Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Dynamic and Marketing Capabilities as Predictors of Social Enterprises’ Performance

  • Research Papers
  • Published:
VOLUNTAS: International Journal of Voluntary and Nonprofit Organizations Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Social enterprises (SEs) have an increasingly important role in developing more equitable societies worldwide. The capabilities of SEs are an important driver of their performance, but research in this area is still emerging, and the link between capabilities and performance has yet to be examined. By drawing on the dynamic capabilities perspective, it is suggested in this study that absorptive capacity—an organization’s ability to absorb, assimilate, and apply knowledge—affects a SE’s performance indirectly via its marketing capabilities. Using data from Hong Kong and Taiwanese social enterprises (n = 109), a set of hypotheses related to the capabilities–performance linkage were tested. The results show that the marketing capabilities of SEs mediated the relationship between absorptive capacity and financial performance. However, absorptive capacity was not associated with improved social performance via marketing capabilities. The paper concludes with a discussion of the implications of the findings and directions for future research.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. RBV theory suggests that the sustainable competitive advantage of organizations requires the possession of resources that are valuable, rare, inimitable, and non-substitutable (VRIN) (Teece et al. 1997).

  2. We tested the hypotheses using samples of SEs that have been established for three or more years, so we can include SEs with sufficient absorptive capacity and marketing capabilities, because the knowledge and skills of an organization accumulate over time (Cohen and Levinthal 1990) and therefore become more observable from 3 years onwards.

  3. The items used to measure each construct of the framework all demonstrate a high level of reliability and validity (factor loadings > 0.6; Cronbach’s α > 0.7). Thus, the remaining scale is acceptable.

  4. These include five measures for “marketing communication” and five for “selling.”

References

  • Agle, B. R., Mitchell, R. K., & Sonnenfeld, J. A. (1999). Who matters to CEOs? An investigation of stakeholder attributes and salience, corporate performance, and CEO values. Academy of Management Journal,42(5), 507–525.

    Google Scholar 

  • Allan, B. (2005). Social enterprise: Through the eyes of the consumer (prepared for the National Consumer Council). Social Enterprise Journal,1(1), 57–77.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Alter, S. K. (2004). Social enterprise typology. Virtue Ventures LLC. Retrieved from June 2017, http://www.virtueventures.com.

  • Aupperle, K. E., Carroll, A. B., & Hatfield, J. D. (1985). An empirical examination of the relationship between corporate social responsibility and profitability. Academy of Management Journal,28(2), 446–463.

    Google Scholar 

  • Austin, J., Stevenson, H., & Wei-Skillern, J. (2006). Social and commercial entrepreneurship: Same, different, or both? Entrepreneurship: Theory and Practice,30(1), 1–22.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bagozzi, R. P., & Yi, Y. (1988). On the evaluation of structural equation models. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science,16(1), 74–94.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Baron, R., & Kenny, D. (1996). The moderator-mediator variable distinction in social psychological research: Conceptual, strategic and statistical considerations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,51(6), 1173–1182.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Battilana, J., & Dorado, S. (2010). Building sustainable hybrid organizations: The case of commercial microfinance organizations. Academy of Management Journal,53(6), 1419–1440.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bauhinia Foundation Research Centre. (2013). Social enterprises in Hong Kong. Hong Kong: Bauhinia Foundation.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bentler, P., & Chou, C. (1987). Practical issues in structural modeling. Sociological Methods and Research,16(1), 78–117.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cano, C., Carrillat, F., & Jaramillo, F. (2004). A meta-analysis of the relationship between market orientation and business performance: Evidence from five continents. International Journal of Research in Marketing,21(2), 179–200.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Capron, L., & Hulland, J. (1999). Redeployment of brands, sales forces, and general marketing management expertise following horizontal acquisitions: A resource-based view. Journal of Marketing,63(2), 41–54.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Carroll, A. (1979). A three-dimensional conceptual model of corporate social performance. Academy of Management Review,4(4), 497–505.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Carroll, A. B. (2000). A commentary and an overview of key questions on corporate social performance measurement. Business and Society, 39(4), 466–478.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chan, K., Kuan, Y., & Wang, S. (2011). Similarities and divergences: Comparison of social enterprises in Hong Kong and Taiwan. Social Enterprise Journal,7(1), 33–49.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chandra, Y. (2016). Social entrepreneurship as institutional-change work: A corpus linguistics analysis. Journal of Social Entrepreneurship,8(1), 14–46.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chandra, Y. (2017). Developing a theory of the management practices of Chinese social enterprises. In International society for third sector (ISTR) 10th Asia Pacific regional conference, Jakarta, Indonesia.

