Understanding the role of philanthropic grants in scaling social entrepreneurship. Business & Society, 61(1), 3–44.
56.
LarsenN. N.HannibalM.EversN. (2022). Social enterprises and B2B relationships: Toward a typology. In KubackiK.ParkerL.DomeganC.BrennanL. (Eds.), The Routledge companion to marketing and society (1st ed., pp. 238–253). Routledge.
57.
LittlewoodD.HoltD. (2018). Social entrepreneurship in South Africa: Exploring the influence of environment. Business & Society, 57(3), 525–561.
58.
MairJ.MartiI. (2006). Social entrepreneurship research: A source of explanation, prediction, and delight. Journal of World Business, 41(1), 36–44.
ManningS. (2013). New Silicon Valleys or a new species? Commoditization of knowledge work and the rise of knowledge services clusters. Research Policy, 42(2), 379–390.
61.
ManningS. (2022). From mainstream to niche: How value regimes shift in emerging economy upgrading. Research Policy, 51(6), 104532.
62.
ManningS.BoonsF.Von HagenO.ReineckeJ. (2012). National contexts matter: The co-evolution of sustainability standards in global value chains. Ecological Economics, 83(C), 197–209.
63.
ManningS.KannothraC. G.Wissman-WeberN. (2017). The strategic potential of community-based hybrid models: The case of global business services in Africa. Global Strategy Journal, 7, 125–149.
64.
ManningS.MassiniS.PeetersC.LewinA. Y. (2018). The changing rationale for governance choices: Early vs. late adopters of global services sourcing. Strategic Management Journal, 39(8), 2303–2334.
65.
ManningS.ReineckeJ. (2016). A modular governance architecture in-the-making: How transnational standard-setters govern sustainability transitions. Research Policy, 45(3), 618–633.
66.
MargionoA.ZolinR.ChangA. (2018). A typology of social venture business model configurations. International Journal of Entrepreneurial Behavior & Research, 24(3), 626–650.
MilesM. P.VerreynneM. L.LukeB. (2014). Social enterprises and the performance advantages of a Vincentian marketing orientation. Journal of Business Ethics, 123, 549–556.
69.
MongelliL.RullaniF.RamusT.RimacT. (2019). The bright side of hybridity: Exploring how social enterprises manage and leverage their hybrid nature. Journal of Business Ethics, 159, 301–305.
70.
MuñozP.DimovD. (2015). The call of the whole in understanding the development of sustainable ventures. Journal of Business Venturing, 30(4), 632–654.
71.
MuñozP.KimmittJ. (2019). Social mission as competitive advantage: A configurational analysis of the strategic conditions of social entrepreneurship. Journal of Business Research, 101, 854–861.
72.
OmettoM. P.GegenhuberT.WinterJ.GreenwoodR. (2019). From balancing missions to mission drift: The role of the institutional context, spaces, and compartmentalization in the scaling of social enterprises. Business & Society, 58(5), 1003–1046.
73.
OrmistonJ. (2023). Why social enterprises resist or collectively improve impact assessment: The role of prior organizational experience and “impact lock-in.”Business & Society, 62(5), 989–1030.
74.
PacheA. C.SantosF. (2013). Inside the hybrid organization: Selective coupling as a response to competing institutional logics. Academy of Management Journal, 56(4), 972–1001.
75.
PearceJ. (2003). Social enterprise in anytown. Calouste Gulbenkian Foundation.
76.
PeredoA. M.McLeanM. (2006). Social entrepreneurship: A critical review of the concept. Journal of World Business, 41(1), 56–65.
77.
QuinnR.Tompkins-StangeM.MeyersonD. (2014). Beyond grantmaking: Philanthropic foundations as agents of change and institutional entrepreneurs. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 43(6), 950–968.
78.
RamusT.VaccaroA. (2017). Stakeholders matter: How social enterprises address mission drift. Journal of Business Ethics, 143, 307–322.
79.
ReineckeJ.ManningS.Von HagenO. (2012). The emergence of a standards market: Multiplicity of sustainability standards in the global coffee industry. Organization Studies, 33(5–6), 791–814.
80.
Rivera-SantosM.HoltD.LittlewoodD.KolkA. (2015). Social entrepreneurship in Sub-Saharan Africa. Academy of Management Perspectives, 29(1), 72–91.
SaebiT.FossN. J.LinderS. (2019). Social entrepreneurship research: Past achievements and future promises. Journal of Management, 45(1), 70–95.
83.
SantosF.PacheA. C.BirkholzC. (2015). Making hybrids work: Aligning business models and organizational design for social enterprises. California Management Review, 57(3), 36–58.
84.
SmithW. K.BesharovM. L. (2019). Bowing before dual gods: How structured flexibility sustains organizational hybridity. Administrative Science Quarterly, 64(1), 1–44.
85.
SmithW. K.BesharovM. L.WesselsA. K.ChertokM. (2012). A paradoxical leadership model for social entrepreneurs: Challenges, leadership skills, and pedagogical tools for managing social and commercial demands. Academy of Management Learning & Education, 11(3), 463–478.
StinchcombeA. L. (1965). Social structure and organizations. In MarchJ. G. (Ed.), Handbook of organizations (pp. 142–193). Rand McNally & Company.
89.
SuttonR. I.StawB. M. (1995). What theory is not. Administrative Science Quarterly, 40(3), 371–384.
90.
TsangE. W. (2014). Generalizing from research findings: The merits of case studies. International Journal of Management Reviews, 16(4), 369–383.
91.
UpadhyaC. (2007). Employment, exclusion, and “merit” in the Indian IT industry. Economic and Political Weekly, 42(20), 1863–1868.
92.
WeickK. E. (1995). What theory is not, theorizing is. Administrative Science Quarterly, 40(3), 385–390.
93.
XuD.ShenkarO. (2002). Institutional distance and the multinational enterprise. Academy of Management Review, 27(4), 608–618.
94.
YinR. K. (2009). Case study research: Design and methods (Vol. 5). SAGE.
95.
YiuD. W.LauC. M. (2008). Corporate entrepreneurship as resource capital configuration in emerging market firms. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 32(1), 37–57.
96.
ZaheerS. (1995). Overcoming the liability of foreignness. Academy of Management Journal, 38(2), 341–363.
97.
ZahraS. A.RawhouserH. N.BhaweN.NeubaumD. O.HaytonJ. C. (2008). Globalization of social entrepreneurship opportunities. Strategic Entrepreneurship Journal, 2(2), 117–131.
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
