Micro-business community responsibility – approaches, motivations and barriers

Micro-businesses, those with fewer than five employees, have a significant impact on the economy. These very small players represent 89% of all Australian businesses and, collectively, they provide 17% of the nation’s private sector employment. They are ubiquitous in Australia as in many other nations, embedded in local communities and therefore well placed to influence community wellbeing. Surprisingly, very little is known about micro-Business Community Responsibility (mBCR), the micro-business equivalent of Small Business Social Responsibility (SBSR) and Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR). Most national data available on business support for community wellbeing does not separately identify micro-business contributions. In this study an exploratory approach informed by business ethics theory was taken. Data from 36 semi-structured interviews was analysed to examine perceived mBCR approaches, motivations and barriers. The sample for this study was a mix of micro-business owner-operators situated in suburban shopping areas in Brisbane. Three types of mBCR emerged. All types are at least partly driven by enlightened selfinterest (ESI). However of the three mBCR types, two combine ESI with other approaches. One type combines ESI and philanthropic approaches to mBCR, and the other combines ESI with social entrepreneurial approaches to mBCR. The combination of doing business and doing good for many micro-business owneroperators, suggests mBCR may be a significant, yet unrecognised component of the third sector social economy.

That's what governments do : exploring fundamental barriers to public–philanthropic interaction : the example of indigenous well-being

Decades of intervention have made variable impact on the inequality between indigenous and non-indigenous well-being across the world. Unacceptable differences in life expectancy alone mark indigenous need as an area where greater understanding of public and private funding approaches and their interaction may deliver real benefits. Both the public and the third sector have been active in trying to address the disadvantage experienced by Australia’s indigenous people. The interaction between the indigenous cause philanthropy system and the wider geopolitical landscape in Australia is revealing barriers and insights that may apply in other challenging policy terrain. The research reported here draws upon two empirical studies aimed at understanding the issues facing philanthropy in Australia,including the impact of government agency both independently and as it contrasts with philanthropy. The two different cultures are evident and two levers (greater system flexibility and closer engagement) are suggested as important in moving forward the philanthropy/government relationship in this area.

Social Procurement: Promoting the sustainability of NPOs through the transformation of economic, social and cultural capital

Social procurement provides a key source of income for the Third Sector, and is vital for the sustainability of many nonprofit organisations. Social procurement involves the exchange of economic capital from one organisation, typically government (although for-profit and non-profit organisations can also purchase), with a nonprofit organisations in order to deliver other forms of. It is this transformation of economic capital into other forms of capital (cultural, human, social) in the social procurement process, which is the focus of this paper. Four case studies, which are representative of the four main types of social procurement, will be examined in order to trace how economic capital is transformed into other types of capital in each of these cases. In so doing, the paper will advance our understanding of social procurement theoretically, and lead to a wider discussion about the role of social procurement in ensuring the sustainability of nonprofit organisations, and the civil societies in which they operate.

Competitive advantages as a foundation for social advantage: The role of social enterprise in regional development

The belief that regions play a role in determining national economic development and that advantages are found at the local and regional level has been the focus of economic geography and development studies over the last 10 years. However, this issue has historically been dominated by economic perspectives, industrial firms, and public bodies. In recent years the social economy is starting to receive greater attention in creating regional advantage as well as ameliorating regional disadvantage. The social economy includes the impact of the third sector such as social enterprises. This paper proposes that understanding the role and function of social enterprise will enable a more nuanced understanding of the socio-economic aspects of regional development. Drawing upon Oliver’s (1997) framework for sustainable competitive advantage it is argued that this established management framework provides a valuable foundation for examining the organisational resources that social enterprise need to operate effectively, as well as the socio-economic resources they produce for regional communities.