  • Chandra, Y., & Wong, L. (2016). Social entrepreneurship in the greater China Region: Policy and cases. Abingdon: Routledge.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Cohen, W. M., & Levinthal, D. (1990). Absorptive capacity: A new perspective on learning and innovation. Administrative Science Quarterly,35(1), 128–152.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dai, H., Lau, Y., & Lee, K. H. (2017). The paradox of integration: Work-integration social enterprises (WISE) and productivist welfare regime in Hong Kong. VOLUNTAS: International Journal of Voluntary and Nonprofit Organizations,28(6), 2614–2632.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Danna, D., & Porche, D. (2008). Establishing a nonprofit organization: A venture of social entrepreneurship. The Journal for Nurse Practitioners,4(10), 751–752.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dart, R. (2004). Being “business-like” in a nonprofit organization: A grounded and inductive typology. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly,33(2), 290–310.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Day, G. S. (1994). The capabilities of market-driven organizations. Journal of Marketing,58(4), 37–52.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dees, J. G. (2001). The meaning of “Social Entrepreneurship”. Stanford, CA: Stanford University.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dees, J. G., & Anderson, B. (2002). For-profit social ventures. International Journal of Entrepreneurship Education,2(1), 1–13.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dees, J. G., Emerson, J., & Economy, P. (2001). Enterprising nonprofits: A toolkit for social entrepreneurs. New York: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Desa, G. (2012). Resource mobilization in international social entrepreneurship: Bricolage as a mechanism of institutional transformation. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice,36(4), 727–751.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • DeSarbo, W. S., Di Benedetto, C., Song, M., & Sinha, I. (2005). Revisiting the miles and snow strategic framework: Uncovering interrelationships between strategic types, capabilities, environmental uncertainty, and firm performance. Strategic Management Journal,26(1), 47–74.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Doherty, B., Haugh, H., & Lyon, F. (2014). Social enterprises as hybrid organizations: A review and research agenda. International Journal of Management Reviews,16(4), 417–436.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Domenico, M. D., Haugh, H., & Tracey, P. (2010). Social bricolage: Theorizing social value creation in social enterprises. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice,34(4), 681–703.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Drnevich, P., & Kriauciunas, A. (2011). Clarifying the conditions and limits of the contributions of ordinary and dynamic capabilities to relative firm performance. Strategic Management Journal,32(3), 254–279.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dutta, S., Narasimhan, O., & Rajiv, S. (1999). Success in high-technology markets: Is marketing capability critical? Marketing Science,18(4), 547–568.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Eisenhardt, K., & Martin, J. (2000). Dynamic capability: What are they? Strategic Management Journal,21(10/11), 1105–1121.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fornell, C., & Larcker, D. (1981). Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error. Journal of Marketing Research,18(1), 39–50.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gefen, D., Straub, D., & Boudreau, M. (2000). Structural equation modeling and regression: Guidelines for research practice. Communications of the Association for Information Systems,4(7), 1–7.

    Google Scholar 

  • Guclu, A., Dees, J. G., & Anderson, B. B. (2002). The process of social entrepreneurship: Creating opportunities worthy of serious pursuit. Center for the Advancement of Social Entrepreneurship: Duke—The Fuqua School of Business.

  • Hair, J. F., Black, W. C., Babin, B. J., Anderson, R. E., & Tatham, R. (2010). Multivariate data analysis. NJ: Pearson.

    Google Scholar 

  • Haugh, H. (2005). The role of social enterprise in regional development. International Journal of Entrepreneurship and Small Business,2(4), 346–357.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Helfat, C., Finkelstein, S., Mitchell, W., Peteraf, M., Singh, H., Teece, D., et al. (2007). Dynamic capabilities: Understanding strategic change in organizations. Malden: Blackwell Publishing.

    Google Scholar 

  • Herman, R. D., & Renz, D. O. (1997). Multiple constituencies and the social construction of nonprofit. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly,26, 185–206.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ho, A., & Chan, T. (2010). The social impact of work-integration social enterprise in Hong Kong. International Social Work,53(1), 33–45.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hunt, S. D., & Morgan, R. (1995). The competitive advantage theory of competition. Journal of Marketing,59(2), 1–15.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ibrahim, N. A., Howard, D. P., & Angelidis, J. P. (2008). The relationship between religiousness and corporate social responsibility orientation: Are there differences between business managers and students? Journal of Business Ethics,78(1), 165–174.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ip, E., Lai, V., Li, K., & Yu, K. (2017). How social enterprises are facing up to challenges in Hong Kong. Hong Kong Free Press. Retrieved from January 8, 2017, https://www.hongkongfp.com/2017/01/08/tender-systems-sustainable-operations-challenges-social-enterprises-hong-kong/.

