Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Social Value and Economic Value in Social Enterprises: Value Creation Model of Spanish Sheltered Workshops

  • Original Paper
  • Published:
VOLUNTAS: International Journal of Voluntary and Nonprofit Organizations Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Currently, social enterprise represents a clear commitment of the European Union (EU) to generate socially responsible economy. Sheltered Workshops are a manifestation of this phenomenon. Their study raises interest because they are able to create value by combining a social purpose with a commercial activity. Thus, we intend to analyze the relationship between the social impact and the economic returns of these entities. In Spain, results show a strong interaction between social value (proxy for social impact) and economic value (proxy for economic returns), which allows us to state that it is possible to develop socially responsible and financially viable activities. In addition, the estimation using instrumental variables reveals that economic value is the result of the social strategy that takes precedence in managing Sheltered Workshops.

Résumé

Actuellement, l’entreprise sociale est un compromis de l’Union Européenne à la génération des économies socialement responsable. Les Centres spécialiasés d´emploi sont une manifestation de ce phénomène. Son étude a grand intérêt parce que sont en mesure de créer de la valeur en combinant un objectif social d’une activité mercantile. À cette fin, nous analysons la relation parmi l’impact social et des retombées économiques générées par ces entités. En Espagne, les résultats montrent une forte interaction parmi la valeur sociale (Proxy pour l’impact social) et la valeur économique (proxy de rentabilité économique), ce qui montre qu’il est possible de développer des activités socialement responsables et financièrement viables. En outre, l’estimation de la variable instrumentale indique comme le valeur économique est une conséquence de la stratégie sociale mis en œuvre par la direction du Centres spécialiasés d´emploi.

Zusammenfassung

Gegenwärtig wird das Sozialunternehmen als eindeutiges Bekenntnis der Europäischen Union betrachtet, sozial verantwortungsbewusste Ökonomien zu generieren. Ein Manifest dieses Phänomens stellen die Behindertenwerkstätten dar. Ihr Studium ist von Interesse, weil sie Wertschöpfung durch die Kombination von sozialem Zweck und lukrativer Aktivität ermöglichen. Unsere Intention besteht nun darin, die Beziehung zwischen sozialer Auswirkung und ökonomischer Rendite zu analysieren, die von eben diesen Einheiten hervorgebracht werden. In Spanien weisen die Ergebnisse eine starke Interaktion des sozialen Wertes (als Näherungsgröße der sozialen Auswirkung) und des ökonomischen Wertes (als Approximation der Rendite) auf, was uns erlaubt abzuleiten, dass die Entwicklung sozial verantwortungsvoller und zugleich finanziell praktikabler Aktivitäten realisierbar ist. Zudem zeigt die auf Instrumentvariablen beruhende Schätzung den wirtschaftliche Wert als Konsequenz der sozialen Strategie, die im Management der Behindertenwerkstätten vorrangig zur Anwendung kommt.

Resumen

Actualmente, la empresa social es un compromiso de la Unión Europea en la generación de economías socialmente responsables. Los Centros Especiales de Empleo son una manifestación de este fenómeno. Su estudio tiene gran interés pues son capaces de crear valor al combinar un objetivo social con una actividad mercantil. Con esta finalidad, nosotros analizamos la relación entre el impacto social y la rentabilidad económica generada por estas entidades. En España, los resultados evidencian una fuerte interacción entre valor social (proxy de impacto social) y valor económico (proxy de rentabilidad económica), lo cual revela que es posible desarrollar actividades socialmente responsables y financieramente sostenibles. Además, la estimación mediante variables instrumentales pone de manifiesto como el valor económico es consecuencia de la estrategia social implantada por la dirección del Centro Especial de Empleo.

