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

  • Ana J. Bellostas
  • Francisco J. López-Arceiz
  • Lydia Mateos
Original Paper

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.

Keywords

Social enterprises Sheltered workshops Social value Economic value 

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。

Japanese

現在社会的企業は、EU と関連する社会的に責任ある経済の構築を示している。保護されたワークショップはこの現象の兆候を表している。商業活動と社会的目的を組み合わせることによって価値を構築できるため、この分野での研究に関心が高まっている。従って、社会的な影響およびこれらの実態における経済的収益との関係を分析する。スペインでは、結果として社会的な価値(社会的影響のためのプロキシ)と経済的価値 (経済リターンのためのプロキシ) の間の強い相互作用を示しており、社会的責任と財政的に実行可能な活動の展開を可能な状態にしている。さらに機器の変数を使用する見方から、結果として経済的価値が保護されたワークショップの管理を優先する社会的な戦略が明らかになる。

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.

References

  1. 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
  2. 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.
  3. 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.Google Scholar
  4. 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
  5. Austin, J., Stevenson, H., & Wei-Skillern, J. (2006). Social and commercial entrepreneurship: Same, different, or both? Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 30(1), 1–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 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
  7. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 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.Google Scholar
  9. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Blois, K. (1999). Marketing for non-profit organizations. In M. J. Baker (Ed.), The Marketing Book (pp. 547–561). Oxford: Butterworth-Heinemann.Google Scholar
  11. Boschee, J. (1995). Social entrepreneurship. Across the Board, 32(3), 20–25.Google Scholar
  12. Carroll, A. B. (1991). The pyramid of corporate social responsibility: Toward the moral management of organizational stakeholders. Business Horizons, 34(4), 39–48.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 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
  17. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Davister, C. (2004). Le capital social dans l’économie sociale d’insertion. Reflets et perspectives de la vie économique, 3, 63–71.Google Scholar
  19. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Dees, J.G. (2001). The meaning of social entrepreneurship. http://www.caseatduke.org/documents/dees_sedef.pdf, pp. 1–5. Accessed 3 Feb 2014.
  21. 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
  22. Defourny, J., Favreau, L., & Laville, J. L. (1998). Insertion et nouvelle économie sociale. Paris: Editions Desclée de Brouwer.Google Scholar
  23. Defourny, J., & Kim, S. Y. (2011). Emerging models of social enterprise in Eastern Asia. Social Enterprise Journal, 7(1), 8–111.Google Scholar
  24. 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
  25. Defourny, J., & Nyssens, M. (2008). Social enterprise in Europe: Recent trends and developments. Social Enterprise Journal, 4(3), 202–228.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 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
  28. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 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
  30. Drucker, P. F. (1990). Managing the non-profit organisation. Oxford: Butterworth-Heinemann.Google Scholar
  31. Elkington, J. (1998). Cannibals with Forks: The triple bottom line of 21st century business. Stony Creek, CT: New Society Publishers.Google Scholar
  32. Emerson, J. (2003). The blended value proposition: Integrating social and financial returns. California Management Review, 45(4), 35–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 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
  34. Emerson, J., & Twersky, F. (1996). New social entrepreneurs: The success, challenge and lessons of non-profit enterprise creation. San Francisco: Roberts Foundation.Google Scholar
  35. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 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
  37. 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
  38. Fontaine, C., Haarman, A., & Schmid, S. (2006). The stakeholder theory. Edlays education, 1, 1–33.Google Scholar
  39. Freeman, R. E. (1984). Strategic management: A stakeholder approach. Boston: Pitman.Google Scholar
  40. Freeman, R. E. (1994). The politics of stakeholder theory. Business Ethics Quarterly, 4(4), 409–421.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Gidron, B., & Hasenfeld, Y. (Eds.). (2012). Social enterprises: An organizational perspective. London: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
  42. Hockerts, K. (2006). Entrepreneurial opportunity in social business ventures. In K. Robinson & J. Mair (Eds.), Social entrepreneurship. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
  43. 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.Google Scholar
  44. 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
  45. Johansen, T. S., & Nielsen, A. E. (2011). Strategic stakeholder dialogues: A discursive perspective on relationship building. Corporate Communication, 16(3), 204–217.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. 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
  48. Kinnell, M., & MacDougall, J. (1997). Marketing in the not-for-profit sector. Oxford: Butterworth-Heinemann.Google Scholar
  49. Kohli, A. A., & Jaworski, B. J. (1990). Market orientation: The construct, research propositions, and managerial implications. Journal of Marketing, 54(2), 1–18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. KPGM Consulting (2013). Presente y futuro de los Centros Especiales de Empleo. Financiado por el Fondo Social Europeo, Fundación ONCE y Ministerio de Trabajo.Google Scholar
  51. Lasprogata, G., & Cotton, M. (2003). Contemplating ‘enterprise:’ The business and legal challenges of social entrepreneurship. American Business Law Journal, 41(1), 67–114.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. LeBer, M. J., & Branzei, O. (2010). (Re)Forming cross-sector partnerships: Relational processes of social innovation. Business and Society, 49(1), 140–172.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. 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