  • Jansen, J. J. P., Van den Bosch, F. A. J., & Volberda, H. W. (2005). Managing potential and realized absorptive capacity: How do organizational antecedents matter? Academy of Management Journal,48, 999–1015.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kee, C. H. (2015). Developing social workers to run social enterprises. Unpublished Doctor of Education dissertation, University of Nottingham.

  • Kerlin, J. A. (2006). Social enterprise in the United States and Europe: Understanding and learning from the differences. VOLUNTAS: International Journal of Voluntary and Nonprofit Organizations,17, 247–263.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kohli, A. K., & Jaworski, B. (1993). MARKOR: A measure of market orientation. Journal of Marketing Research,30(4), 467–478.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lane, P. J., Koka, B., & Pathak, S. (2006). The reification of absorptive capacity: A critical review and rejuvenation of the construct. Academy of Management Review,31(4), 833–863.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lee, J. (2017). Fashioning new values in Hong Kong. Stanford Social Innovation Review, Supplement for Leping Social Entrepreneur Foundation, pp. 12–13.

  • Leung, S., Mo, P., Ling, H., Chandra, Y., & Ho, S. S. (2019). Enhancing the competitiveness and sustainability of social enterprises in Hong Kong: A three-dimensional analysis. China Journal of Accounting Research. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cjar.2019.03.002.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lichtenthaler, U. (2009). Absorptive capacity, environmental turbulence and the complementarity of organizational learning processes. Academy of Management Journal,52(4), 822–846.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Liu, G., Eng, T., & Takeda, S. (2013). An investigation of marketing capabilities and social enterprise performance in the UK and Japan. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice,39(2), 267–298.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Liu, G., & Ko, W. (2012). Organizational learning and marketing capability development: A study of the charity retailing operations of British social enterprise. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly,4(4), 580–608.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Luke, B. G., Barraket, J., & Eversole, R. (2013). Measurement as legitimacy versus legitimacy of measures: Performance evaluation of social enterprise. Qualitative Research in Accounting and Management,10(3/4), 234–258.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mair, J., & Marti, I. (2006). Social entrepreneurship research a source of explanation, prediction, and delight. Journal of World Business,41(1), 36–44.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Makadok, R. (2001). Toward a synthesis of the resource-based and dynamic-capability views of rent creation. Strategic Management Journal,22(5), 387–401.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Man, C. K., & Terence, Y. Y. K. (2011). An overview of social enterprise development in China and Hong Kong. Journal of Ritsumeikan Social Sciences,5, 165–178.

    Google Scholar 

  • Marsh, S. J., & Stock, G. N. (2006). Creating dynamic capability: The role of intertemporal integration, knowledge retention, and interpretation. Journal of Product Innovation Management,23, 422–436.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Meyskens, M. C., Robb-Post, C., Stamp, J., Carsrud, A., & Reynolds, P. (2010). Social ventures from a resource-based perspective: An exploratory study assessing global Ashoka Fellows. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice,34(4), 661–680.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Morgan, N., Vorhies, D., & Mason, C. (2009). Market orientation, marketing capabilities, and firm performance. Strategic Management Journal,30(8), 909–920.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Murray, J., Gao, G., & Kotabe, M. (2011). Market orientation and performance of export ventures: The process through marketing capabilities and competitive advantages. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science,39(2), 252–269.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ngo, L., & O’Cass, A. (2012). In search of innovation and customer-related performance superiority: The role of market orientation, marketing capability, and innovation capability interactions. Journal of Product Innovation Management,29(5), 861–877.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nicholls, A. (2004). Social entrepreneurship: The emerging landscape. In S. Crainer & D. Dearlove (Eds.), The financial times handbook of management (3rd ed., pp. 636–643). Harlow: FT Prentice Hall.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nicholls, J. (2006). Social entrepreneurship: New paradigms of sustainable social change. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nicholls, A. (2009). We do good things, don’t we? Bended value accounting in social entrepreneurship. Accounting, Organizations and Society,34(6–7), 755–769.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nunnally, J. C. (1978). Psychometric theory. New York: McGraw-Hill.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pearce, J. (2003). Social enterprise in anytown. London: Calouste Gulbenkian Foundation.