Chinese

当前,社会性企业代表欧盟创造社会责任型经济的明确承诺。福利工厂是此类现象的表现。进行此类研究的原因在于,通过将社会目的与商业活动组合,它们能够创造价值。因此,我们希望分析这些实体的社会影响和经济回报之间的关系。在西班牙,结果表明社会价值(以社会影响代表)和经济价值(以经济回报代表)之间存在较强的相互作用,从而发展社会责任和财务上可行的活动。此外,使用工具变量进行的估计表明,经济价值源自优先于管理福利工厂的社会策略的结果。

Arabic

حاليا˝٬ المؤسسة الإجتماعية تمثل إلتزام واضح من الإتحاد الأوروبي لإنتاج إقتصاد مسؤول إجتماعيا˝. ورش العمل التي توظف المعاقين هي مظهر من مظاهر هذه الظاهرة. دراستهم تثير الإهتمام لأنهم قادرون على خلق أهمية من خلال الجمع بين الغرض الإجتماعي مع النشاط التجاري. بالتالي، فإننا نعتزم تحليل العلاقة بين الأثر الإجتماعي والعائد الإقتصادي لهذه الكيانات. في إسبانيا، تظهر النتائج وجود تفاعل قوي بين القيمة الإجتماعية (تمثل الأثر الإجتماعي)، والقيمة الإقتصادية (تمثل العائد الإقتصادي)، الذي يسمح لنا أن نقول إنه من الممكن تطوير الأنشطة المسؤولة إجتماعيا˝ وقابلة للنمو من الناحية المالية. بالإضافة إلى ذلك، فإن التقدير بإستخدام متغيرات ذات دور فعال يكشف عن أن القيمة الإقتصادية هي نتيجة لإستراتيجية إجتماعية التي تأخذ الأسبقية في إدارة ورش العمل التي توظف المعاقين.

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.

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. "European Disability Strategy 2010–2020", (COM (2010) 636 final).

  2. KPGM Consulting (2013).

  3. EMES is a network made up by Universities and researchers, whose goal is to develop the knowledge on social enterprises, social and solidarity economy. http://www.emes.net/.

  4. For example, Beschutte Werkplaatsen in Belgium, Co-operative Social Firms for Disabled People in Finland, Kommunale Beschäftigungsgesellschaften in German, Sheltered Employment in Ireland, Emprego Protegido in Portugual, Samhall in Sweeden, and Social Firms in United Kingdom (Defourny and Nyssens 2006).

  5. The direct measurements of social value are operational efficiency, valuations based on the mission or objective, return on investment, and social outcomes.

  6. We have chosen the term "sustainable social value" following Porter and Kramer (2011), who state that economic value is sustainable when all stakeholders, including the society, appreciate the created value (Pirson 2012).

  7. According to the Spanish National Account figures published by the National Statistic Institute, these five regional economies represent 46.5 % of Spain´s gross domestic product, and their population represents 47.47 % of total Spain´s population in 2012.

  8. SABI is a database that contains financial analyses of Spanish and Portuguese firms, updated by Bureau van Dijk.

  9. Using logarithms involves a loss of information when working with the variable net profit. Because of this, the models that use this variable were estimated with a sample size of 70 observations.

  10. The service provided by the SWs can be approximated by four variables related to the care of the disabled at their workplace: Support staff (SS), people inserted into the regular labor market by the center in the last year (I), level of grants received by the entity (DA), and total number of employees (EC). The correlations associated to these variables are positive and have statistically significant levels. Novales (1993) highlighted that correlations close to 0.15 are acceptable, since a high level could lead to the same biases described for the endogenous explanatory variable. Thus, instruments used meet the first condition. The condition of exogeneity implies that the instruments used are orthogonal to the error term (Wooldridge 2002). The maximum correlation of the proposed models in terms of estimated error is less than 0.281. In addition, we have analyzed the ratio of over-identifying instrumental variables resulting that the number of instruments used in measuring social value is appropriate.

  11. Besides bilateral contrast, a unilateral contrast was run (H1: β > 0) on Social Value parameter yielding positive signs in all estimated models.

References

  • Abiodun, B. Y. (2012). The impact of corporate social responsibility on firms profitability in nigeria. European Journal of Economics, Finance, and Administrative Sciences, 45, 39–50.

    Google Scholar 

  • Alter, K. (2007). Social enterprise typology. Virtue Ventures LLC, https://www.globalcube.net/clients/philippson/content/medias/download/SE_typology.pdf. Accessed 3 Feb 2014.

  • Argandoña, A. (2011). La teoría de stakeholders y la creación de valor. DI-322, mayo, Cátedra La Caixa de responsabilidad social de la empresa y gobierno corporativo, IESE Business School, Universidad de Navarra.