Juggling competing public values : resolving conflicting agendas in social procurement in Queensland

Organisations within the not-for-profit sector provide services to individuals and groups government and for-profit organisations cannot or will not consider. This response by the not-for-profit sector to market failure and government failure is a well understood contribution to society by the nonprofit sector. Over time, this response has resulted in the development of a vibrant and rich agglomeration of services and programs that operate under a myriad of philosophical stances, service orientations, client groupings and operational capacities. In Australia, these organisations and services provide social support and service assistance to many people in the community; often targeting their assistance to clients facing the most difficult of clients with complex problems. Initially, in undertaking this role, the not-for-profit sector received limited sponsorship from government, relying on primarily on public donations to fund the delivery of services. (Lyons 2001). Over time governments assumed greater responsibility in the form of service grants to particular groups: ‘the worthy poor’. More recently, government has engaged in widespread procurement of services from the not-for-profit sector, which specify the nature of the outcomes to be achieved and, to a degree, the way in which the services will be provided. A consequence of this growing shift to a more marketised model of service contracting, often offered-up under the label of enhanced collaborative practice, has been increased competitiveness between agencies that had previously worked well together (Keast and Brown, 2006). One of the challenges which emerge from the procurement of services by government from third sector organisations is that public values such as effectiveness, efficiency, transparency and professionalism can be neglected (Jørgensen and Bozeman 2002), although this is not always the case (Brown, Furneaux and Gudmundsson 2012). While some approaches to the examination of social procurement - the intentional purchasing of social outcomes (Furneaux and Barraket 2011) - assumes that public values are lost in social procurement arrangements (Bozeman 2002; Jørgensen and Bozeman 2002), alternative approach suggest such inevitability is not the case. Instead, social procurement is seen to involve a set of tensions (Brown, Potoski and Slyke 2006) or a set of trade offs (Charles et al. 2007), which must be managed, and through such management, public values can be potentially safeguarded (Bruin and Dicke 2006). The potential trade-offs of public values in social procurement is an area in need of further research, and one which carries both theoretical and practical significance. Additionally, the juxtaposition of policies – horizontal integration and vertical efficiency – results in a complex, crowded and contested policy and practice environment (Keast et al., 2007),, with the potential for set of unintentional consequences arising from these arrangements. Further the involvement of for-profit, non-profit, and hybrid organisations such as social enterprises, adds further complexity in the number of different organisational forms engaged in service delivery on behalf of government. To address this issue, this paper uses information gleaned from a state-wide survey of not-for-profit organisations in Queensland, Australia which included within its focus organisational size, operational scope, funding arrangements and governance/management approaches. Supplementing this information is qualitative data derived from 17 focus groups and 120 interviews conducted over ten years of study of this sector. The findings contribute to greater understanding of the practice and theory of the future provision of social services.

Putting paid to prescribed roles : a new era for Australian women and philanthropy

In redefining our understanding of women’s roles in contemporary Australian philanthropy, the impact of major contextual and demographic changes, as well as changes in women’s roles, responsibilities and opportunities need to be considered. Although academic study of philanthropy and the wider third sector is increasing in Australia, literature searches have revealed little current data on the giving patterns and philanthropic drivers for contemporary Australian women, particularly emerging cohorts (one ABS survey looks at giving patterns – ABS, 2000b: 32). In contrast, there is increasing interest in the US, where it is acknowledged that more women are becoming independent holders of wealth; and that interested donors have specific needs, desires and motivations in terms of knowledge, power, marketing and response to their philanthropy (see for example, Grace 2000; McCarthy 2001; Women’s Philanthropy Institute 2002). These varied demographic, social and economic drivers, which could also be expected to encourage new cohorts of Australian women to give, will be examined within our definition of women in philanthropy, and a brief history of women’s philanthropy in Australia, in order to inform future in-depth analyses of Australian women donors.

Nonprofit organisations in Australia : what do we know nine years later and what should we find out now?

