Measuring the Integration of Social and Environmental Missions in Hybrid Organizations

  • Edward N. GambleEmail author
  • Simon C. Parker
  • Peter W. Moroz
Original Paper


This paper introduces a new typology and associated measure of social and environmental mission integration (SEMI) by conceptually framing a feature of hybrid organizations—the degree of integration of their revenue model and social–environmental mission. The SEMI measure is illustrated using a hand-collected sample of 256 North American Certified B Corporations. We explore the heterogeneity of SEMI scores by identifying external-facing correlates and demonstrate non-congruence with Certified B Corporation’s audit results. Overall, our findings advance existing knowledge of these hybrid organizations and how they balance their social–environmental missions with their economic objectives.


B Corps Business models Hybrid organizations Social and environmental index Typology Voluntary audits 


B Corp

Certified B corporation


Social and environmental


Social–environmental mission integration



The authors gratefully acknowledge the excellent suggestions of the Section Editor, Julia Roloff and the three anonymous reviewers. We also thank the many Certified B Corporations for their participation in this study. The first author acknowledges research support from the Initiative for Regulation and Applied Economic Analysis (IRAEA) at Montana State University.

Compliance with Ethical Standards

Conflict of interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

Ethical approval

All procedures were performed in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.

Informed consent

Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.


  1. André, R. (2012). Assessing the accountability of the benefit corporation: Will this new gray sector organization enhance corporate social responsibility? Journal of Business Ethics, 110(1), 133–150.Google Scholar
  2. 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
  3. Bacharach, S. B. (1989). Organizational theories: Some criteria for evaluation. Academy of Management Review, 14(4), 496–515.Google Scholar
  4. Battilana, J., & Lee, M. (2014). Advancing research on hybrid organizing: Insights from the study of social enterprises. Academy of Management Annals, 8(1), 397–441.Google Scholar
  5. Battilana, J., Lee, M., Walker, J., & Dorsey, C. (2012). In search of the hybrid ideal. Stanford Social Innovation Review, 10(3), 50–55.Google Scholar
  6. Cavalcante, S., Kesting, P., & Ulhøi, J. (2011). Business model dynamics and innovation: (Re) establishing the missing linkages. Management Decision, 49(8), 1327–1342.Google Scholar
  7. Corbett, A., & Katz, J. (2017). Hybrid ventures: perspectives & approaches to blended value entrepreneurship. In Advances in entrepreneurship, firm emergence and growth. Bingley: Emerald Publishing.Google Scholar
  8. 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(3), 37–57.Google Scholar
  9. Dart, R. (2004). The legitimacy of social enterprise. Nonprofit Management and Leadership, 14(4), 411–424.Google Scholar
  10. Davies, I. A., & Doherty, B. (2018). Balancing a hybrid business model: The search for equilibrium at Cafédirect. Journal of Business Ethics. Scholar
  11. De Reuver, M., Bouwman, H., & Maclnnes, I. (2009). Business model dynamics: A case survey. Journal of Theoretical and Applied Electronic Commerce Research, 4(1), 1–11.Google Scholar
  12. Dobrev, S. D., Kim, T. Y., & Hannan, M. T. (2001). Dynamics of niche width and resource partitioning. American Journal of Sociology, 106(5), 1299–1337.Google Scholar
  13. 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.Google Scholar
  14. Doty, D. H., & Glick, W. H. (1994). Typologies as a unique form of theory building: Toward improved understanding and modeling. Academy of Management Review, 19(2), 230–251.Google Scholar
  15. Durand, R., & Khaire, M. (2017). Where do market categories come from and how? Distinguishing category creation from category emergence. Journal of Management, 43(1), 87–110.Google Scholar
  16. Durand, R., & McGuire, J. (2005). Legitimating agencies in the face of selection: The case of AACSB. Organization Studies, 26(2), 165–196.Google Scholar
  17. Durand, R., & Paolella, L. (2013). Category stretching: Reorienting research on categories in strategy, entrepreneurship, and organization theory. Journal of Management Studies, 50(6), 1100–1123.Google Scholar
  18. Dyllick, T., & Muff, K. (2016). Clarifying the meaning of sustainable business: Introducing a typology from business-as-usual to true business sustainability. Organization & Environment, 29(2), 156–174.Google Scholar
  19. Ebrahim, A., Battilana, J., & Mair, J. (2014). The governance of social enterprises: Mission drift and accountability challenges in hybrid organizations. Research in Organizational Behavior, 34, 81–100.Google Scholar
