Although early-stage finance is critical to the growth of most ventures, it is even more important for social ventures as they face the challenges of balancing their social and commercial objectives. Drawing on institutional logics and signaling theory, this study uses a panel data set of 3,401 nascent social ventures to investigate the important role philanthropic grant funding plays in the organizational and financial development of social ventures. We find mixed results, with positive effects on employment and subsequent access to debt finance, but no effects on revenues and access to equity. Our findings connect these theories by suggesting philanthropic grants provide social ventures with flexibility to invest in human capital without pushing them to pursue short-term financial objectives, and that receiving a philanthropic grant provides a signal that is interpreted differently by debt and equity financiers. These findings are especially relevant as funders increasingly use grants to support social entrepreneurship.
AhlersG. K.CummingD.GüntherC.SchweizerD. (2015). Signaling in equity crowdfunding. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 39, 955–980.
2.
AlsosG. A.LjunggrenE. (2017). The role of gender in entrepreneur-investor relationships: A signaling theory approach. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 41, 567–590.
3.
ArthursJ. D.BusenitzL. W. (2003). The boundaries and limitations of agency theory and stewardship theory in the venture capitalist/entrepreneur relationship. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 28, 145–162.
4.
Aspen Network of Development Entrepreneurs. (2016). ANDE state of the sector report. The Aspen Institute.
5.
AutioE.NambisanS.ThomasL.WrightM. (2018). Digital affordances, spatial affordances, and the genesis of entrepreneurial ecosystems. Strategic Entrepreneurship Journal, 12, 72–95.
6.
BalboL.BoiardiP.HehenbergerL.MortellD.OostlanderP.VittoneE. (2016). A practical guide to venture philanthropy and social impact investment. European Venture Capital Association.
7.
BalboaM.MartiJ. (2007). Factors that determine the reputation of private equity managers in developing markets. Journal of Business Venturing, 22, 453–480.
BapujiH.de BakkerF. G.BrownJ. A.HigginsC.RehbeinK.SpicerA. (2020). Business and society research in times of the corona crisis. Business & Society, 59, 1067–1078.
10.
BarnettM. L. (2007). Stakeholder influence capacity and the variability of financial returns to corporate social responsibility. Academy of Management Review, 32, 794–816.
11.
BarnettM. L.HenriquesI.HustedB. (2020). Beyond good intentions: Designing CSR initiatives for greater social impact. Journal of Management, 46, 937–964. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206319900539
12.
BattilanaJ.DoradoS. (2010). Building sustainable hybrid organizations: The case of commercial microfinance organizations. Academy of Management Journal, 53, 1419–1440.
13.
BaumJ. A.SilvermanB. S. (2004). Picking winners or building them? Alliance, intellectual, and human capital as selection criteria in venture financing and performance of biotechnology startups. Journal of Business Venturing, 19, 411–436.
14.
BesharovM. L.SmithW. K. (2014). Multiple institutional logics in organizations: Explaining their varied nature and implications. Academy of Management Review, 39, 364–381.
BloomP. N.ClarkC. H. (2011). The challenges of creating databases to support rigorous research in social entrepreneurship. Center for the Advancement of Social Entrepreneurship, Fuqua School of Business Duke University.
17.
BosmaN.SchottT.TerjensenS.KewP. (2016). Global Entrepreneurship Monitor 2015 to 2016: Special report on social entrepreneurship. Global Entrepreneurship Research Association
18.
BranzeiO.ParkerS.MorozP.GambleE. (2018). Going pro-social: Extending the individual-venture nexus to the collective level. Journal of Business Venturing, 33, 551–565.
19.
BridgstockR.LetticeF.ÖzbilginM. F.TatliA. (2010). Diversity management for innovation in social enterprises in the UK. Entrepreneurship & Regional Development, 22, 557–574.
20.
BridouxF.StoelhorstJ. W. (2014). Microfoundations for stakeholder theory: Managing stakeholders with heterogeneous motives. Strategic Management Journal, 35, 107–125.
21.
CalicG.MosakowskiE. (2016). Kicking off social entrepreneurship: How a sustainability orientation influences crowdfunding success. Journal of Management Studies, 53, 738–767.
22.
CarlsonE.KochJ. (2018). Building a successful social venture: A guide for social entrepreneurs. Berrett-Koehler Publishers.
23.
CarpenterC. W.LoveridgeS. (2018). Differences between Latino-owned businesses and White-, Black-, or Asian-owned businesses: Evidence from census microdata. Economic Development Quarterly, 32, 225–241. https://doi.org/10.1177/0891242418785466
24.