  • Aupperle, K. E., Carroll, A. B., & Hatfield, J. D. (1985). An empirical examination of the relationship between corporate social responsibility and profitability. The 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bacq, S., & Janssen, F. (2011). The multiple faces of social entrepreneurship: A review of definitional issues bases on geographical and thematic criteria. Entrepreneurship and Regional Development, 23(5–6), 376–403.

    Google Scholar 

  • Balabanis, G., Stables, R. E., & Phillips, H. C. (1997). Market orientation at the top 200 British charity organizations and its impact on their performance. European Journal of Marketing, 31(8), 583–603.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Barna, C. & Vameşu, A. (2014). Reviving social economy in Romania–between emerging social enterprises in all sectors, surviving communist coops, and subsidiaries of globalization actors. Working Paper, CIRIEC N 2014/07.

  • Bertotti, M., Leahy, G., Sheridan, K., Tobi, P., & Renton, A. (2011). Measuring the impact of social enterprises. British Journal of Healthcare Management, 17(4), 152–156.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Blois, K. (1999). Marketing for non-profit organizations. In M. J. Baker (Ed.), The Marketing Book (pp. 547–561). Oxford: Butterworth-Heinemann.

    Google Scholar 

  • Boschee, J. (1995). Social entrepreneurship. Across the Board, 32(3), 20–25.

    Google Scholar 

  • Carroll, A. B. (1991). The pyramid of corporate social responsibility: Toward the moral management of organizational stakeholders. Business Horizons, 34(4), 39–48.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Caruana, A., Ramaseshan, B., & Ewing, M. T. (1999). Market orientation and performance in the public sector: The role of organizational commitment. Journal of Global Marketing, 12(3), 59–79.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cervera, A., Molla, D. A., & Sanchez, M. (2001). Antecedents and consequences of market orientation in public organizations. European Journal of Marketing, 35(11/12), 1259–1286.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Crane, A., Palazzo, G., Spence, L. J., & Matten, D. (2014). Contesting the value of the shared value concept. Forthcoming in California Management Review, 56(2), 130–153.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cueto Iglesias, B., Malo Ocaña, M. A., Rodríguez Álvarez, V., & Francos Arias, C. (2007). Trayectorias laborales de las personas con discapacidad y centros especiales de empleo: Análisis empírico con la Muestra de Vidas Laborales. Madrid: Ministerio de Trabajo e Inmigración.

    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. The Academy of Management Perspectives, 24(3), 37–57.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Davister, C. (2004). Le capital social dans l’économie sociale d’insertion. Reflets et perspectives de la vie économique, 3, 63–71.

  • Dean, T. J., & McMullen, J. S. (2007). Toward theory of sustainable entrepreneurship: Reducing environmental degradation through entrepreneurial action. Journal of Business Venturing, 22(1), 50–76.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dees, J.G. (2001). The meaning of social entrepreneurship. http://www.caseatduke.org/documents/dees_sedef.pdf, pp. 1–5. Accessed 3 Feb 2014.

  • Dees, J. G., & Anderson, B. B. (2003). For-profit social ventures. In L. Marilyn, M. L. Kourilsky, & W. B. Walstad (Eds.), Social entrepreneurship (p. 2). Dublin: Senate Hall Academic Publishing.

    Google Scholar 

  • Defourny, J., Favreau, L., & Laville, J. L. (1998). Insertion et nouvelle économie sociale. Paris: Editions Desclée de Brouwer.

  • Defourny, J., & Kim, S. Y. (2011). Emerging models of social enterprise in Eastern Asia. Social Enterprise Journal, 7(1), 8–111.

  • Defourny, J., & Nyssens, M. (2006). Defining social enterprise. In M. Nyssens (Ed.), Social enterprise—At the crossroads of market, public and civil society. London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Defourny, J., & Nyssens, M. (2008). Social enterprise in Europe: Recent trends and developments. Social Enterprise Journal, 4(3), 202–228.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Defourny, J., & Nyssens, M. (2010). Conceptions of social enterprise and social entrepreneurship in Europe and the United States: Convergences and divergences. Journal of Social Entrepreneurship, 1(1), 32–53.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Defourny, J., & Nyssens, M. (2013). Social innovation, social economy and social enterprise: What can the European debate tell US? The International Handbook on Social Innovation. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing.

