Data Envelopment Analysis and Social Enterprises: Analysing Performance, Strategic Orientation and Mission Drift
This study endorses the use of data envelopment analysis, which uses benefit-of-the-doubt weighting to evaluate the social, economic and overall performance of social enterprises. This methodology is especially useful for creating composite indicators based on multiple outputs expressed in different measurement units, and allows for enterprise-specific weighting of the different objectives. Applying this methodology on a unique longitudinal dataset of Flemish sheltered workshops suggests that social enterprises may face different types of mission drift. Further, our results show that top-performing social enterprises are more economically and socially efficient than low performers. These top performers also have a stronger economic orientation, which sheds new light on the balance between social and economic orientations in social enterprises.
KeywordsSocial entrepreneurship Mission drift Performance measurement
We would like to thank editor Robert Phillips, guest editors Luca Mongelli, Tomislav Rimac, Francesco Rullani, and Ramus Tommaso, and the anonymous reviewers for their constructive feedback. We would also like to thank the audience at the Academy of Management Conference (Atlanta, 2017) and at the 1st IESE-LUISS Business School Conference on Responsibility, Sustainability and Social Entrepreneurship (Rome, 2017) for their thoughtful reflections and comments on earlier versions of this paper. Lastly, we are also grateful to the Flemish Department of Work and Social Economy for providing access to the data and to the sector organisations Samen Sociaal Tewerkstellen and Groep Maatwerk for their support and feedback.
Compliance with Ethical Standards
Conflict of interest
The authors declare that they have no conflicts of interest.
Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants in the study.
Research Involving Human Participants and/or Animals
This work does not contain any studies with human participants or animals performed by any of the authors.
- Battilana, J., Lee, M., Walker, J., & Dorsey, C. (2012). In search of the hybrid ideal. Stanford Social Innovation Review, 10(3), 51–55.Google Scholar
- Boschee, J. (1995). Social entrepreneurship. Across the Board, 32(3), 20–25.Google Scholar
- Bruneel, J., Moray, N., Stevens, R., & Fassin, Y. (2016). Balancing competing logics in for-profit social enterprises: A need for hybrid governance. Journal of Social Entrepreneurship, 676(April), 1–26.Google Scholar
- Chen, C., Delmas, M. A., & Lieberman, M. B. (2015). Production frontier methodologies and efficiency as a performance measure in strategic management research. Strategic Management Journal, 36, 315–334.Google Scholar
- Cherchye, L., & Kuosmanen, T. (2006). Benchmarking sustainable development: A synthetic meta-index approach. In M. McGillivray & M. Clarke (Eds.), Perspectives on human development (Ch. 7). Tokyo: United Nations University Press.Google Scholar
- Dacin, P. A., Dacin, M. T., & Matear, M. (2010). Social entrepreneurship: Why we don’t need a new theory and how we move forward from here. Academy of Management Perspectives, 24, 37–58.Google Scholar
- Dees, J. G. (1998). The meaning of social entrepreneurship. Innovation, 2006(11-4-06), 1–6.Google Scholar
- Ebrahim, A., & Rangan, V. K. (2010). Putting the brakes on impact: A contingency framework for measuring social performance. Academy of Management Proceedings, Meeting Abstract Supplement, 1–6.Google Scholar
- Gonin, M., Besharov, M., Smith, W., & Gachet, N. (2012). Managing social-business tensions: A review and research agenda for social enterprise. Academy of Management Proceedings, Meeting Abstract Supplement, p. 11745.Google Scholar
- Hart, T., & Haughton, G. (2007). Assessing the economic and social impacts of social enterprise. Research paper, Centre for City and Regional Studies, University of Hull. Retrieved 15 June, 2012, from https://www.escholar.manchester.ac.uk/.
- Martínez-Campillo, A., Fernández-Santos, Y., & Sierra-Fernández, D. P., M (2016). How well have social economy financial institutions performed during the crisis period? Exploring financial and social efficiency in Spanish credit unions. Journal of Business Ethics. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-016-3192-9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Melyn, W., & Moesen, W. (1991). Towards a synthetic indicator of macroeconomic performance: Unequal weighting when limited information is available. Public Economic Research Paper 17, CES, KU Leuven, Belgium.Google Scholar
- Stevens, R., Moray, N., & Bruneel, J. (2015a). The social and economic mission of social enterprises: Dimensions, measurement, validation, and relation. Entrepreneurship: Theory and Practice, 39(5), 1051–1082.Google Scholar
- Stevens, R., Moray, N., Bruneel, J., & Clarysse, B. (2015b). Attention allocation to multiple goals: The case of for-profit social enterprises. Academy of Management Journal, 36, 1006–1016.Google Scholar
- Young, D. R., Kerlin, J. A., Teasdale, S., & Soh, J. (2012). The dynamics and long-term stability of social enterprise. In J. Kickul & S. Bacq (Eds.), Patterns in social entrepreneurship research (pp. 217–242). Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.Google Scholar