  20. Emerson, J. (2003). The blended value proposition: Integrating social and financial returns. California Management Review, 45(4), 35–51.Google Scholar
  21. Fiss, P. C. (2011). Building better causal theories: A fuzzy set approach to typologies in organization research. Academy of Management Journal, 54(2), 393–420.Google Scholar
  22. Gehman, J., & Grimes, M. (2016). Hidden badge of honor: How contextual distinctiveness affects category promotion among certified B Corporations. Academy of Management Journal, 60, 2294–2320.Google Scholar
  23. Glaser, B. G. (1965). The constant comparative method of qualitative analysis. Social Problems, 12(4), 436–445.Google Scholar
  24. Greene, W. H. (2012). Econometric analysis (7th edn.). Boston: Pearson Education.Google Scholar
  25. Hahn, R., & Ince, I. (2016). Constituents and characteristics of hybrid businesses: A qualitative, empirical framework. Journal of Small Business Management, 54, 33–52.Google Scholar
  26. Haigh, N., & Hoffman, A. J. (2012). Hybrid organizations: The next chapter of sustainable business. Organizational Dynamics, 41(2), 126–134.Google Scholar
  27. Haigh, N., Walker, J., Bacq, S., & Kickul, J. (2015). Hybrid organizations: Origins, strategies, impacts, and implications. California Management Review, 57(3), 5–12.Google Scholar
  28. Hannan, M. T., Pólos, L., & Carroll, G. R. (2007). Logics of organization theory: Audiences, codes, and ecologies. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  29. Hiller, J. S. (2013). The benefit corporation and corporate social responsibility. Journal of Business Ethics, 118(2), 287–301.Google Scholar
  30. Hoffman, A. J., Badiane, K. K., & Haigh, N. (2012). Hybrid organizations as agents of positive social change: Bridging the for-profit & non-profit divide. Using a positive lens to explore social change and organizations: Building a theoretical and research foundation, pp. 131–153.Google Scholar
  31. Hsu, G., Hannan, M. T., & Koçak, Ö (2009). Multiple category memberships in markets: An integrative theory and two empirical tests. American Sociological Review, 74(1), 150–169.Google Scholar
  32. Jaeger-Erben, M., Rückert-John, J., & Schäfer, M. (2015). Sustainable consumption through social innovation: A typology of innovations for sustainable consumption practices. Journal of Cleaner Production, 108, 784–798.Google Scholar
  33. Jay, J. (2013). Navigating paradox as a mechanism of change and innovation in hybrid organizations. Academy of Management Journal, 56(1), 137–159.Google Scholar
  34. Kolk, A., & Lenfant, F. (2016). Hybrid business models for peace and reconciliation. Business Horizons, 59(5), 503–524.Google Scholar
  35. Laufer, W. S. (2003). Social accountability and corporate greenwashing. Journal of Business Ethics, 43(3), 253–261.Google Scholar
  36. Lautermann, C. (2013). The ambiguities of (social) value creation: towards an extended understanding of entrepreneurial value creation for society. Social Enterprise Journal, 9(2), 184–202.Google Scholar
  37. Mair, J., Mayer, J., & Lutz, E. (2015). Navigating institutional plurality: Organizational governance in hybrid organizations. Organization Studies, 36(6), 713–739.Google Scholar
  38. Markides, C., & Charitou, C. D. (2004). Competing with dual business models: A contingency approach. The Academy of Management Executive, 18(3), 22–36.Google Scholar
  39. McMullen, J. S., & Warnick, B. J. (2016). Should we require every new venture to be a hybrid organization? Journal of Management Studies, 53(4), 630–662.Google Scholar
  40. Ménard, C. (2004). The economics of hybrid organizations. Journal of Institutional and Theoretical Economics JITE, 160(3), 345–376.Google Scholar
  41. Moroz, P., Branzei, O., Parker, S., & Gamble, E. (2018). Imprinting with purpose: New pro-social opportunities and B Corp certification. Journal of Business Venturing, 33(2), 117–129.Google Scholar
  42. Morris, M., Schindehutte, M., & Allen, J. (2005). The entrepreneur’s business model: toward a unified perspective. Journal of Business Research, 58(6), 726–735.Google Scholar
  43. Muñoz, P., & Kimmitt, J. (2018). Social mission as competitive advantage: A configurational analysis of the strategic conditions of social entrepreneurship. Journal of Business Research. Scholar
  44. Negro, G., Hannan, M. T., & Rao, H. (2010). Categorical contrast and audience appeal: Niche width and critical success in winemaking. Industrial and Corporate Change, 19(5), 1397–1425.Google Scholar
  45. Negro, G., & Leung, M. D. (2013). “Actual” and perceptual effects of category spanning. Organization Science, 24(3), 684–696.Google Scholar