    Google Scholar 

  • Diochon, M., & Anderson, A. R. (2011). Ambivalence and ambiguity in social enterprise: Narratives about values in reconciling purpose and practices. International Entrepreneurship and Management Journal, 7(1), 93–109.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Donaldson, T., & Preston, L. E. (1995). The stakeholder theory of the corporation: Concepts, evidence and implications. The Academy of Management Review, 20(1), 65–91.

    Google Scholar 

  • Drucker, P. F. (1990). Managing the non-profit organisation. Oxford: Butterworth-Heinemann.

    Google Scholar 

  • Elkington, J. (1998). Cannibals with Forks: The triple bottom line of 21st century business. Stony Creek, CT: New Society Publishers.

    Google Scholar 

  • Emerson, J. (2003). The blended value proposition: Integrating social and financial returns. California Management Review, 45(4), 35–51.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Emerson, J. (2006). Moving ahead together: Implications of a blended value framework for the future of social entrepreneurship. In A. Nicholls (Ed.), Social Enterpreneurship. New models of sustainable social change (pp. 391–406). New York: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Emerson, J., & Twersky, F. (1996). New social entrepreneurs: The success, challenge and lessons of non-profit enterprise creation. San Francisco: Roberts Foundation.

    Google Scholar 

  • Felício, J. A., Martins Gonçalves, H., & Da Conceição Gonçalves, V. (2013). Social value and organizational performance in non-profit social organizations: Social entrepreneurship, leadership, and socioeconomic context effects. Journal of Business Research, 66(10), 2139–2146.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fernández Gutiérrez, C. R. (2003). La economía social y las personas con discapacidad. Revista CIRIEC de Economía Pública, Social y Cooperativa, 47, 119–124.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ferris, J. M., & Graddy, E. (1989). Fading distinctions among the nonprofit, government and for-profit sectors. In V. A. Hodgkinson & R. W. Lyman (Eds.), The future of the nonprofit sector, independent sector (pp. 123–139). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fontaine, C., Haarman, A., & Schmid, S. (2006). The stakeholder theory. Edlays education, 1, 1–33.

    Google Scholar 

  • Freeman, R. E. (1984). Strategic management: A stakeholder approach. Boston: Pitman.

    Google Scholar 

  • Freeman, R. E. (1994). The politics of stakeholder theory. Business Ethics Quarterly, 4(4), 409–421.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gidron, B., & Hasenfeld, Y. (Eds.). (2012). Social enterprises: An organizational perspective. London: Palgrave Macmillan.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hockerts, K. (2006). Entrepreneurial opportunity in social business ventures. In K. Robinson & J. Mair (Eds.), Social entrepreneurship. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jäger, U.P. & Schröer, A. (2013). Integrated organizational identity: A definition of hybrid organizations and research agenda. Voluntas-International Journal of Voluntary and Nonprofit Organizations, 1–26.

  • James, E. (1987). The nonprofit sector in comparative perspective. In W. W. Powell (Ed.), The nonprofit sector (pp. 397–415). New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Johansen, T. S., & Nielsen, A. E. (2011). Strategic stakeholder dialogues: A discursive perspective on relationship building. Corporate Communication, 16(3), 204–217.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kerlin, J. (2006). Social enterprise in the United States and Europe: Understanding and learning from the differences. Voluntas-International Journal of Voluntary and Nonprofit Organizations, 17(3), 247–263.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kerlin, J. (2009). A comparison of social enterprise and its contexts. In J. Kerlin (Ed.), Social enterprise, a global comparisons (pp. 184–200). Lebanon, HH: Tufts University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kinnell, M., & MacDougall, J. (1997). Marketing in the not-for-profit sector. Oxford: Butterworth-Heinemann.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kohli, A. A., & Jaworski, B. J. (1990). Market orientation: The construct, research propositions, and managerial implications. Journal of Marketing, 54(2), 1–18.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • KPGM Consulting (2013). Presente y futuro de los Centros Especiales de Empleo. Financiado por el Fondo Social Europeo, Fundación ONCE y Ministerio de Trabajo.