ChertokM.HamaouiJ.JamisonE. (2008). The funding gap. Stanford Social Innovation Review, 6(2), 44–52.
25.
CobbJ. A.WryT.ZhaoE. Y. (2016). Funding financial inclusion: Institutional logics and the contextual contingency of funding for microfinance organizations. Academy of Management Journal, 59, 2103–2131.
26.
ConnellyB. L.CertoS. T.IrelandR. D.ReutzelC. R. (2011). Signaling theory: A review and assessment. Journal of Management, 37, 39–67.
27.
CraneA.HenriquesI.HustedB. (2018). Quants and poets: Advancing methods and methodologies in business and society research. Business & Society, 57, 3–25.
28.
DaggersJ.NichollsA. (2016). The status quo and future research. In O. M. Lehner (ed.), Routledge handbook of social and sustainable finance (pp. 68–82). Taylor & Francis.
29.
DavidssonP.HonigB. (2003). The role of social and human capital among nascent entrepreneurs. Journal of Business Venturing, 18(3), 301–331.
30.
DeesJ. G. (2008). Philanthropy and enterprise: Harnessing the power of business and social entrepreneurship for development. Innovations, 3, 119–132.
31.
DesjardinsS.GomesR.PursnaniP.WestC. (2014). Accelerating access to energy: Lessons learned from efforts to build inclusive energy markets in developing countries. The Shell Foundation.
32.
DichterS.KatzR.KohH.KaramchandaniA. (2013). Closing the pioneer gap. Stanford Social Innovation Review, 11, 36–43.
33.
DimovD. (2010). Nascent entrepreneurs and venture emergence: Opportunity confidence, human capital, and early planning. Journal of Management Studies, 47, 1123–1153.
34.
DohertyB.HaughH.LyonF. (2014). Social enterprises as hybrid organizations: A review and research agenda. International Journal of Management Reviews, 39, 417–456.
EasterlyL.MiesingP. (2009). NGOs, social venturing, and community citizenship behavior. Business & Society, 48, 538–564.
37.
EbbersJ. J.WijnbergN. M. (2012). Nascent ventures competing for start-up capital: Matching reputations and investors. Journal of Business Venturing, 27, 372–384.
38.
EbrahimA.BattilanaJ.MairJ. (2014). The governance of social enterprises: Mission drift and accountability challenges in hybrid organizations. Research in Organizational Behavior, 34, 81–100.
39.
EddlestonK. A.LadgeJ. J.MittenessC.BalachandraL. (2016). Do you see what I see? Signaling effects of gender and firm characteristics on financing entrepreneurial ventures. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 40, 489–514.
40.
FabrizioK.MoweryD. C.LamoreauxN. R.SokoloffK. L. (2007). Financing innovation in the United States, 1870 to the present. In LamoreauxN. R.SokoloffK. L. (Eds.), Financing Innovation in the United States, 1870 to Present. MIT Press.
41.
FafchampsM.OwensT. (2009). The determinants of funding to Ugandan nongovernmental organizations. The World Bank Economic Review, 23, 295–321.
42.
FlemingL.GreeneH.LiG.MarxM.YaoD. (2019). Government-funded research increasingly fuels innovation. Science, 364(6446), 1139–1141.
43.
FrancisM. (2019). The price of civil rights: Black lives, White funding, and movement Capture. Law & Society Review, 53, 275–309.
44.
GimmonE.LevieJ. (2010). Founder’s human capital, external investment, and the survival of new high-technology ventures. Research Policy, 39, 1214–1226.
45.
GionesF.UngererC.BaltesG. (2019). Balancing financial, social and environmental values: Can new ventures make an impact without sacrificing profits?International Journal of Entrepreneurial Venturing, 12, 39–57.
46.
Global Impact Investing Network. (2013). Catalytic first-loss capital.
47.
Global Impact Investing Network. (2020). Response, recovery, and resilience coalition: An industry initiative accelerating impact investments to respond, recover, and build resilience in the face of COVID-19. https://thegiin.org/r3coalition
GrayJ.AshburnN.DouglasH. V.JeffersJ. S.MustoD. K.GeczyC. (2015). Great expectations: Mission preservation and financial performance in impact investing. Wharton Social Impact Initiative, University of Pennsylvania.
53.
GreenwoodR.RaynardM.KodeihF.MicelottaE. R.LounsburyM. (2011). Institutional complexity and organizational responses. Academy of Management Annals, 5, 317–371.