  46. O’Neil, I., & Ucbasaran, D. (2016). Balancing “what matters to me” with ‘what matters to them’: Exploring the legitimation process of environmental entrepreneurs. Journal of Business Venturing, 31(2), 133–152.Google Scholar
  47. Pache, A. C., & Santos, F. (2013). Inside the hybrid organization: Selective coupling as a response to competing institutional logics. Academy of Management Journal, 56(4), 972–1001.Google Scholar
  48. Paolella, L., & Durand, R. (2016). Category spanning, evaluation, and performance: Revised theory and test on the corporate law market. Academy of Management Journal, 59(1), 330–351.Google Scholar
  49. Parker, S. C., Gamble, E., Moroz, P. W., & Branzei, O. (2018). The impact of B Lab certification on firm growth. Academy of Management Discoveries. Scholar
  50. Peredo, A. M., Haugh, H. M., & McLean, M. (2017). Common property: Uncommon forms of prosocial organizing. Journal of Business Venturing, 33(5), 660–678.Google Scholar
  51. Porac, J. F., Thomas, H., Wilson, F., Paton, D., & Kanfer, A. (1995). Rivalry and the industry model of Scottish knitwear producers. Administrative Science Quarterly, 203–227.Google Scholar
  52. Rawhouser, H., Cummings, M., & Crane, A. (2015). Benefit corporation legislation and the emergence of a social hybrid category. California Management Review, 57(3), 13–35.Google Scholar
  53. Reiser, D. B. (2011). Benefit corporations: A sustainable form of organization. Wake Forest Law Review, 46, 591.Google Scholar
  54. Saldana, J. (2009). An introduction to codes and coding. In The coding manual for qualitative researchers (pp. 1–31). Thousand Oaks: Sage Publishing.Google Scholar
  55. Santos, F., Pache, A. C., & Birkholz, C. (2015). Making hybrids work: Aligning business models and organizational design for social enterprises. California Management Review, 57(3), 36–58.Google Scholar
  56. Santos, F. M. (2012). A positive theory of social entrepreneurship. Journal of Business Ethics, 111(3), 335–351.Google Scholar
  57. Teece, D. J. (2010). Business models, business strategy and innovation. Long Range Planning, 43(2), 172–194.Google Scholar
  58. Thomas, D. R. (2006). A general inductive approach for analyzing qualitative evaluation data. American Journal of Evaluation, 27(2), 237–246.Google Scholar
  59. Thompson, J. D., & MacMillan, I. C. (2010). Business models: Creating new markets and societal wealth. Long Range Planning, 43(2), 291–307.Google Scholar
  60. Thornton, P. H., Ocasio, W., & Lounsbury, M. (2012). The institutional logics perspective: A new approach to culture, structure, and process. Oxford: Oxford University Press on Demand.Google Scholar
  61. Tracey, P., & Stott, N. (2017). Social innovation: a window on alternative ways of organizing and innovating. Innovation, 19(1), 51–60.Google Scholar
  62. Vergne, J. P., & Wry, T. (2014). Categorizing categorization research: Review, integration, and future directions. Journal of Management Studies, 51(1), 56–94.Google Scholar
  63. Weick, K. E. (2012). Organized sensemaking: A commentary on processes of interpretive work. Human Relations, 65(1), 141–153.Google Scholar
  64. Whiteman, G., & Cooper, W. H. (2016). Decoupling rape. Academy of Management Discoveries, 2(2), 115–154.Google Scholar
  65. Wilson, F., & Post, J. E. (2013). Business models for people, planet (& profits): Exploring the phenomena of social business, a market-based approach to social value creation. Small Business Economics, 40(3), 715–737.Google Scholar
  66. Zahra, S. A., Gedajlovic, E., Neubaum, D. O., & Shulman, J. M. (2009). A typology of social entrepreneurs: Motives, search processes and ethical challenges. Journal of Business Venturing, 24(5), 519–532.Google Scholar
  67. Zott, C., & Amit, R. (2007). Business model design and the performance of entrepreneurial firms. Organization Science, 18(2), 181–199.Google Scholar
  68. Zott, C., & Amit, R. (2008). The fit between product market strategy and business model: Implications for firm performance. Strategic Management Journal, 29(1), 1–26.Google Scholar
  69. Zott, C., & Amit, R. (2010). Business model design: an activity system perspective. Long Range Planning, 43(2), 216–226.Google Scholar
  70. Zuckerman, E. W. (1999). The categorical imperative: Securities analysts and the illegitimacy discount. American Journal of Sociology, 104(5), 1398–1438.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature B.V. 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Edward N. Gamble
    • 1
    Email author
  • Simon C. Parker
    • 2
    • 3
  • Peter W. Moroz
    • 4
  1. 1.Jake Jabs College of Business & EntrepreneurshipMontana State UniversityBozemanUSA
  2. 2.Ivey School of BusinessWestern UniversityLondonCanada
  3. 3.University of AberdeenAberdeenUK
  4. 4.Hill/Levene School of BusinessReginaCanada

Personalised recommendations