  • Lasprogata, G., & Cotton, M. (2003). Contemplating ‘enterprise:’ The business and legal challenges of social entrepreneurship. American Business Law Journal, 41(1), 67–114.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • LeBer, M. J., & Branzei, O. (2010). (Re)Forming cross-sector partnerships: Relational processes of social innovation. Business and Society, 49(1), 140–172.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • López-Arceiz, F. J., Mateos-Moles, L., Olmo-Vera, J., Suárez-Perales, I., Bellostas-Pérezgrueso, A. J., & Brusca-Alijarde, M. I. (2014). Actividades e impactos de la empresa social. El caso de los CEE aragoneses. CIRIEC-España: Revista de Economía Pública. Social y Cooperativa, 81, 217–239.

    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 

  • Manetti, G. (2012). The role of blended value accounting in the evaluation of socio-economic impact of social enterprises. Voluntas-International Journal of Voluntary and Nonprofit Organizations 1–22.

  • McWilliams, A., & Siegel, D. (2000). Corporate social responsibility and financial performance: Correlation or misspecifications? Strategic Management Journal, 21, 603–609.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McWilliams, A., Siegel, D., & Teoh, S. H. (1999). Issues in the use of the event study methodology: A critical analysis of corporate social responsibility studies. Organizational Research Methods, 2(4), 350–372.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Millar, R., & Hall, K. (2013). Social return on investment (SROI) and performance measurement: The opportunities and barriers for social enterprises in health and social care. Public Management Review, 15(6), 923–941.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nicholls, A. (2005). Measuring impact in social entrepreneurship: New accountabilities to stakeholders and investors?. Seminar on Social Enterprise: Milton Keynes University.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nishimura, A. (2007). Conceptual analysis of value-based management and accounting: with reference to Japanese practices. Asia-Pacific Management Accounting Journal, 2(1), 71–88.

    Google Scholar 

  • Novales, A. (1993). Econometría. Madrid: McGraw-Hill.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nyssens, M. (Ed.). (2006). Social enterprise—at the crossroads of market, public policies and civil society. London: Routledge.

  • Pärenson, T. (2011). Social impact evaluation in social enterprises in Estonia: Need, readiness and practices. Universitatis Tartuensis (Doctoral Dissertation).

  • Payne, A., Holt, S., & Frow, P. (2000). Integrating employee, customer and shareholder value through an enterprise performance model: An opportunity for financial services. International Journal of Bank Marketing, 18(6), 258–273.

    Article  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 

  • Pirson, M. (2012). Social entrepreneurs as the paragons of shared value creation? A critical perspective. Social Enterprise Journal, 8(1), 31–48.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Polonsky, M. J., & Grau, S. L. (2008). Evaluating the social value of charitable organizations: A conceptual foundation. Journal of Macromarketing, 28(2), 130–140.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Porter, M. (2013). The new role of business in social education. How companies can create shared value by improving education while driving shareholder returns. Boston: FGS.

  • Porter, M., & Kramer, M. (2011). The big idea: Creating shared value (pp. 1–17). Boston, MA: Harvard Business Review.

    Google Scholar 

  • Retolaza, J. L., & San-Jose, L. (2011). Social economy and stakeholder theory, an integrative framework for socialization of the capitalism. CIRIEC-España, Revista de Economía, 73, 193–213.

  • Rodriguez, V., Malo, M. A., & Cueto, B. (2012). Diferencias salariales por discapacidad y CEE. Cuadernos de Economía, 35(98), 100–116.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ruiz, J., & Moya, M. (2007). The social psychological study of physical disability. Revista de Psicología Social, 2, 177–198.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Salas, V. (2011). Responsabilidad social corporativa (RSC) y creación de valor compartido. La RSC según Michael Porter y Mark Kramer. Revista de Responsabilidad Social de la Empresa, 3, 15–40.

    Google Scholar 

  • Santos, F. M. (2012). A positive theory of social entrepreneurship. Journal of Business Ethics, 111(3), 335–351.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sargeant, A. (1999). Marketing management for nonprofit organizations. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • SEKN. (2006). Effective management in social enterprise: Lessons from business and civil society organizations in Iberoamerica. Boston: David Rockefeller Center.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shoham, A., Ruvio, A., Vigoda-Gadot, E., & Schwabsky, N. (2006). Market orientations in the nonprofit and voluntary sector: A meta-analysis of their relationships with organizational performance. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 35(3), 453–476.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Skloot, E. (1988). The nonprofit entrepreneur: Creating ventures to earn income. New York: The Foundation Center.