54.
GrimesM. G.GehmanJ.CaoK. (2018). Positively deviant: Identity work through B Corporation certification. Journal of Business Venturing, 33(2), 130–148.
55.
HallenB. L.EisenhardtK. M. (2012). Catalyzing strategies and efficient tie formation: How entrepreneurial firms obtain investment ties. Academy of Management Journal, 55, 35–70.
56.
HarveyC.MacleanM.GordonJ.ShawE. (2011). Andrew Carnegie and the foundations of contemporary entrepreneurial philanthropy. Business History, 53, 425–450.
57.
HehenbergerL.MairJ.MetzA. (2019). The assembly of a field ideology: An idea-centric perspective on systemic power in impact investing. Academy of Management Journal, 62, 1672–1704.
58.
HöchstädterA. K.ScheckB. (2015). What’s in a name: An analysis of impact investing understandings by academics and practitioners. Journal of Business Ethics, 132, 449–475.
59.
HowellS. T. (2017). Financing innovation: Evidence from R&D grants. American Economic Review, 107, 1136–1164.
60.
HwangV.DesaiS.BairdR. (2019). Access to capital for entrepreneurs: Removing barriers. Ewing Marion Kauffman Foundation.
61.
IngstadE. L.KnockaertM.FassinY. (2014). Smart money for social ventures: An analysis of the value-adding activities of philanthropic venture capitalists. Venture Capital, 16, 349–378.
62.
IslamM.FremethA.MarcusA. (2018). Signaling by early stage startups: US government research grants and venture capital funding. Journal of Business Venturing, 33(1), 35–51.
63.
JungT.HarrowJ.LeatD. (2018). Mapping philanthropic foundations’ characteristics: Towards an international integrative framework of foundation types. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 47, 893–917.
64.
KaplanR.SerafeimG.TugendhatE. (2018, January–February). Inclusive growth: Profitable strategies for tackling poverty and inequality. Harvard Business Review, 126–133.
65.
KimJ. H.WagmanL. (2014). Portfolio size and information disclosure: An analysis of startup accelerators. Journal of Corporate Finance, 29, 520–534.
66.
KohH.KaramchandaniA.KatzR. (2012). From blueprint to scale: The case for philanthropy in impact investing. Monitor Group and Acumen Fund.
67.
KolkA.Rivera-SantosM.RufínC. (2014). Reviewing a decade of research on the “base/bottom of the pyramid” (BOP) concept. Business & Society, 53(3), 338–377.
68.
LallS. A. (2017). Measuring to improve versus measuring to prove: Understanding the adoption of social performance measurement practices in nascent social enterprises. VOLUNTAS: International Journal of Voluntary and Nonprofit Organizations, 28, 2633–2657.
69.
LallS. A.ChenL. W.DavidsonA. (2019). The expat gap: Are local-born entrepreneurs in developing countries at a disadvantage when seeking grant funding?Public Administration Review, 79, 880–894.
70.
LallS. A.ChenL. W.RobertsP. W. (2020). Are we accelerating equity investment into impact-oriented ventures?World Development, 131, 104952.
LehnerO. M. (2013). Crowdfunding social ventures: A model and research agenda. Venture Capital, 15(4), 289–311.
73.
LettsC. W.RyanW.GrossmanA. (1997). Virtuous capital: What foundations can learn from venture capitalists. Harvard Business Review, 75, 36–50.
74.
LiguoriE.WinklerC.HechavarriaD.LangeJ. (2018). Guest editorial. Journal of Enterprising Communities: People and Places in the Global Economy, 12(2), 86–91.
75.
LiketK.MaasK. (2016). Strategic philanthropy: Corporate measurement of philanthropic impacts as a requirement for a “happy marriage” of business and society. Business & Society, 55, 889–921.
76.
MairJ.HehenbergerL. (2014). Front-stage and backstage convening: The transition from opposition to mutualistic coexistence in organizational philanthropy. Academy of Management Journal, 57, 1174–1200.
77.
MairJ.WolfM.SeelosC. (2016). Scaffolding: A process of transforming patterns of inequality in small-scale societies. Academy of Management Journal, 59, 2021–2044.
78.
MarvelM.DavisJ.SproulC. (2016). Human capital and entrepreneurship research: A critical review and future directions. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 40, 599–626.
79.
MauldinM. D. (2012). A new governance explanation for the creation of a minority economic development public-private partnership in Florida. Public Performance & Management Review, 35, 679–695.