  54. Mair, J., & Marti, I. (2006). Social entrepreneurship research: A source of explanation, prediction, and delight. Journal of World Business, 41(1), 36–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. 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.Google Scholar
  56. McWilliams, A., & Siegel, D. (2000). Corporate social responsibility and financial performance: Correlation or misspecifications? Strategic Management Journal, 21, 603–609.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Nicholls, A. (2005). Measuring impact in social entrepreneurship: New accountabilities to stakeholders and investors?. Seminar on Social Enterprise: Milton Keynes University.Google Scholar
  60. 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
  61. Novales, A. (1993). Econometría. Madrid: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
  62. Nyssens, M. (Ed.). (2006). Social enterprise—at the crossroads of market, public policies and civil society. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  63. Pärenson, T. (2011). Social impact evaluation in social enterprises in Estonia: Need, readiness and practices. Universitatis Tartuensis (Doctoral Dissertation).Google Scholar
  64. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Peredo, A. M., & McLean, M. (2006). Social entrepreneurship: A critical review of the concept. Journal of World Business, 41(1), 56–65.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Pirson, M. (2012). Social entrepreneurs as the paragons of shared value creation? A critical perspective. Social Enterprise Journal, 8(1), 31–48.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Polonsky, M. J., & Grau, S. L. (2008). Evaluating the social value of charitable organizations: A conceptual foundation. Journal of Macromarketing, 28(2), 130–140.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. 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.Google Scholar
  69. Porter, M., & Kramer, M. (2011). The big idea: Creating shared value (pp. 1–17). Boston, MA: Harvard Business Review.Google Scholar
  70. 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.Google Scholar
  71. Rodriguez, V., Malo, M. A., & Cueto, B. (2012). Diferencias salariales por discapacidad y CEE. Cuadernos de Economía, 35(98), 100–116.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. Ruiz, J., & Moya, M. (2007). The social psychological study of physical disability. Revista de Psicología Social, 2, 177–198.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. 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
  74. Santos, F. M. (2012). A positive theory of social entrepreneurship. Journal of Business Ethics, 111(3), 335–351.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  75. Sargeant, A. (1999). Marketing management for nonprofit organizations. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  76. SEKN. (2006). Effective management in social enterprise: Lessons from business and civil society organizations in Iberoamerica. Boston: David Rockefeller Center.Google Scholar
  77. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  78. Skloot, E. (1988). The nonprofit entrepreneur: Creating ventures to earn income. New York: The Foundation Center.Google Scholar
  79. Smith, A. (1776). The wealth of nations. New York: The Modern Library.Google Scholar
  80. 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.Google Scholar
  81. Sud, M., VanSandt, C. V., & Baugous, A. M. (2009). Social entrepreneurship: The role of institutions. Journal of Business Ethics, 85(1), 201–216.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  82. Testi, E. & Bellucci, M. (2011). Measuring an organisation’s social and economic performance for public tenders, ECPR Conference, Rejkiavik.Google Scholar
  83. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  84. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  85. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  86. Vásquez, A. G., & Dávila, M. A. T. (2008). Emprendimiento Social-Revisión de literatura. Estudios Gerenciales, 24(109), 105–126.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  87. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  88. Voss, G. B., & Voss, Z. G. (2000). Strategic orientation and firm performance in an artistic environment. Journal of Marketing, 64(1), 67–83.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  89. Waddock, S. A., & Graves, S. B. (1997). The corporate social performance-financial performance link. Strategic Management Journal, 18(4), 303–319.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  90. 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.Google Scholar
  91. Weerawardena, J., & Mort, G. S. (2006). Investigating social entrepreneurship: A multidimensional model. Journal of World Business, 41(1), 21–35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  92. Wood, D. J. (1991). Corporate social performance revisited. Academy of Management Review, 16(4), 691–718.Google Scholar
  93. Wooldridge, J. M. (2002). Econometric analysis of cross section and panel data. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  94. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  95. 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.Google Scholar
  96. 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
  97. 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
  98. Yunus, M. (2010). Building social business. New York: Public Affairs.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© International Society for Third-Sector Research and The Johns Hopkins University 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  • Ana J. Bellostas
    • 1
  • Francisco J. López-Arceiz
    • 1
  • Lydia Mateos
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Accounting and Finance, Faculty of Economics and BusinessUniversity of ZaragozaZaragozaSpain

Personalised recommendations