I welcomed this chance to look back over the past nine years of third sector research in Australia and the opportunity to participate in this gathering to chart another nine years. There will be two parts to this paper. Part one will review what I said in 1991 (Lyons, 1991) and summarise what has happened since to see if my hopes were realised. Part two will attempt to sketch a framework for a research agenda, informed by the same motivation as my 1991 paper. It will conclude with some reflections about how to build a stronger institutional framework to sustain third sector research...

Co-management to solve homelessness : wicked solutions to wicked problems

While governments are engaged in developing social policy responses to address wicked issues such as poverty, homelessness, drug addiction and crime, long term resolution of these issues through government policy making and state-based programmatic action has remained elusive. The use of vehicles for joint action and partnership between government and the community sector such as co-management has been offered as a way of harnessing productive capability and innovative capacity of both these sectors to resolve these complex problems. However, it is suggested that while there is a well advanced agenda with the intent for collaboration and partnership, working with the models for undertaking this joint action are not well understood and have not been fully developed or evaluated. This chapter examines new approaches to resolving the wicked issue of homelessness through applying the lens of co-management to understand the complexities of this issue and its resolution. The chapter analyses an attempt to move away from traditional bureaucratic structures of welfare departments, operating through single functional ‘silos’ to a new horizontal ‘hub-based’ model of service delivery that seeks to integrate actors across many different service areas and organizations. The chapter explores case studies of co-management in the establishment, development and operation of service hubs to address homelessness. We argue that the response to homelessness needs a ‘wicked solution’ that goes beyond simply providing shelter to those in need. The case of the hub models of community sector organizations working across organizational boundaries is evaluated to determine whether this approach can be considered successful co-managing of an innovative initiative, and understanding the requirements for developing, improving and extending this model. The role of the third sector in co-managing public services is examined through the in-depth case studies and the results are presented together with an assessment of how co-management can contribute to service quality and service management in public services.

Introduction

Australia is presently witnessing concerted federal government policy initiatives to reform many aspects of the Australian Third Sector with an initial emphasis on charity organisations. Policy initiatives include the establishment of a new federal regulator, the Australian Charities and Not-for-profits Commission (ACNC), a national online financial reporting register, a statutory definition of charity, a tightening of taxation regulation and exemption including an unrelated business income tax and national fundraising regulation. This ambitious policy programme has had a gestation over 15 years of government inquiries lamenting lax, inconsistent and complex state-based regulation, and seeking a coherent and modern regulatory environment for nonprofit organisations, which are increasingly being used by the state to deliver outsourced community services..

Spot the differences in traditional and social entrepreneurial intention : highlighting the role of human and social capital

There is general agreement in the scientific community that entrepreneurship plays a central role in the growth and development of an economy in rapidly changing environments (Acs & Virgill 2010). In particular, when business activities are regarded as a vehicle for sustainable growth at large, that goes beyond mere economic returns of singular entities, encompassing also social problems and heavily relying on collaborative actions, then we more precisely fall into the domain of ‘social entrepreneurship’(Robinson et al. 2009). In the entrepreneurship literature, prior studies demonstrated the role of intentionality as the best predictor of planned behavior (Ajzen 1991), and assumed that the intention to start a business derives from the perception of desirability and feasibility and from a propensity to act upon an opportunity (Fishbein & Ajzen 1975). Recognizing that starting a business is an intentional act (Krueger et al. 2000) and entrepreneurship is a planned behaviour (Katz & Gartner 1988), models of entrepreneurial intentions have substantial implications for intentionality research in entrepreneurship. The purpose of this paper is to explore the emerging practice of social entrepreneurship by comparing the determinants of entrepreneurial intention in general versus those leading to startups with a social mission. Social entrepreneurial intentions clearly merit to be investigated given that the opportunity identification process is an intentional process not only typical of for profit start-ups, and yet there is a lack of research examining opportunity recognition in social entrepreneurship (Haugh 2005). The key argument is that intentionality in both traditional and social entrepreneurs during the decision-making process of new venture creation is influenced by an individual's perceptions toward opportunities (Fishbein & Ajzen 1975). Besides opportunity recognition, at least two other aspects can substantially influence intentionality: human and social capital (Davidsson, 2003). This paper is set to establish if and to what extent the social intentions of potential entrepreneurs, at the cognitive level, are influenced by opportunities recognition, human capital, and social capital. By applying established theoretical constructs, the paper draws comparisons between ‘for-profit’ and ‘social’ intentionality using two samples of students enrolled in Economy and Business Administration at the University G. d’Annunzio in Pescara, Italy. A questionnaire was submitted to 310 potential entrepreneurs to test the robustness of the model. The collected data were used to measure the theoretical constructs of the paper. Reliability of the multi-item scale for each dimension was measured using Cronbach alpha, and for all the dimensions measures of reliability are above 0.70. We empirically tested the model using structural equation modeling with AMOS. The results allow us to empirically contribute to the argument regarding the influence of human and social cognitive capital on social and non-social entrepreneurial intentions. Moreover, we highlight the importance for further researchers to look deeper into the determinants of traditional and social entrepreneurial intention so that governments can one day define better polices and regulations that promote sustainable businesses with a social imprint, rather than inhibit their formation and growth.