80.
McKenzieD. (2017). Identifying and spurring high-growth entrepreneurship: Experimental evidence from a business plan competition. American Economic Review, 107, 2278–2307.
81.
MillerT. L.WesleyI. I.CurtisL. (2010). Assessing mission and resources for social change: An organizational identity perspective on social venture capitalists’ decision criteria. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 34, 705–733.
82.
MilliganK.SchöningM. (2011). Taking a realistic approach to impact investing: Observations from the World Economic Forum’s Global Agenda Council on Social Innovation. Innovation, 6(3), 155–166.
83.
MollickE.RobbA. (2016). Democratizing innovation and capital access: The role of crowdfunding. California Management Review, 58(2), 72–87.
84.
MudaliarA.SchiffH.BassR.HolmegaardM.NarayananR.QuartierB. (2018). The financial performance of impact investing through private debt. The Global Impact Investing Network & Symbiotics.
NasonR. S.BacqS.GrasD. (2018). A behavioral theory of social performance: Social identity and stakeholder expectations. Academy of Management Review, 43, 259–283.
87.
NichollsA. (2010). The institutionalization of social investment: The interplay of investment logics and investor rationalities. Journal of Social Entrepreneurship, 1(1), 70–100.
88.
NichollsA.PharaohC. (2008). The landscape of social investment: A holistic topology of opportunities and challenges [Skoll Centre Working Paper]. Said Business School, University of Oxford. http://eureka.sbs.ox.ac.uk/760
89.
OmettoM. P.GegenhuberT.WinterJ.GreenwoodR. (2018). From balancing missions to mission drift: The role of the institutional context, spaces, and compartmentalization in the scaling of social enterprises. Business & Society, 58, 1003–1046.
90.
OrmistonJ.SeymourR. G. (2014). The emergence of social investment as a moral system of exchange: The Australian experience. In DouglasH.GrantS. (Eds.), Social entrepreneurship and enterprise: Concepts in context (pp. 301–323). Tilde University Press.
91.
PacheA. C.SantosF. (2013). Inside the hybrid organization: Selective coupling as a response to competing institutional logics. Academy of Management Journal, 56(4), 972–1001.
92.
PandeyS.LallS.PandeyS. K.AhlawatS. (2017). The appeal of social accelerators: What do social entrepreneurs value?Journal of Social Entrepreneurship, 8, 88–109.
93.
PlummerL. A.AllisonT. H.ConnellyB. L. (2016). Better together? Signaling interactions in new venture pursuit of initial external capital. Academy of Management Journal, 59, 1585–1604.
94.
RenkoM. (2013). Early challenges of nascent social entrepreneurs. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 37, 1045–1069.
95.
RobertsP. W.LallS. A. (2019). Observing acceleration: Uncovering the effects of accelerators on impact-oriented entrepreneurs. Palgrave Macmillan.
96.
RobsonP.AkuettehC.StoneI.WestheadP.WrightM. (2013). Credit-rationing and entrepreneurial experience: Evidence from a resource deficit context. Entrepreneurship & Regional Development, 25, 349–370.
RubinJ. S. (2009). Developmental venture capital: Conceptualizing the field. Venture Capital, 11, 335–360.
99.
SaebiT.FossN. J.LinderS. (2019). Social entrepreneurship research: Past achievements and future promises. Journal of Management, 45, 70–95.
100.
SahasranamamS.NandakumarM. K. (2018). Individual capital and social entrepreneurship: Role of formal institutions. Journal of Business Research, 107, 104–117.
101.
SaiiaD. H.CarrollA. B.BuchholtzA. K. (2003). Philanthropy as strategy: When corporate charity “begins at home.”Business & Society, 42, 169–201.
102.
SalamonL. (2014). New frontiers of philanthropy: A guide to the new tools and new actors that are reshaping global philanthropy and social investing. Oxford University Press.
103.
ScarlataM.AlemanyL. (2010). Deal structuring in philanthropic venture capital investments: Financing instrument, valuation and covenants. Journal of Business Ethics, 95(2), 121–145.
104.
ScarlataM.WalskeJ.ZacharakisA. (2015). Ingredients matter: How the human capital of philanthropic and traditional venture capital differs. Journal of Business Ethics, 145, 623–635.
105.
ScarlataM.ZacharakisA.WalskeJ. (2016). The effect of founder experience on the performance of philanthropic venture capital firms. International Small Business Journal, 34, 618–636.
106.
