Does the Social Enterprise Ecosystem Facilitate the Growth of Social Enterprises? An Extended Case Study of Taiwan, China

Source:
By:Author(s)

DOI: https://doi.org/10.30564/mmpp.v6i1.6187

Abstract:

Social enterprise (SE) ecosystems are a central concept in understanding the growth of SEs, yet existing research still needs to discuss the attributes of the ecosystems and their actual impacts on SEs. Based on an extended case study, this paper explores the actual impact of ecosystems on SEs in Taiwan, China. It is found that the SE ecosystem is not a dichotomous variable of “yes-no”, but of being “strong” or “weak”. Taiwan’s SE ecosystem has supportive conditions for SEs, such as favorable public policies, research institutes, and certification of SEs. However, due to deviations in implementing public policies and the lack of cross-sectoral cooperation between the government and other actors, Taiwan’s SE ecosystem is functionally “weak”. That is, the ecosystem needs to play a sufficient role in constructing the identity of SEs, providing legitimacy support, and linking resources. Under these circumstances, while maintaining the stability of their mission and core competencies, SEs appeal to themselves to gain internal and external legitimacy to achieve organizational growth. This finding reveals the complex relationship between SE ecosystems and the growth of SEs, and has implications for the construction of supportive SE ecosystems.

References:

[1] Diaz, G.A., Dentchev, N.A., 2021. Ecosystems in support of social entrepreneurs: A literature review. Social Enterprise Journal. 17(3), 329–360. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1108/SEJ-08-2020-0064 [2] Villegas-Mateos, A., Vázquez-Maguirre, M., 2020. Social entrepreneurial ecosystems: A regional perspective of Mexico. International Journal of Entrepreneurship. 24(1), 1–19. [3] Cheah, S., Ho, Y.P., 2019. Building the ecosystem for social entrepreneurship: University social enterprise cases in Singapore. Science, Technology and Society. 24(3), 507–526. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/0971721819873190 [4] Teasdale, S., Lyon, F., Baldock, R., 2013. Playing with numbers: A methodological critique of the social enterprise growth myth. Journal of Social Entrepreneurship. 4(2), 113–131. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/19420676.2012.762800 [5] Pickernell, D.G., Battisti, M., Dann, Z. et al., 2022. Disadvantaged entrepreneurship and the entrepreneurial ecosystem. Emerald Publishing Limited: Leeds. pp. 193–218. [6] Roy, M.J., McHugh, N., Huckfield, L., et al., 2015. The most supportive environment in the world? Tracing the development of an institutional ecosystem for social enterprise. Voluntas: International Journal of Voluntary and Nonprofit Organizations. 26, 777–800. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11266-014-9459-9 [7] Islam, S.M., 2020. Unintended consequences of scaling social impact through ecosystem growth strategy in social enterprise and social entrepreneurship. Journal of Business Venturing Insights. 13, e00159. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbvi.2020.e00159 [8] de Bruin, A., Roy, M.J., Grant, S., et al., 2023. Advancing a contextualized, community-centric understanding of social entrepreneurial ecosystems. Business & Society. 62(5), 1069–1102. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/00076503221121820 [9] Spigel, B., 2017. The relational organization of entrepreneurial ecosystems. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice. 41(1), 49–72. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/etap.12167 [10] Hazenberg, R., Bajwa-Patel, M., Roy, M.J., et al., 2016. A comparative overview of social enterprise ‘ecosystems’ in Scotland and England: An evolutionary perspective. International Review of Sociology. 26(2), 205–222. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/03906701.2016.1181395 [11] Pratono, A.H., Sutanti, A., 2016. The ecosystem of social enterprise: Social culture, legal framework, and policy review in Indonesia. Pacific Science Review B: Humanities and Social Sciences. 2(3), 106–112. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.psrb.2016.09.020 [12] Hazenberg, R., Bajwa-Patel, M., Mazzei, M., et al., 2016. The role of institutional and stakeholder networks in shaping social enterprise ecosystems in Europe. Social Enterprise Journal. 12(3), 302–321. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1108/SEJ-10-2016-0044 [13] Bozhikin, I., Macke, J., da Costa, L.F., 2019. The role of government and key non-state actors in social entrepreneurship: A systematic literature review. Journal of Cleaner Production. 226, 730–747. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.04.076 [14] Luo, W., Huang, Y., 2018. A comparative study on the role of government in the growth of social enterprises in Hong Kong and Taiwan. Journal of Gansu Administration Institute. (4), 96–109+128. (in Chinese). [15] Perikangas, S., Kostilainen, H., Kainulainen, S., 2023. Co-production of social innovations and enabling ecosystems for social enterprises. International Journal of Public Sector Management. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1108/IJPSM-04-2023-0111 [16] Choi, D., Park, J., 2021. Local government as a catalyst for promoting social enterprise. Public Management Review. 23(5), 665–686. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/14719037.2020.1865436 [17] Luo, W., Huang, Y., 2018. G-C-B cooperation and the sustainable development of social enterprises: The evidence from HKSAR and its implication. Journal of Public Administration. 11(4), 97–118+180. (in Chinese). [18] Pathak, S., Mukherjee, S., 2020. Entrepreneurial ecosystem and social entrepreneurship: Case studies of community-based craft from Kutch, India. Journal of Enterprising Communities: People and Places in the Global Economy. 15(3), 350–374. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1108/JEC-06-2020-0112 [19] Bublitz, M.G., Chaplin, L.N., Peracchio, L.A., et al., 2021. Rise up: Understanding youth social entrepreneurs and their ecosystems. Journal of Public Policy & Marketing. 40(2), 206–225. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/0743915620937702 [20] Luo, W., Huang, Y., 2019. Building social enterprises identity: A comparative study of SE endorsement practice in Mainland China, HKSAR and Taiwan. China Nonprofit Review. 23(1), 86–109. (in Chinese). [21] Hu, Z.S., Gao, M.R., Wu, Z.S., et al., 2018. The development of social enterprises in Taiwan: Review and prospect (traditional Chinese edition). Taiwan Social Enterprise Innovation and Entrepreneurship Society: New Taipei City. (in Chinese). [22] Thompson, T.A., Purdy, J.M., Ventresca, M.J., 2018. How entrepreneurial ecosystems take form: Evidence from social impact initiatives in Seattle. Strategic Entrepreneurship Journal. 12(1), 96–116. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/sej.1285 [23] Dentoni, D., Pascucci, S., Poldner, K., et al., 2018. Learning “who we are” by doing: Processes of co-constructing prosocial identities in community-based enterprises. Journal of Business Venturing. 33(5), 603–622. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusvent.2017.12.010 [24] Choi, G.H., Kim, J., 2016. Effects of displaying social enterprise certification information on consumers’ product evaluations and purchase intentions. Journal of Global Scholars of Marketing Science. 26(2), 185–197. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/21639159.2016.1143154 [25] Biggeri, M., Testi, E., Bellucci, M., 2017. Enabling ecosystems for social enterprises and social innovation: A capability approach perspective. Journal of Human Development and Capabilities. 18(2), 299–306. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/19452829.2017.1306690 [26] Burawoy, M., 1998. The extended case method. Sociological Theory. 16(1), 4–33. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/0735-2751.00040 [27] Lu, H., Li, X., 2007. How can we go beyond the case? From the case study to the extended case study. Social Sciences in China. (1), 118–130. (in Chinese). [28] Burawoy, M., 2009. The extended case method: Four countries, four decades, four great transformations, and one theoretical tradition. University of California Press: California. pp. 13–55. [29] Wadham, H., Warren, R.C., 2014. Telling organizational tales: The extended case method in practice. Organizational Research Methods. 17(1), 5–22. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/1094428113513619 [30] Hou, Z., Zhang, X., 2020. How can public management case studies promote knowledge development?