Social innovation and social enterprise : evidence from Australia

‘Social innovation’ is a construct increasingly used to explain the practices, processes and actors through which sustained positive transformation occurs in the network society (Mulgan, G., Tucker, S., Ali, R., Sander, B. (2007). Social innovation: What it is, why it matters and how can it be accelerated. Oxford:Skoll Centre for Social Entrepreneurship; Phills, J. A., Deiglmeier, K., & Miller, D. T. Stanford Social Innovation Review, 6(4):34–43, 2008.). Social innovation has been defined as a “novel solution to a social problem that is more effective, efficient, sustainable, or just than existing solutions, and for which the value created accrues primarily to society as a whole rather than private individuals.” (Phills,J. A., Deiglmeier, K., & Miller, D. T. Stanford Social Innovation Review, 6 (4):34–43, 2008: 34.) Emergent ideas of social innovation challenge some traditional understandings of the nature and role of the Third Sector, as well as shining a light on those enterprises within the social economy that configure resources in novel ways. In this context, social enterprises – which provide a social or community benefit and trade to fulfil their mission – have attracted considerable policy attention as one source of social innovation within a wider field of action (see Leadbeater, C. (2007). ‘Social enterprise and social innovation: Strategies for the next 10 years’, Cabinet office,Office of the third sector http://www.charlesleadbeater.net/cms xstandard/social_enterprise_innovation.pdf. Last accessed 19/5/2011.). And yet, while social enterprise seems to have gained some symbolic traction in society, there is to date relatively limited evidence of its real world impacts.(Dart, R. Not for Profit Management and Leadership, 14(4):411–424, 2004.) In other words, we do not know much about the social innovation capabilities and effects of social enterprise. In this chapter, we consider the social innovation practices of social enterprise, drawing on Mulgan, G., Tucker, S., Ali, R., Sander, B. (2007). Social innovation: What it is, why it matters and how can it be accelerated. Oxford: Skoll Centre for Social Entrepreneurship: 5) three dimensions of social innovation: new combinations or hybrids of existing elements; cutting across organisational, sectoral and disciplinary boundaries; and leaving behind compelling new relationships. Based on a detailed survey of 365 Australian social enterprises, we examine their self-reported business and mission-related innovations, the ways in which they configure and access resources and the practices through which they diffuse innovation in support of their mission. We then consider how these findings inform our understanding of the social innovation capabilities and effects of social enterprise,and their implications for public policy development.