    Google Scholar 

  • Peredo, A. M., & McLean, M. (2006). Social entrepreneurship: A critical review of the concept. Journal of World Business,41(1), 56–65.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Podsakoff, P., MacKenzie, S., Lee, J., & Podsakoff, N. (2003). Common method biases in behavioral research: A critical review of the literature and recommended remedies. Journal of Applied Psychology,88(5), 879–903.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Podsakoff, P., & Organ, D. (1986). Self-reports in organization research: Problems and prospects. Journal of Management,12(4), 532–544.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Powell, M., & Osborne, S. P. (2015). Can marketing contribute to sustainable social enterprise? Social Enterprise Journal,11(1), 24–46.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Preacher, K. J., & Hayes, A. (2008). Asymptotic and resampling strategies for assessing and comparing indirect effects in multiple mediator models. Behavior Research Methods,40(3), 879–891.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Reis, T. K., & Clohesy, S. J. (2003). Unleashing new resources and entrepreneurship for the common good: A philanthropic renaissance. New Directions for Philanthropic Fundraising,2001(32), 109–144.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schreyoegg, G., & Kliesch-Eberl, M. (2007). How dynamic can organizational capabilities be? Towards a dual-process model of capability dynamization. Strategic Management Journal,28(13), 913–933.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shin, S., & Aiken, K. D. (2012). The mediating role of marketing capability: Evidence from Korean companies. Asia Pacific Journal of Marketing and Logistics,23(4), 658–677.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stevens, R., Moray, N., & Bruneel, J. (2014). The social and economic mission of social enterprises: Dimensions, measurement, validation and relation. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice,4, 1–32.

    Google Scholar 

  • Teece, D. (2014). The foundations of enterprise performance: Dynamic and ordinary capabilities in an (economic) theory of firms. The Academy of Management Perspectives,28(4), 328–352.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Teece, D. J., Pisano, G., & Shuen, A. (1997). Dynamic capabilities and strategic management. Strategic Management Journal,18(7), 509–533.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tracey, P., Phillips, N., & Owen, J. (2011). Bridging institutional entrepreneurship and the creation of new organizational forms: A multilevel model. Organization Science,22(1), 60–80.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vorhies, D. W., Harker, M., & Rao, C. (1999). The capabilities and performance advantages of market-driven firms. European Journal of Marketing,33(11–12), 1171–1202.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vorhies, D., & Morgan, N. (2005). Benchmarking marketing capabilities for sustainable competitive advantage. Journal of Marketing,69(1), 80–94.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wang, Y., & Li, Y. (2019). The SEE way. In Stanford social innovation review, a supplement sponsored by Leping social entrepreneur foundation (pp. 9–10).

  • Weerawardena, J., & Mort, G. (2012). Competitive strategy in socially entrepreneurial nonprofit organizations: Innovation and differentiation. Journal of Public Policy and Marketing,31(1), 91–101.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wong, L., & Tang, J. (2006). Dilemmas confronting social entrepreneurs: Care homes for elderly people in Chinese cities. Pacific Affairs,79(4), 623–640.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wood, V. R., Bhuian, S., & Kiecker, P. (2000). Market orientation and organizational performance in not-for-profit hospitals. Journal of Business Research,48(3), 213–226.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Yu, X. (2011). Social enterprise in China: driving forces, development patterns and legal framework. Social Enterprise Journal,7(1), 9–32.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zahra, S. A., Gedajlovic, E., Neubaum, D., & Shulman, J. (2009). A typology of social entrepreneurs: Motives, search processes and ethical challenges. Journal of Business Venturing,24(5), 519–532.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zahra, S. A., & George, G. (2002). Absorptive capacity: A review, reconceptualization, and extension. Academy of Management Review,27(2), 185–203.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zahra, S. A., Sapienza, H., & Davidsson, P. (2006). Entrepreneurship and dynamic capabilities: A review, model and research agenda. Journal of Management Studies,43(4), 917–955.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zhao, M., & Han, J. (2019). Tensions and risks of social enterprises’ scaling strategies: The case of microfinance institutions in China. Journal of Social Entrepreneurship. https://doi.org/10.1080/19420676.2019.1604404.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zott, C. (2003). Dynamic capabilities and the emergence of intra-industry differential firm performance: Insights from a simulation study. Strategic Management Journal,24(2), 97–125.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

We thanked all social enterprise founders and managers who participated in this research. Special thanks go to Ms. Shu-Hui SHIH and Ms. Jasmine LEUNG for their assistance with data collection. We also thanked the directors of Fullness Social Enterprises Society for their various support in this research.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. School of Continuing Education, Hong Kong Baptist University, College of International Education, Shatin, NT, Hong Kong, SAR, China

    Erica Kim Man Lee

  2. Department of Applied Social Sciences, Faculty of Health and Social Sciences, The Hong Kong Polytechnic University, Hung Hom, Hong Kong, SAR, China

    Yanto Chandra

Authors
  1. Erica Kim Man Lee
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Yanto Chandra
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Yanto Chandra.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Lee, E.K.M., Chandra, Y. Dynamic and Marketing Capabilities as Predictors of Social Enterprises’ Performance. Voluntas 31, 587–600 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11266-019-00155-y

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11266-019-00155-y

Keywords

Search

Navigation