——Based on the analysis of related literature from the publication of the Journal of Public Management. Journal of Public Management. 17(1), 143–151+175. (in Chinese). DOI: http://doi.org/10.16149/j.cnki.23-1523.20191230.001 [31] Social Enterprise Typology [Internet]. [cited 2023 Dec 30]. Available from: https://isfcolombia.uniandes.edu.co/images/201519/LRD31.pdf [32] Defourny, J., Nyssens, M., 2010. Social enterprise in Europe: At the crossroads of market, public policies and third sector. Policy and Society. 29(3), 231–242. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.polsoc.2010.07.002 [33] Guan, Y.Y., 2007. Social enterprise development in Taiwan. China Nonprofit Review. 1(1), 146–181. (in Chinese). [34] Wang, S.T., Kuan, Y.Y., Chen, J.T., 2015. The resource connection and social impact of community-based social enterprise in Taiwan: Discussion with sustainability. Social Construction. 2(3), 79–87. (in Chinese). [35] Guan, Y.Y., Wang, S.T., Duh, C.R., 2014. Organizational characteristics and management challenges of social enterprises in Taiwan: An analysis based on 2010 survey findings. China Third Sector Research. 8(2), 90–115. (in Chinese). [36] Governance, Organizational Effectiveness and the Nonprofit Sector [Internet]. [cited 2024 Jan 9]. Available from: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/237553233_GOVERNANCE_ORGANIZATIONAL_EFFECTIVENESS_AND_THE_NONPROFIT_SECTOR [37] Gao, H., 2014. Non-governmental organization construction and development in Taiwan since Lifting of Martial Law. Jianghai Academic Journal. (1), 114–121. (in Chinese). [38] Jie, C., 2001. Burgeoning transnationalism of Taiwan’s social movement NGOs. Journal of Contemporary China. 10(29), 613–644. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/10670560120075037 [39] Twu, R.D., 2010. The growth and transformation of the nonprofit sector in Taiwan. Journal of Public Affairs Review. 11(1), 23–46. (in Chinese). DOI: http://doi.org/10.29622/JPAR.201006.0002 [40] Feng, J.Y., 2001. Regulation and self-regulation of NPO fund-raising-a sector interaction point of view. NTU Social Work Review. (4), 203+205–242. (in Chinese). DOI: http://doi.org/10.6171/ntuswr2001.04.05 [41] An Assessment of Civil Society in Taiwan [Internet]. [cited 2024 Jan 9]. Available from: https://www.civicus.org/media/CSI_Taiwan_Report.pdf [42] Suchman, M.C., 1995. Managing legitimacy: Strategic and institutional approaches. Academy of Management Review. 20(3), 571–610. DOI: https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.1995.9508080331 [43] Hsu, G., Hannan, M.T., 2005. Identities, genres, and organizational forms. Organization Science. 16(5), 474–490. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.1050.0151 [44] Zimmerman, M.A., Zeitz, G.J., 2002. Beyond survival: Achieving new venture growth by building legitimacy. Academy of Management Review. 27(3), 414–431. [45] Yang, Z., Jiang, M., 2018. The re-examination of policy environments of social enterprise in Taiwan: A cross-sectoral governance perspective. China Nonprofit Review. 21(1), 114–138. (in Chinese). [46] 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. DOI: https://doi.org/10.5465/19416520.2014.893615 [47] Dart, R., 2004. The legitimacy of social enterprise. Nonprofit Management and Leadership. 14(4), 411–424. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/nml.43 [48] Jenner, P., 2016. Social enterprise sustainability revisited: An international perspective. Social Enterprise Journal. 12(1), 42–60. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1108/SEJ-12-2014-0042 [49] 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. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/ijmr.12028 [50] Schätzlein, L., Schlütter, D., Hahn, R., 2023. Managing the external financing constraints of social enterprises: A systematic review of a diversified research landscape. International Journal of Management Reviews. 25(1), 176–199. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/ijmr.12310 [51] Hannan, M.T., Freeman, J., 2014. Organizational ecology (simplified Chinese edition). Science Press: Beijing. pp. 52–79. (in Chinese). [52] Navis, C., Glynn, M.A., 2010. How new market categories emerge: Temporal dynamics of legitimacy, identity, and entrepreneurship in satellite radio, 1990–2005. Administrative Science Quarterly. 55(3), 439–471. DOI: https://doi.org/10.2189/asqu.2010.55.3.439 [53] Granados, M.L., Rosli, A., 2020. ‘Fitting in’ vs. ‘Standing out’: How social enterprises engage with stakeholders to legitimize their hybrid position. Journal of Social Entrepreneurship. 11(2), 155–176. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/19420676.2019.1604405 [54] Bradford, A., Luke, B., Furneaux, C., 2020. Exploring accountability in social enterprise: Priorities, practicalities, and legitimacy. VOLUNTAS: International Journal of Voluntary and Nonprofit Organizations. 31, 614–626. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11266-020-00215-8 [55] Bolzani, D., Marabello, S., Honig, B., 2020. Exploring the multi-level processes of legitimacy in transnational social enterprises. Journal of Business Venturing. 35(3), 105941. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusvent.2019.06.002 [56] Battilana, J., Sengul, M., Pache, A.C., et al., 2015. Harnessing productive tensions in hybrid organizations: The case of work integration social enterprises. Academy of Management Journal. 58(6), 1658–1685. DOI: https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2013.0903 [57] Starr, J.A., MacMillan, I.C., 1990. Resource cooptation via social contracting: Resource acquisition strategies for new ventures. Strategic Management Journal. 11. 79–92. [58] Li, W., Liu, H., Chen, Y., 2023. Social enterprises’ objectives and choices of legal forms under the framework of sustainable development goals—An analysis of 80 cases in Zhejiang Province, China. Journal of Entrepreneurship in Emerging Economies. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1108/JEEE-05-2022-0158 [59] Liu, L., Wu, X., 2020. “One institution with two names”: The logic of resource bricolage for social enterprises: A dual response to market and institution. Southeast Academic Research. (5), 136–147. (in Chinese). DOI: https://doi.org/10.13658/j.cnki.sar.2020.05.015 [60] 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. DOI: https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2011.0405 [61] Liu, J., 2020. The craft of writing. Guangxi Normal University Press Group: Guangxi. pp. 71–72. (in Chinese). [62] King, G., Keohane, R.O., Verba, S, 1994. Designing social inquiry: Scientific inference in qualitative research. Princeton University Press: Princeton. pp. 74–75. [63] Zhang, N., Guan, S., 2020. Consensus of social enterprise: Literature review and analysis of social enterprise typology. China Nonprofit Review. 26(2), 93–113. (in Chinese). [64] Wu, H., Luo, L., Zeng, Y., et al., 2022. Analysis and investigation on the core competitiveness of textile and underwear industry in the mainland and Taiwan of China and Myanmar under the global value chain. Journal of Sustainable Business and Economics. 5(2), 22–34. DOI: https://doi.org/10.30564/jsbe.v5i2.7