ShawE.GordonJ.HarveyC.MacleanM. (2013). Exploring contemporary entrepreneurial philanthropy. International Small Business Journal, 31, 580–599.
107.
ShepherdD. (2015). Party on! A call for entrepreneurship research that is more interactive, activity based, cognitively hot, compassionate, and prosocial. Journal of Business Venturing, 30, 489–507.
108.
ShortJ. C.MossT. W.LumpkinG. T. (2009). Research in social entrepreneurship: Past contributions and future opportunities. Strategic Entrepreneurship Journal, 3, 161–194.
109.
ShumateM.’HsiehY. P. O.ConnorA. (2018). A nonprofit perspective on business–nonprofit partnerships: Extending the symbiotic sustainability model. Business & Society, 57, 1337–1373.
110.
SieboldN.Gunzel-JensenF.MullerS. (2019). Balancing dual missions for social venture growth: A comparative case study. Entrepreneurship & Regional Development: An International Journal, 31, 710–734.
111.
SmithW. K.BesharovM. L. (2019). Bowing before dual gods: How structured flexibility sustains organizational hybridity. Administrative Science Quarterly, 64, 1–44.
112.
SpenceM. (2002). Signaling in retrospect and the informational structure of markets. American Economic Review, 92, 434–459.
113.
Spiess-KnaflW.Aschari-LincolnJ. (2015). Understanding mechanisms in the social investment market: What are venture philanthropy funds financing and how?Journal of Sustainable Finance & Investment, 5(3), 103–120.
114.
SpigelB. (2017). The relational organization of entrepreneurial ecosystems. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 41, 49–72.
115.
StephanU.UhlanerL. M.StrideC. (2015). Institutions and social entrepreneurship: The role of institutional voids, institutional support, and institutional configurations. Journal of International Business Studies, 46(3), 308–331.
116.
SuárezD.GugertyM. K. (2016). Funding civil society? Bilateral government support for development NGOs. VOLUNTAS: International Journal of Voluntary and Nonprofit Organizations, 27, 2617–2640.
117.
TeasdaleS. (2010). Models of social enterprise in the homelessness field. Social Enterprise Journal, 6, 23–34.
118.
LepoutreJ.JustoR.TerjesenS.BosmaN. (2013). Designing a global standardized methodology for measuring social entrepreneurship activity: The Global Entrepreneurship Monitor social entrepreneurship study. Small Business Economics, 40(3), 693–714.
119.
ThompsonT. A.PurdyJ. M.VentrescaM. J. (2018). How entrepreneurial ecosystems take form: Evidence from social impact initiatives in Seattle. Strategic Entrepreneurship Journal, 12, 96–116.
120.
ThorgrenS.OmoredeA. (2018). Passionate leaders in social entrepreneurship: Exploring an African context. Business & Society, 57, 481–524.
121.
TyebjeeT. T.BrunoA. V. (1984). A model of venture capitalist investment activity. Management Science, 30, 1051–1066.
122.
United States Agency for International Development. (2016). PACE Initiative: USAID is working to bridge the pioneer gap. https://www.usaid.gov/PACE
123.
WeidnerK.WeberC.GöbelM. (2016). You scratch my back and I scratch yours: Investigating inter-partner legitimacy in relationships between social enterprises and their key partners. Business & Society, 58, 493–532.
124.
WiklundJ.BakerT.ShepherdD. (2010). The age-effect of financial indicators as buffers against the liability of newness. Journal of Business Venturing, 25, 423–437.
125.
WinklerR. (2020, April18). Tech founders now need to grow up fast. The Wall Street Journal Weekend. www.wsj.com
WryT.HaughH. (2018). Brace for impact: Uniting our diverse voices through a social impact frame. Journal of Business Venturing, 33, 566–574.
128.
YangS.KherR.NewbertS. L. (2020). What signals matter for social startups? It depends: The influence of gender role congruity on social impact accelerator selection decisions. Journal of Business Venturing, 35, 105932.
129.
YinJ. (2017). Institutional drivers for corporate social responsibility in an emerging economy: A mixed-method study of Chinese business executives. Business & Society, 56, 672–704.
130.
ZhaoE. Y.LounsburyM. (2016). An institutional logics approach to social entrepreneurship: Market logic, religious diversity, and resource acquisition by microfinance organizations. Journal of Business Venturing, 31, 643–662.
131.
ZimmermanM. A.ZeitzG. J. (2002). Beyond survival: Achieving new venture growth by building legitimacy. Academy of Management Review, 27, 414–431.
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