    Google Scholar 

  • Smith, A. (1776). The wealth of nations. New York: The Modern Library.

  • Spear, R., & Bidet, E. (2005). Social enterprise for work integration in 12 european countries: A descriptive analysis. Annals of Public and Cooperative Economics, 76(2), 195–231.

  • Sud, M., VanSandt, C. V., & Baugous, A. M. (2009). Social entrepreneurship: The role of institutions. Journal of Business Ethics, 85(1), 201–216.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Testi, E. & Bellucci, M. (2011). Measuring an organisation’s social and economic performance for public tenders, ECPR Conference, Rejkiavik.

  • Thompson, J., & Doherty, B. (2006). The diverse world of social enterprise: A collection of social enterprise stories. International Journal of Social Economics, 33(5/6), 361–375.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Townsend, D. M., & Hart, T. A. (2008). Perceived institutional ambiguity and the choice of organizational form in social entrepreneurial ventures. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 32(4), 685–700.

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vásquez, A. G., & Dávila, M. A. T. (2008). Emprendimiento Social-Revisión de literatura. Estudios Gerenciales, 24(109), 105–126.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vázquez, R., Álvarez, L. I., & Santos, M. L. (2002). Market orientation and social services in private non-profit organisations. European Journal of Marketing, 36(9/10), 1022–1046.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Voss, G. B., & Voss, Z. G. (2000). Strategic orientation and firm performance in an artistic environment. Journal of Marketing, 64(1), 67–83.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Waddock, S. A., & Graves, S. B. (1997). The corporate social performance-financial performance link. Strategic Management Journal, 18(4), 303–319.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ward, T., Grammenos, S., Huber, M. & Rabemiafara, N. (2007). Study of compilation of disability statistical data from the administrative registers of the member states, DG Employment, Social Affairs and Equal Opportunities, European Union.

  • Weerawardena, J., & Mort, G. S. (2006). Investigating social entrepreneurship: A multidimensional model. Journal of World Business, 41(1), 21–35.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wood, D. J. (1991). Corporate social performance revisited. Academy of Management Review, 16(4), 691–718.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wooldridge, J. M. (2002). Econometric analysis of cross section and panel data. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Yang, C. L., Huang, R. H., & Lee, Y. C. (2014). Building a performance assessment model for social enterprises-views on social value creation. Science Journal of Business and Management, 2(1), 1–9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Young, D.R. & Lecy, J.D. (2013). Defining the universe of social enterprise: Competing metaphors. Voluntas-International Journal of Voluntary and Nonprofit Organizations 1–26.

  • Young, D. R., & Salamon, L. M. (2002). Commercialization, social ventures, and for-profit competition. The state of nonprofit America (pp. 423–446). Washington, DC: Brookings Institution.

    Google Scholar 

  • Yunus, M. (2008). Social entrepreneurs are the solution. In H. Spitzeck, M. Pirson, W. Amann, S. Khan, & E. von Kimakowitz (Eds.), Humanism in business: Perspectives on the development of a responsible business society. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Yunus, M. (2010). Building social business. New York: Public Affairs.

Download references

Acknowledgments

We thank “The Third Sector’s Social and Economic Studies Group” (GESES) for its suggestions in the elaboration of this paper, Mara Mandaru for their review translation, and the FPU Financial Program (FPU 13/02481, Ministry of Education and Science).

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Accounting and Finance, Faculty of Economics and Business, University of Zaragoza, 2, Gran Via Street, 50.005, Zaragoza, Aragon, Spain

    Ana J. Bellostas, Francisco J. López-Arceiz & Lydia Mateos

Authors
  1. Ana J. Bellostas
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Francisco J. López-Arceiz
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Lydia Mateos
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Ana J. Bellostas.

Appendix

Appendix

See Table 13.

Table 13 Survey composition
Full size table

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Bellostas, A.J., López-Arceiz, F.J. & Mateos, L. Social Value and Economic Value in Social Enterprises: Value Creation Model of Spanish Sheltered Workshops. Voluntas 27, 367–391 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11266-015-9554-6

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11266-015-9554-6

Keywords

Search

Navigation