A baseline study of Australia's community recycling enterprises(CRE)

This report presents the findings on a baseline study of Australia's community recycling enterprises(CREs). The study sought to document the activities and impacts of these enterprises and to understand the conditions under which they succeed. The purposes of the research were to generate evidence that can contribute to the development of practice and policy support for CREs, and to provide information that is useful to community groups wishing to establish new CREs. The study included a review of the existing literature in relation to CREs, an online survey of Australian CREs, and in-depth case studies of three CREs from various regions within Australia

Collaborative governance and innovation in social enterprises

While social enterprises have gained increasing policy attention as vehicles for generating innovative responses to complex social and environmental problems, surprisingly little is known about them. In particular, the social innovation produced by social enterprises (Mulgan, Tucker, Ali, & Sander, 2007) has been presumed rather than demonstrated, and remains under-investigated in the literature. While social enterprises are held to be inherently innovative as they seek to response to social needs (Nicholls, 2010), there has been conjecture that the collaborative governance arrangements typical in social enterprises may be conducive to innovation (Lumpkin, Moss, Gras, Kato, & Amezcua, In press), as members and volunteers provide a source of creative ideas and are unfettered in such thinking by responsibility to deliver organisational outcomes (Hendry, 2004). However this is complicated by the sheer array of governance arrangements which exist in social enterprises, which range from flat participatory democratic structures through to hierarchical arrangements. In continental Europe, there has been a stronger focus on democratic participation as a characteristic of Social Enterprises than, for example, the USA. In response to this gap in knowledge, a research project was undertaken to identify the population of social enterprises in Australia. The size, composition and the social innovations initiated by these enterprises has been reported elsewhere (see Barraket, 2010). The purpose of this paper is to undertake a closer examination of innovation in social enterprises – particularly how the collaborative governance of social enterprises might influence innovation. Given the pre-paradigmatic state of social entrepreneurship research (Nicholls, 2010), and the importance of drawing draw on established theories in order to advance theory (Short, Moss, & Lumpkin, 2009), a number of conceptual steps are needed in order to examine how collaborative governance might influence by social enterprises. In this paper, we commence by advancing a definition as to what a social enterprise is. In light of our focus on the potential role of collaborative governance in social innovation amongst social enterprises, we go on to consider the collaborative forms of governance prevalent in the Third Sector. Then, collaborative innovation is explored. Drawing on this information and our research data, we finally consider how collaborative governance might affect innovation amongst social enterprises.

Measurement as legitimacy versus legitimacy of measures : Performance evaluation of social enterprise

Purpose The purpose of this paper is to review the growing emphasis on quantifiable performance measures such as social return on investment (SROI) in third sector organisations – specifically, social enterprise – through a legitimacy theory lens. It then examines what social enterprises value (i.e. consider important) in terms of performance evaluation, using a case study approach. Design/methodology/approach Case studies involving interviews, documentary analysis, and observation, of three social enterprises at different life-cycle stages with different funding structures, were constructed to consider “what measures matter” from a practitioner's perspective. Findings Findings highlight a priority on quality outcomes and impacts in primarily qualitative terms to evaluate performance. Further, there is a noticeable lack of emphasis on financial measures other than basic access to financial resources to continue pursuing social goals. Social implications The practical challenges faced by social enterprises – many of which are small to medium sized – in evaluating performance and by implication organisational legitimacy are contrasted with measures such as SROI which are resource intensive and have inherent methodological limitations. Hence, findings suggest the limited and valuable resources of social enterprises would be better allocated towards documenting the actual outcomes and impacts as a first step, in order to evaluate social and financial performance in terms appropriate to each objective, in order to demonstrate organisational legitimacy. Originality/value Findings distinguish between processes which may hold symbolic legitimacy for select stakeholder groups, and processes which hold substantive, cognitive legitimacy for stakeholders more broadly, in the under-researched context of social enterprise.

Celebrating a partnership for the benefit of patients

In today’s NHS culture, commissioners are increasingly looking to the third sector for innovation and excellence in healthcare delivery. Opportunities for organisations within this sector to form fruitful and lasting partnerships have also grown.